How a University's Search for a New President Became a Partisan Battle

The South Caroliniana Library, at the center of the University of South Carolina’s campus. Photo by Wikimedia user ProfReader.

“I believe that partisan politics should play no role in the affairs of a university funded by taxpayers.” Stephanie Justice, a rising senior at the University of South Carolina, denounced the impact of Governor Henry McMaster’s political lobbying in the 2018-2019 search for the next university president. After the search committee produced an all-male, predominantly-white field of finalists, McMaster lobbied each member of the U.S.C. Board of Trustees to elect the finalist that most resembled his own political identity. “McMaster’s intervention simply soured my perspective on the search overall,” said Justice in an interview with me. Justice is not alone—many U.S.C. students, faculty, and alumni also expressed outrage over the university presidential search that would later make headlines.

A FLAWED PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH

In November 2018, U.S.C. President Harris Pastides announced he would be retiring at the end of the academic year following his 11-year tenure. Pastides was a fan favorite on campus, known for snapping selfies with students and taking them on drives to chat in his memorable Mini Cooper. Replacing him as university president was destined to be a challenge for all involved. 

After months of searching, the Board of Trustees announced they had narrowed the search to four finalists. The Board encouraged students to submit their feedback on the candidates and attend a forum later in the week to meet and question each contender. The finalists—John Strait Applegate, Robert L. Caslen Jr., Joseph T. Walsh Jr., and William F. Tate IV—were all men.

The University of South Carolina has never had a female president, despite its 219-year history and its majority-female student body. Both students and faculty expressed disappointment in this disconnect between the institution’s gender balance and the Board’s options for the next president. That disappointment grew when university officials admitted that the finalists were selected from a larger list of 11 candidates—all of whom were also men. The gender gap in the search committee itself may have also led to this development, as only two of the 11 members were women. U.S.C. is not alone in this problem; only 22% of doctorate-granting universities have female presidents, while others have yet to elect a female president.

The student forum on April 25 amplified these concerns regarding the lack of diversity in the presidential search process. Former Senior Counsel to the President of the University of Central Florida and former West Point Superintendent Robert L. Caslen—who would later become Governor McMaster’s top pick—became controversial due to his comments on sexual assault. When asked by students how he would aid sexual assault survivors, Caslen answered that he believes in advocacy for the victims but that U.S.C. should “take out the contributing measures towards sexual assault, particularly the alcohol… binge drinking and things like that.” At U.S.C., a major SEC school where students spend many nights in the popular entertainment district Five Points, binge drinking has been a prevalent problem that is not necessarily linked to sexual assault—and many students felt that Caslen’s comments partook in the common practice of victim-blaming. 

Robert Caslen as superintendent of West Point in 2016. Photo by Sergeant 1st Class Chuck Burden.

Concerns over the lack of diversity in the search process and Caslen’s comments grew louder the next day when almost 75 students protested inside of the Alumni Center, where the Board scheduled their meeting to vote on the next president. Additional criticisms of Caslen included his lack of a doctorate degree and his seemingly unorthodox hunting practices. The protesters read a letter supporting William F. Tate, dean of the graduate school and vice provost for graduate education at Washington University in St. Louis—and the only Black finalist and finalist of color. Signed by over 400 students, the letter stated that Caslen’s comments the day before were “insensitive and may reflect his moral stance on other controversial topics.” Over 40 student organizations and 120 faculty members also signed the letter, asking the Board to dismiss Caslen as a contender and to publicly release the demographics of the other 80 applicants.

U.S.C.’s status as a public university suggests that this information should have been public to hold both the Board and the search committee accountable. More recent activist efforts contend that entities use diversity in a performative manner, so U.S.C. should have worked to differentiate itself from these organizations by releasing the demographics. This transparency also would have worked to uphold U.S.C.’s prized Carolinian Creed: “[discouraging] bigotry, while striving to learn from differences in people, ideas and opinions.”

That evening, the Board sent the following email announcing that it voted to reopen the search and named Chancellor of U.S.C. Upstate Brendan Kelly as interim president. This development appeared to be a win for protesters and Caslen critics.

Email sent on April 26, 2019 from the U.S.C. Board of Trustees to students.

