UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ACADEMIC SENATE

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO

Kum-Kum Bhavnani
Telephone: (510) 987-9303
Email:kum-kum.bhavnani@ucop.edu

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

Chair of the Assembly of the Academic Senate
Faculty Representative to the Regents
University of California
1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor
Oakland, California 94607-5200

July 23, 2020
JANET NAPOLITANO, PRESIDENT
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Re: Report of the Regents’ Working Group on Chancellor Search and Selection
Dear Janet,
Council has a number of serious concerns about the Report of the Regents’ Working Group on
Chancellor Search and Selection.
First, it is unclear what problem the recommendations are intended to fix. The chancellor search
process is well-articulated and has resulted in a number of stellar recent recruitments, including
white women, and men from historically minoritized groups. In fact, cutting back on the role of
faculty in searches could lead to a degradation in the appointments of chancellors.
The proposed changes will diminish the role of the faculty and president in chancellor searches:
doing so is neither justified nor appropriate. The process of keeping a significant faculty focus on
the recruitment of their champion and leader is essential in the context of academics, education,
and shared governance. As a number of Regents have commented, a chancellor cannot be
expected to lead a campus successfully without the full confidence of the faculty on that campus.
Overall, the recommendations posit a downgrading of the notion that UC is first and foremost an
academic organization – the very thing that makes UC a research university.
The recommendation that the search firm conduct the preliminary screening of all prospects does
not seem wise to Council. To do so would significantly reduce the involvement of faculty, who
are the very people chancellors will lead, and who are ideally placed to assess the nominations
by stakeholders during a chancellor search. It will also place an initial screening into the hands of
people whose work is not central to that a of a Research I university, and whose imperatives
could be very different, and not as robust, as those of those of faculty at a UC campus.
We are also concerned about the methods used to gather data for the report’s conclusions. Only a
small number of individuals were interviewed for the report, with minimal representation from
faculty. The lack of inclusion of faculty has likely skewed the report’s conclusions. For these
reasons, amongst others, it is difficult to have confidence in the report’s conclusions.

 We offer our concerns to ensure that campuses are central in continuing the exceptional quality
of the University. Simultaneously, Council urges the Regents to delay action on the report until
Dr. Drake has assumed his position as President of the University of California. Taking Dr.
Drake’s views explicitly into account would ensure a successful start to his presidency.
Council requests that you send this letter to all members of the Board of Regents.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,

Kum-Kum Bhavnani, Chair
Academic Council
cc:

Secretary of the Regents Shaw
Chief of Staff Kao
Chief Policy Advisor McAuliffe
Academic Council
Senate Directors

2