WPI Presidential Search Committee – Voice Heard, But not Listened to...

In my previous LinkedIn article on this topic, and in direct conversations with the leader of the selection process afterward, I discussed the need to have students and others properly represented in the Presidential search process to arrive at the best candidate for our new WPI President. By the numbers, the selected members of the Search Committee show a strong bias toward the existing power structure and status quo (Trustees) and appear to have put students and parents at the bottom of the priority list. This isn’t really an opinion; the numbers speak for themselves.

Significantly Overweighted toward Trustees:?Almost half the members are Trustees (a third of all Trustees), the heaviest weighting of any group. It shows WPI respects the opinions of its Trustees most of all in this process, and less so its faculty, staff, and students. It should have been the other way around, or at least more of an equal weighting across all four. The Trustees, from what I understand, ultimately make the final decision on selecting a President, but they should have sought more relative "outside" input as a key component of the selection process.?

No Independent Alums:?Of the 9 alums listed, all are currently affiliated with WPI (8 Trustees and 1 Professor). Once again, an acknowledgement of the power and influence the Trustees want to maintain over this process. They should have sought respected outside alums, who could have brought a more diverse set of perspectives.

Only One Undergraduate Student and One Graduate Student Represented:?WPI is the midst of a mental health crisis, centered on its students. Students should have been given an equal seat at the table as Trustees, faculty, or staff. But, by the numbers, they were relegated to the lowest priority – not even 10% in total. Not even 5% for the undergraduates.

No Independent Parents:?The two parents selected are both currently affiliated with WPI (one Trustee and one staff member). In full disclosure, I voiced an interest in being on the Committee multiple times but was rejected without the courtesy of being notified ahead of a public announcement. Nobody cares more for students than parents and choosing an opinionated and constructive outside parent or two would have been a good acknowledgement of that reality, as well as of their importance and inclusion in the WPI community.

Too Large:?Lastly, including the leader, the selected Committee has 21 total members. This is too large for effective debate, and the Committee should have been smaller. I’ve assumed the Search Partner (the SVP of WPI Talent & Inclusion) is not actually a member of the Committee.?

Assessment: The overweighting of Trustees ensures, through sheer force of numbers, they have all the power. It’s really a shame WPI felt it more important to add a 7th, 8th, 9th?and 10th?Trustee, instead of adding a 2nd?and 3rd?undergraduate student and a 1st?and 2nd?independent parent. We need a new WPI President who puts students, and their mental health, at the absolute center of the mission. We need a leader who has shown, over the last few years, a bias toward placing science ahead of any political expediency or path of least resistance. At WPI - Students should always come FIRST.

Recommendation to the Search Committee:?In further pursuit of having my voice heard and listened to, and in the interest of being constructive to an institution very close to my heart, I humbly and respectfully submit the following recommendations. As the process is just getting under way, there’s still time to shift gears and adjust. As a starter, I’d recommend removing seven of the Trustees from the Committee, and maybe a couple of the faculty/staff members, and replace them (not in full) with other constituencies to have a smaller and broader overall Committee, which would also be a better and truer representation of the full WPI community. It would also be a good way to put diversity and inclusion into practice.