Open selection process best

If Utah's higher education officials acted the way they have long said people everywhere act, they would be turning their backs on Utah State University President Kermit Hall right now, considering him a traitor and looking for ways to replace him.

Instead, Dave Buhler, the associate commissioner of public affairs for the Utah System of Higher Education, said of Hall's recent failed attempt to become president of the University of Tennessee, "It's a real compliment to Utah and to our presidents that President Hall would be so well thought of by another top-notch research university."

He said more. "He (Hall) is a great president and I'm sure that everyone will be glad he will be here a while longer."

That is, of course, the way any administrator should react when learning that one his top people finished second in the running for another job. And it is exhibit B in the case against Utah's lingering reluctance to make its own selection process for university presidents more open.

Exhibit A was Bernie Machen, who was snatched earlier this year from his job as president of the University of Utah and installed at the University of Florida after another thoroughly open process.

Utah officials this week announced the names and qualifications of the three finalists for Machen's replacement at the U. While such an announcement represents a step toward openness, it a step that is much too small. The Board of Regents is expected to meet in a closed session next week to interview the finalists and, possibly, make a selection. Why not let everybody else in? Why would openness be such a bad thing?

What happened to Machen and Hall is particularly instructive because Florida and Tennessee have two of the most open selection processes in the nation. In Florida, Machen had to submit to job interviews that were broadcast live over the Internet. In Tennessee's case, the decision to be more open came after the school's previous president, who was hired in secret, left under a cloud of scandal.

Scandal and corruption, by the way, love secrecy. Openness breeds honesty.

Within higher education, as within government, the assumption is that good people will either seek to move up or will be approached by other institutions interested in hiring them. There is no shame in this. No one, in this day and age, should question a person's loyalty for testing his or her marketability.

The chief argument against an open selection process has always been that it would scare away the best candidates. Does anyone seriously feel like defending that worn-out line any more? Would anyone argue that Machen or Hall were second-rate candidates and that the really good ones are still lurking in the shadows?