Over the past few weeks, presidential search town hall meetings have been held for students, faculty, and staff. And turnout has been low.

Fewer than 15 students attended the very first student town hall meeting. Around 40 attended the first faculty town hall, but half a dozen or so from that figure were members of various advisory committees, present only to listen. You would expect higher involvement considering last year’s turmoil. But audiences arrived at a trickle.

Why is that?

Maybe when push comes to shove, the community doesn’t prioritize this search.

Or maybe there’s no real impetus to speak to a committee so it can speak to a committee about a committee.

Bureaucracy is necessary. And it’s unrealistic to ask for an open election. The University has no reason to politicize this. And maybe it’s too much to ask for information on the candidates themselves.

But what purpose do these meetings serve? Earlier this month we urged students to make their voice heard. But after further consideration, we have to wonder — who’s actually listening?

Even if all of our comments really reach candidates, how much of their essence would be lost in translation during discussions between different committees? Follow-up questions to students, faculty, and staff are made impossible by this process. We also stressed the need for a more human president, one empathetic to the community’s needs. How can anybody assess that empathy with no chance to see it in action?

Even if those are all impossible requests, consider this — there wasn’t a single Board member at that first faculty town hall. If there needs to be a degree of separation between candidates and the community during the process, there should at least be wide-open channels between the community and the Board, which makes the final decision.

And once someone is chosen, will we be told the full reasoning, and how this greatly publicized process arrived at the decision? We’re not asking for a list of qualifications. We’d like to hear the Board’s take on the values, skills, and temperament of the elect.

The University has been around for 168 years. It’s had 14 presidents. This means we can expect our next one to serve at least a decade. So we should know what to expect from them.

And they should know, directly from us, what we expect of them.



Dialogue goes both ways

Many people predict the imminent death of journalism, but Nawaz believes that the field will instead evolve with changing times. “Literally every year in my career, someone's talking about the death of journalism,” she said. “And yet, there is more journalism and more news and information content making its way out to people on this planet than at any other time in our history of humankind.” Read More

Dialogue goes both ways

Released in theaters on Sept. 25, A24’s “Primetime” is a 2026 film that feels more like a 2000s television fever dream. Read More

Dialogue goes both ways

URochester’s 2026-27 Medical Amnesty Policy now includes student organizations seeking medical help on behalf of their members. The policy says that students, and now student organizations, who reach out for help with substance-related medical emergencies will not suffer consequences for the possession or consumption of alcohol and other drugs in violation of University policy. Read More