There is an even bigger duty, however, that falls upon the shoulders of the Regents. That is the duty they have to find the best person to replace President Duderstadt when he leaves office, the person most capable of leading the U-M to its place among the greatest institutions of learning in the future. It is the gravity of this responsibility, the greatness of this task, which naturally leads to the conclusion that the Regents must open their search process further, allowing outsiders, both among students, faculty, and even among the press and the citizens of Michigan, to observe the process and see that the Regents do not fail the U-M in this matter.
As students at the University, and in many of our cases, as citizens of this state, we have the right to hold the Regents accountable, not only for their eventual choice, but also for the very process by which they make this choice. The fiasco that brought about the placing of Duderstadt in his current position, and later brought about scandalous investigations by the media, shows that the unthinkable can happen, and that, as good as their intentions seem, the Regents might not choose the next President for the benefit of the students, the faculty, and the state. Furthermore, the recent allegations by Governor Engler, stating that several Regents brought about the resignation of President Duderstadt due to personal disagreements, show that the Regents are clearly not objective messengers of the citizenry's wishes.
If candidates are passed over, when they are logically better choices, because of a difference in politics or in opinion, we have a right to know. The Regents are an elected body, and as such, they make all of their actions on behalf of the citizens of Michigan. If they make unwise decisions to protect their political future or their party, the citizens have a right to know and a duty to see that they do not return to their offices after the next election.
Furthermore, even an open search process, with no input from those outside the circle of Regents, gives the people an indirect voice in the matter. With the rapid spreading of news, thanks to electronic media and other modern conveniences, an open search process would guarantee that the press, both the student press and the private press, would offer instant feedback to decisions made by the Regents, and because they are elected officials, hopes of re-election would then force them to heed the voice of the public during the search process itself. Not only does an open search process ensure that the Regents are accountable for their eventual selection Ñ it also goes a considerable distance in making their eventual decision meet the needs of the public, and therefore preventing them from damaging the University with a poor choice.
Many students would like to believe that the choice of President does not concern them; they are wrong. Many of the facilities we take for granted now, such as the new North Campus buildings and the renovated and expanded buildings on Central Campus, came to their current state through the work of the President. Admissions processes changed as a result of Duderstadt's Michigan Mandate. As many realize, even the ranking of the University is a very subjective matter that has little to do with the quality of it's education but much to do with which students decide to attend it. This ranking too, is highly influenced by the programs and initiatives of the President. An active President is seen as an active University, and an active University is seen as an excellent one.
In the end, the person who replaces Duderstadt will not change your knowledge of Calculus or of European History, but that person will have a profound effect upon the value of the name, "University of Michigan." If this effect is adverse, the Regents must clearly be held accountable. If this effect is positive, it should be because the President of the University is the person who is deemed the best choice by the people of Michigan and the students of U-M, and not by the Regents in their closed-sessions.