The process behind the appointment of David Van Slyke as dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship has members of both the Maxwell and Syracuse University communities rightly concerned.

The problem has not so much been with the selection of Van Slyke himself, but with the fact that he chaired the Maxwell dean search committee and ended up with the job in a process that wasn’t as transparent as it should have been. The decision only builds on a concerning trend that is slowly turning into a reputation for the university: at times when decisions must be made, the administration turns inward and cuts off the outside community.

On Friday, Maxwell faculty voiced concerns that had been simmering over the summer in a closed meeting with SU Vice Chancellor and Provost Michele Wheatly. Out of that meeting emerged a narrative of confusion and minimal transparency after Wheatly explained that 20 faculty members were consulted about the appointment.

But of those consulted, faculty members either spoke to how there was no mention of Van Slyke as the candidate for dean or that it was only discussed that he would serve in the interim, according to meeting attendees. Others still recounted how they were emailed about whether they objected to Van Slyke and were only given a few hours to respond.

To reiterate, Van Slyke’s candidacy is not the issue, as his long-term experience with Maxwell as a school makes him qualified. The fault is in how Van Slyke came to his position. Because SU overtly makes the push to be perceived as an institution that takes community input into account, the lack of thoughtful and thorough outreach to the greater faculty of the Maxwell school is demonstrative of a larger concern.

Under normal dean-hiring circumstances, faculty input would not be as much of an issue. But Van Slyke’s appointment was an internal hire — both because he has worked at Maxwell before and because he was on the committee — and that warrants a level of discourse. And ultimately, the faculty members who are affected by the university’s decision did not have their voices adequately heard.

The most prominent, concrete example of where the university could have been more transparent is the initial suspension of the Maxwell dean search. When Wheatly made the announcement in early June, the public was told that the committee didn’t appear to have found a worthy candidate. Instead of painting the search as unsuccessful under this guise, at the very least, SU should have been more upfront about how the hiring process likely ended with intentions to hire Van Slyke.

It’s unusual that a dean search that was once a model of openness — multiple town hall meetings consisting of undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty and staff in Maxwell — ended swiftly in a murky process. While the decision may have been the right one, the university community needs to seriously consider how it got there.

Published on September 29, 2016 at 11:51 am

Contact: opinion@dailyorange.com