In any format, the president can kill any momentum by not caring about it. UM sucked for a long time because the president didn’t care if they won or not.
8 Semifinalists for next UCF President
- Thread starter Poolside Knight
- Start date
Expecting diversity to be a part of a candidate search is not racist or offensive. In fact, is the direct opposite of that.
Bringing someone in who’s less qualified because they have diversity takes a spot from a possible white male or white woman (or person of any race) who might be more qualified. Putting race into the equation is racist. How do you not see that?
Last edited:
Get late breaking news here...discussing last/fourth candidate now.
https://twitter.com/JerryAskinNews6?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
https://twitter.com/JerryAskinNews6?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
So it’s either Suresh or Dale. Final two
The 42 year old pickup basketball player is out
It's Dale, glad they kept it in house since the guy has been doing a lot of Hitt's job for a while now.
So its your contention that either..
A. There is not a single black or female candidate capable of at least interviewing for the UCF President job.
or
B. That if there was one, they'd be less qualified.
How do you not see how that makes you an absolutely disgusting person? This "racism" against white men for merely pointing out that not a single woman or black person was even considered for a job when they should be is not subtly racist. Its blatantly racist.
And yeah, as a white man, I'm racist against myself according to you. In reality, its called empathy.
So you wanted the search committee to take all the resumes, sort them by most qualified (not knowing who was a man, woman, white, or black), then pause and do a google search to see how diverse they are and then rerank the candidates weighting in favor of diversity?
Man I’m glad you weren’t on the committee
What are the qualifications? Who is making that determination? Why isn't a diverse background not part of being "qualified"?
I want a President who will make sure the crap that happened at Mizzou doesn’t happen here. Their total enrollment declined considerably and they lost millions in endowments and alumni relations. I want my school to continue their upward trajectory. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article198109604.html
So you believe the color of one’s skin or their ethnicity is a Qualification? Keeping in mind these “characteristics” are something the candidate’s were born with and had a absolutely no control over, not something that they have demonstrated as a standard of performance.
No. What I am saying is that if the people making the decisions all have the same background then you are less likely to get candidates with diverse backgrounds and more likely to get similar cookie cutter candidates. If they are all pork eaters, then you are very likely to get pork for dinner. UCF is 55% female yet of the 8 semifinalists, not one of them is female. It's naive to believe that they couldn't find 1 qualified female candidate.
What if the MOST qualified candidates using a set criteria were not determined by their gender, or ethnicity? Why do you believe the candidates were cookie cutter. What is the basis of that contention? What do you know about the backgrounds of the respective candidates?It seems you are arguing for the inclusion of candidates based upon some criterion that is genetic or based upon a characteristic that was predetermined at birth. That to me is merely another form of discrimination only in reverse, ie. These “white male candidates” couldn’t possibly be the MOST qualified for the job because er............. they don’t belong to the female gender nor a minority group. Now perhaps you have more information about the candidates (other than their gender or ethnicity) than the board of trustees did, and if so I’d certainly like to know what that info. is. Care to enlighten me?
How do we know that these were the most qualified candidates? 8 semifinalists and not 1 female? The odds are very low that none of the most qualified candidates were female.
Last edited:
Respectfully, how do you know that these were not the most qualified candidates?
I trust the people that were placed in a position to make the choice (including the five women on the search committee). I personally don’t care what the gender or the race of the most qualified candidates were. Unless you have some empirical data other than your own opinion that the “odds are very low that none of the most qualified candidates were female” I’m going with the search committee members who by virtue of their positions are more qualified than you or me to make that choice. Let me ask you this question, if your daughter’s life depended upon a team of surgeons who were white males, and that team was the most qualified to perform the surgery, would you complain that there were no women on the team?
Last edited:
Again, you keep writing "most qualified". That's the problem, it's a subjective term. Usually the decisions are based on a social or personal familiarity. People hire and promote those that they like and feel comfortable with (and often remind them of themselves). Using your example, a homogenous team of white male surgeons will typically choose only white male surgeons to join their group. Not because they are racist but because that is who they spend the most time and feel comfortable with. It becomes more about a social circle than qualifications. Of course, you will also help/teach/coach those whom you feel most comfortable with, thus leading to the group remaining homogenized. It's a feedback loop where the insiders always become the "most qualified".
