Press "Enter" to skip to content

Oregonian criticizes UO presidential search

6/11/2012: Bill Graves of the Oregonian on the UO search:

The 22-member UO search committee provided three finalists, said George Pernsteiner, chancellor of the Oregon University System, but “I thought, ‘let’s go with the one the committee and I both thought was the best candidate.'” 

… But some higher education experts said one finalist is unusual and generally puts the board in a weaker position for making one of its most important decisions.
Single finalists are becoming more common but generally are “not the optimal way to proceed,” said Michael Poliakoff, vice president of policy for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a nonprofit that promotes higher education quality.

Read it all. Graves often has a pro Pernsteiner/OUS slant to his stories, one way to read this is as an attempt to point out that this secretive search process does not build consensus and legitimacy for the UO president that will now take on OUS. Of course, it’s several orders of magnitude better than the process that Neil Goldschmidt used to hire Dr. Pernsteiner.


  1. Anonymous 06/12/2012

    UO Matters has shown himself so biased that his complaints, for those if us ‘outsiders’, can’t be taken seriously anymore.

    From the first Gottfredson post, what’s the first thing you want to know about? How he might deal with the Chancellor and Board with the tale about Lariviere being fired for giving some of you a raise. Your constant animus against Pernsteiner dramatically colors what Graves is saying–it’s about CHOICE, not the chosen. After all this time, you STILL don’t get it. Maybe it’s like you say … ‘I’m no economist, but..’.

    Will this comment be published or deleted? If it shows, there’s some hope for your blog yet.

    • UO Matters 06/12/2012

      Thanks for your comments, I’m glad to know my blog is still good enough for you.

  2. Anonymous 06/12/2012

    Well… barely good enough. You’re welcome for the comments.

  3. Anonymous 06/12/2012

    Dog says

    Look at the state of OUS – is this something to be proud of? Is OUS on
    an evolutionary course to produce higher quality education? There is failure
    on all levels with respect to OUS and Pernsteiner shares much of this failure.
    I wonder what there is to “get” ??? Color this dog as just as naive as UOmatters

    • Anonymous 06/12/2012

      Too much black and white thinking here. The best technique for bringing any image into full view is to work perceptively with shades of grey.

      Of course there is failure on all levels and has been for a while. It’s all about $$, not about research or intellectual pursuit or even about education, however you all KNOW this. You just didn’t/don’t know that YOUR job/insights/higher pursuits and achievements are as expendable with a private board as the last student athlete who found out he’s just been replaced by the latest bit hype recruit. The union ‘might’ buy some reprieve.

      Lariviere was nothing but a polished yet arrogantly inept salesman for that $$ cause. Someone liked his arrogance until it couldn’t produce the desired result. His firing opened the way for a new chance at the prize. Will Gottfredson be bought? We’ll see.

    • Anonymous 06/12/2012

      Dog says

      you can also apparently color me stupid because I don’t understand any of the words expressed above- of course I am a pure breed english springer spaniel and I only have black and white – that might explain it …

  4. Fran 06/12/2012

    A “choice” of (yet another) one pasty white guy… how very diverse & creative…. who do you think will win?

    • UO Matters 06/12/2012

      White people can’t be creative? Go tell it to Benny Goodman, you troll.

    • Anonymous 06/12/2012

      dog says

      aren’t trolls always white?

    • roo 06/12/2012

      Benny Goodman was creative? tell that to Fletcher Henderson!

  5. Anonymous 06/12/2012

    The reason why not to present one finalist only is that the choice to present one finalist is the power to decide the office-holder, subject only to veto. Where is that power defined?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *