Following backlash from the faculty regarding secrecy in the search for the next OU president, David Boren sent an editorial to The Daily supporting a confidential search — but experts in the field aren’t convinced.

Boren’s editorial comes after International Studies Dean Suzette Grillot released a petition calling for the Board of Regents to open the presidential search and Faculty Senate chair Sarah Ellis sent a letter of concern about the process to the board.

Two academics who have researched executive searches read David Boren’s opinion article supporting the search committee’s choice to pursue confidentiality. 

Judith Wilde is an associate dean at George Mason University who has authored several journals in the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding searches for provosts and presidents.

Frank LoMonte is the director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida. He has authored several pieces of research on the importance of an open search process for university presidents.

I have been following the public discussion about the search process to find my successor and felt that it might be helpful for me to share some thoughts and personal experiences.

The first task of the Board of Regents was to appoint a search committee broadly representative of the university community. They have done exactly that by selecting members nominated to the regents from lists from the faculty and staff senates and the Student Government Association. In addition, the regents have selected alumni with records of commitment to the university.

Once chosen, the goal of this diverse search committee is to attract as many qualified persons as possible to agree to be considered for the presidency.

“​I cannot imagine in the year 2018, knowing everything we know now, that any public university will ever do a search without bringing the finalists to campus for open, public discussions,” LoMonte said. Search committee spokesperson David Rainbolt said in January all candidate names and interview questions would remain secret during the presidential search process.

Confidentiality is needed to attract highly qualified prospects. Several may hold important posts which they don’t want to risk, and they will not agree to be considered unless the process assures that their names will not be revealed. In fact, most of our peer Big 12 institutions did not disclose the names of candidates in their most recent presidential searches.

In my own case at OU, confidentiality was also very important. As a U.S. Senator who planned to run for re-election, I could not afford the public perception that I wanted to leave my current post. Had I participated in a public contest and not have been selected, it would have done severe damage to my career. I would have missed out on what has been the most rewarding experience of my life.

“We’ve only heard of one case where someone actually was fired because s/he (we assume he, but can’t confirm) applied for another presidency – although no one will tell us who or where or when,” Wilde said.

My interest in the presidency of OU was kept completely confidential by the search committee, with whom I met, and by the regents. If it had not been kept confidential, I could never have applied.

“Once the search zeroes in on the last few serious contenders, there is no justification for not bringing the finalists to the campus, since their current employers absolutely must be told. There is no way that any university’s lawyers will allow a 100 percent closed search, because the first time someone gets injured by a negligently hired president, that person will have a slam-dunk legal claim against everyone who failed to do even the simplest of background checks,” LoMonte said. Rainbolt previously said it will be up to the Board of Regents to release the names of finalists once the search committee completes its process of interviewing candidates.

At the conclusion of our current process, some very fine individuals will not be selected as president. They do not deserve to be embarrassed or undermined in their current positions. I understand the desire for broad participation. In many ways, the process used in appointing the search committee has already assured that all major groups in our community will have appropriate input.

We must not forget that if our goal is to find the best possible person to serve as the next president of the university, confidentiality in the process is required.