I will give you my 2 cents based on personal experience. I spent several years working for a very prominent fortune 100 company. One of the key focus areas within the company like many has been diversity and inclusion to the point where it has blatantly resulted in reverse discrimination. Many key positions are being filled by candidates that are not the most qualified. Now here is the most important underlying consideration.....this must be addressed at the grass roots. When filling key positions by promoting from within, the demographics of the organization from the bottom up must first be addressed. It is not possible to have a diverse slate of qualified candidates if they only represent a very small percentage of the candidate pool in total. This is true for both outside the organization as well. How many female candidates both inside and outside the organization were really qualified for this position? I read many resumes and I can honestly say that many of the candidates were not qualified and certainly not the best qualified......Hire the best qualified regardless of race or gender!
Last edited:
Isn’t that the whole point of taking the 250 resumes and sorting them based on education (PhD), experience managing people, experience managing a giant budget, fundraising, public speaking, and experience in fields of research; without looking at whether they are black, white, Asian, male or female? How do you pick someone like you when you aren’t looking at race or sex on the resume?
Out of the 250 resumes (if that is what they went through), the insider happened to be the "most qualified", again. It's flawed either anyway you do it. Either it's a sham of an interview process that results in the insider that everyone knows winning or boxes are checked in order to get the candidate that fits the demographic that you want. Personally, I like the way the NFL does it. Get some candidates that reflect the demographics of the university and let them interview. You'd be surprised by their perspective. Even if they don't win, a variety of viewpoints are heard and they may make a good enough impression for a future job. Qualifications are just minimum thresholds for the job.
Wouldn't it be logical that the insider with extensive on the job training, who is most knowledgeable regarding university objectives, long term strategy, process, policy, procedures, risks and opportunities be the best qualified as the successor???
Hey I’m on record that they should have gone outside the university for the hire. We can agree on that. Not a fan of coachs in waiting
You still haven’t addressed the main point. How is it that your opinion is more viable than the 15 (of which a third were women) search committee member’s opinion? The search committee was not comprised of a homogeneous group, it consisted of 9 White guys, 5 females, two African Americans and one non-native Indian.
That's not the main point. The main point is that "best qualified" is a subjective criteria.
Best qualified is subjective. If that is what the university wanted then why did they waste 7 other people's time?
Until we know what the criteria used to qualify the candidates, we don’t know if the choices were subjective or objective. You are merely speculating that they were “subjective.” If the criteria was determined by the search committee before the first resume was examined, I would assert that the choice of candidates was objective irrespective of gender or race.
I didn't really have a dog in the fight but it seemed kind of rigged from the beginning. What specifically was the committee looking for? Where did they want the new president to take us in the future? What are the objectives? They were unclear. Then of the list of candidates, I don't think any of them created excitement among the posters in this thread. It looked like it was going to be Dr. Whittaker from the beginning. I'm opposed to dog and pony shows just as much as I am race/gender based promotions.
In any event, the choice has been made, and I wish Dr. Whittaker the best.
Pretty simple....UCF is an Equal Opportunity Employer and therefore follows all associated federal laws and guidelines...
By conducting a thorough search through a diverse panel with a slate of diverse candidates they did precisely what is required in following federal laws and guidelines to preclude any candidate from making a discrimination claim.
Last edited:
I have been involved on many hiring panels for much lower management type positions. I would be willing to bet that the qualifications were explicitly stated prior to the position being competed and I am confident that the panel had very explicit down select criteria and assessment criteria with quantifiable scoring measures, thus eliminating any subjectivity and ambiguity in the results.
AKRON, OHIO UCF presidential finalist to rejoin Akron law school The president of the University of Akron has announced plans to step down and rejoin UA’s law school, which he headed before he was tapped to help guide the school through financial struggles.
President Matthew Wilson was named interim president in 2016 following the resignation of Scott Scarborough.
His contract was extended last fall through 2023. The school said Thursday that Wilson will instead step down July 31 and join the law school faculty.
Wilson says he will take a reduced salary in light of the school’s ongoing financial challenges.
Officials say the four month notice will ensure a smooth transition as the school seeks a replacement.
Wilson was recently a final - ist to head the University of Central Florida.
Thank God we didn’t select him
President Matthew Wilson was named interim president in 2016 following the resignation of Scott Scarborough.
His contract was extended last fall through 2023. The school said Thursday that Wilson will instead step down July 31 and join the law school faculty.
Wilson says he will take a reduced salary in light of the school’s ongoing financial challenges.
Officials say the four month notice will ensure a smooth transition as the school seeks a replacement.
Wilson was recently a final - ist to head the University of Central Florida.
Thank God we didn’t select him
