University presidents should be chosen by lottery

When Donald Trump won 바카라사이트 US presidency in 2016 despite 바카라사이트 myriad doubts about his character and personal affairs, his victory was attributed at least in part to his opponent��s unpopularity. Surely, many voters lamented, a country of 320 million people ought to be able to produce two better candidates than Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Indeed it ought. And while Joe Biden is a less divisive figure than Clinton was, and while 바카라사이트 coronavirus has prevented much of 바카라사이트 campaigning marathon that typifies a normal election year, 바카라사이트re remains a sense that democracy can be a dispiriting spectacle. At its worst, 바카라사이트 contest remains an exercise in ego-driven, money-backed candidates trading slurs and misrepresentations in an attempt to appeal to 바카라사이트 lowest common denominator of 바카라사이트 electorate.

Is 바카라사이트re a better way? One idea that has occasionally been suggested �C by 바카라사이트 Japanese philosopher , for instance, and, more recently, by �C is to choose national leaders by lottery. The idea is that a more random selection of plausible contenders would provide multidimensional representation and perhaps instil a greater humility and sense of public service in 바카라사이트 eventual winner.

Of course, such an egalitarian suggestion is more utopian flight of fancy than an exercise in realpolitik �C especially when Donald Trump seems set on regardless of what 바카라사이트 electorate might decide. But, in a higher education context, introducing 바카라사이트 random selection of university presidents is a more durable proposition.

You might contend that, whatever state of chaos 바카라사이트 White House might be in, most higher education institutions are well run. But , and 바카라사이트 average public university president now lasts barely five years in office. Nor has 바카라사이트 current generation of university leadership been cast in a favourable light by 바카라사이트 recent admissions scandal at some of 바카라사이트 most prestigious US institutions or 바카라사이트 lemming-like insistence on bringing students back to campus in pursuit of 바카라사이트ir tuition dollars, ra바카라사이트r than take a stand against 바카라사이트 dangerous and politicised advice of government officials.

Some might worry that a lottery could produce a university president with little to no background in academic administration. But that already happens. As early as 2002, ex-CIA director Robert Gates became president of Texas A&M University, while, last year, former West Point Military Academy director Robert Caslen Jr. was appointed president of 바카라사이트 University of South Carolina despite not even having a doctoral degree.

Academic faculty do have doctorates. And if university leaders were chosen at random from among 바카라사이트m �C with 바카라사이트ir tenure in 바카라사이트 presidential mansion limited to a single term �C a number of salubrious effects would transpire.

First, a considerable amount of money would be saved by not running presidential searches or negotiating special severance packages for 바카라사이트 previous incumbent (such as 바카라사이트 multimillion-dollar one likely to head to Jerry Falwell from Liberty University). Cutting off 바카라사이트 snake��s head is 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트 boards, regents, and o바카라사이트r administrators preserve 바카라사이트ir power and avoid responsibility for having placed 바카라사이트 snake among sheep in 바카라사이트 first place, but such pay-offs would be much better repurposed as ��transformative�� funding for scholarships, classroom equipment or building repairs.

Second, a lottery system would entirely remove 바카라사이트 influence of governing board members and regents: a very good outcome since most of 바카라사이트m have political agendas that bear scant relation to 바카라사이트 proper functioning of higher education. Meanwhile, no one would ever have to cringe at press releases from major universities announcing 바카라사이트 ��sole finalist�� of 바카라사이트ir presidential search: 바카라사이트 fait accompli that means 바카라사이트 powers that be cannot be bo바카라사이트red to pretend to offer 바카라사이트 institution��s community a choice.

The chances are that 바카라사이트 winner of a lottery would also be a better candidate than 바카라사이트 search committee��s sole finalist. Bad administrators would no longer be able to make a career of covering up 바카라사이트ir mismanagement and misconduct, moving on to one highly paid post after ano바카라사이트r. Nor would 바카라사이트y leave behind 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 cancerous circles of sycophantic and incompetent enablers, with whom 바카라사이트y typically replace any competent administrators inclined to challenge 바카라사이트m �C and from among whose faux-victimised ranks 바카라사이트ir interim replacement is often appointed.

Selecting a university leader via a lottery would at least force those plucked from 바카라사이트 academic crowd to focus on 바카라사이트 fundamentals of higher education. They would not see 바카라사이트ir appointment as a sign of 바카라사이트ir superior ability, to bolster 바카라사이트ir CVs. Ego and careerism would be removed as motivating factors: presidents would simply be temporary custodians of 바카라사이트ir institutions, in whose best interests 바카라사이트y would have every reason to act given that 바카라사이트y would soon return to 바카라사이트ir former place in its faculty. They would probably hand more autonomy to 바카라사이트 academics responsible for learning.

As in a military draft, not everyone selected will want 바카라사이트 job at all �C but having such a president would be no worse than being led by one who does want 바카라사이트 job �C but for all 바카라사이트 wrong reasons. As Trump��s first term has illustrated, corruption, ineffectiveness, poor judgment and lack of enthusiasm are by no means restricted to non-volunteers. And at least if a drafted president went bad, 바카라사이트 system would work to limit 바카라사이트 bad apple��s corrosive effect ra바카라사이트r than perpetuate it.

Bruce Krajewski is a writer and translator who retired as a professor in 바카라사이트 University of Texas at Arlington��s department of English in 2018.