Some University of Minnesota faculty members are questioning the selection process for the new provost, saying they believe it should have been more transparent and, unlike past appointments, the U didn’t give the public a chance to meet and question final candidates.
Gretchen Ritter, the new provost, was chosen last week and will begin July 31, pending approval by the U’s Board of Regents on June 12. The provost is the university’s senior academic officer for the U’s five-campus system and the president’s second-in-command.
“If the community has not had the opportunity to provide any input on the selection process, they begin the job with a trust deficit,” said Michael Gallope, a professor of cultural studies and comparative literature who served on the provost search committee.
He said it’s essential for the community to hear publicly from provost candidates and their responses to questions, especially at a time when academic freedom and freedom of speech are being challenged at the U and other universities. It’s more important than ever that the provost — who is the academic official “responsible for stewarding our values” — has broad community support, Gallope said.
“You have to be able to weigh your language, and you have to be able to do it in charged situations,” he said of the provost role. “This is why ... having some public element would have been vastly preferable and also why, in past situations, that’s always been the protocol.”
In both 2011 and 2019, finalists for the provost position faced public forums or interviews. This year, “the final decision was dominated by senior administrators, not faculty, students and staff,” Gallope said.
In a statement, a U spokesperson said a 20-person committee that included students, staff and university leaders completed the provost search.
“Searches for university administrators are most commonly confidential across our peer institutions as they yield larger candidate pools than traditional public searches,” the U’s statement said. “To attract top talent for this and other mission-critical roles, the University aligned its process to mirror this standard practice.”