Higher What?

The University of Colorado Regents pick a Republican activist, an activist who doesn't have a graduate degree, as President of the university. Huh? How does someone with absolutely no advanced education relate to an institution where many of the employees, and clients, are required to have a graduate degree? Lest one thinks this is a regular practice in higher education: A 2005 survey by The Chronicle of Higher Education found that fewer than 1 percent of college presidents and chancellors held only a bachelor's degree. More than 83 percent held a doctorate. At my college, the President's qualifications and experience include a Ph.D., ten years of teaching experience as a faculty professor, and several years as a dean. This is a President, mind you, who has been the most successful fund raiser in the history of the college.

CU's choice, Benson, might not be able to relate to faculty or graduate students, but I bet he can raise money for the school! As far as I can tell, this seems to be the impetus for this decision. One more instance of the shift toward viewing higher education as a business rather than the pursuit of knowledge. Are colleges and universities supposed to be places of learning or diploma mills?

I also suspect the Ward Churchill scandal had something to do with this selection. When I visited my folks in Colorado last week, my dad commented on the fact that CU needed a good conservative to straighten out the liberal mess that is CSU. I believe his words were: "higher education doesn't need a bunch of liberal radicals running the show." ugh. So, as a result of the over exaggerated Ward Churchill scandal, we see a public institution making a decision based on political party (Benson is a Republican activist; all Republican regents voted for Benson while all Democratic regents voted against). Did CU wind up with the best candidate or the best Republican candidate?