POLITICIZING AN APOLITICAL PROCESS

The dream of consensus between U.S.C.’s administrative leaders and protesting affiliates shattered in July, when Governor McMaster called all of the trustees on the Board to meet and lobbied them to reconsider Caslen. As state law dictates that McMaster is the ex officio chair of the board by virtue of being governor, some board members had no qualms with McMaster’s phone calls. Trustee Edward Floyd, the longest-serving board member at the time, said that “[he] would hope the governor has a say-so [in the vote for a new president].” Some students, like rising senior Campbell Mims, agreed with this assessment. In an interview with me, Mims recently stated that “the optics of the situation looked bad for McMaster, but the governor has a constitutional right to call the Board to meet.” Mims is correct: McMaster holds the power to call the Board to a special meeting. 

But does partisan political lobbying qualify as a “say-so” in the search process? Most governors have had a laissez-faire attitude towards their state colleges’ boards; however, as higher education becomes a more politicized issue, governors and politically-minded board members have become more involved in matters often handled by school administrators. McMaster’s own relationship with the University of South Carolina system is unprecedented, according to political observers who could not recall a sitting governor commanding a Board meeting until this presidential search.

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster at an event in 2018. Photo by Joshua Adams.

McMaster is also an outspoken supporter of President Trump. Caslen, a former finalist for the position of Trump’s National Security Advisor, matched the Governor’s political preferences. “What should have been an apolitical, merit-based search for our next president was turned into a political game by Governor McMaster,” rising senior Carly Mihovich told me. Mihovich also believes that McMaster “prioritized his own connections over the well-being of the university and proved himself to be unworthy of holding a seat on the board.” While South Carolina state law does not outright deem McMaster’s lobbying illegal, student activists believe the governor’s actions constitute an abuse of his power as Chair of the Board. State colleges such as U.S.C. serve to educate their respective states’ populations—and the governor’s lobbying pushed a partisan political agenda into a major administrative decision, neglecting the fact that U.S.C. affiliates do not share one, cohesive political identity.

South Carolina state law also demands that the governor should “strive to assure that the membership of the Board is representative of all citizens of [South Carolina],” yet the Board does not meet this standard. Demographically, the state of South Carolina is 68.5% white and 27.1% Black, while the 2018-2019 Board of Trustees was roughly 95% white and 4.5% Black with Leah Moody as the only Black trustee. The Board’s past and present demographic makeup does not even correspond to that of the U.S.C. system, which is 69.1% white and 15.19% Black. South Carolina state law also requires that the governor should “assure that various economic interests and minority groups, especially women and blacks, are fairly represented on the commission,” but it is arguably impossible for McMaster to complete this task with the disparity between the Board’s makeup and South Carolina’s reality. 

Although McMaster called the Board to meet on July 12 when most students and faculty were away from campus on summer break, this move was still met with pushback and protest. Trustee Charlie Williams voiced his disagreement, asking “why bring in a controversial candidate who divided campus so much?” Even Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin chimed in, declaring that “an illegitimate process will only yield illegitimate results.” Alumni also showed resistance to the new meeting and Caslen’s renewed chance at becoming president. Darla Moore, U.S.C.’s largest donor and namesake of the business school, hinted that donors could pull their money from the university. Moore also recommended a new search to produce “a qualified candidate without the current controversy.” The loss of Moore’s funds would spell catastrophe for U.S.C.’s endowment—she has donated over 75 million dollars to her alma mater. 

A court moved McMaster’s requested meeting from July 12 to July 19 because he failed to give “appropriate notice,” as required by state law. The governor publicly embraced his preference to elect Caslen, saying the former general would “win the vote.” After the Board meeting, student government representatives emailed U.S.C. affiliates that the Board elected Robert Caslen as the next university president. 

Email sent on July 19, 2019 from U.S.C. student government representatives to students.

McMaster was not the sole culprit in choosing politics over professionalism—the entire Board politicized the process. One trustee claimed that the protesters, most of whom were Black, were “from out of town,” part of “that Kamala Harris crowd,” and that the protests were “tied into the Democratic primary.” This trustee would proceed to help elect Caslen. After Caslen was confirmed, McMaster’s chief of staff texted a trustee who was a Caslen supporter: “The Democrats hate us. We took their castle.” Another trustee confirmed McMaster’s overreach in a different message: “Henry’s willing to do anything else we need to recruit Caslen.” Left-leaning Caslen opponents also participated in the sparring, with one text reading: “the two morons appointed by the governor are a waste of time.” One Caslen opponent attempted to persuade a supporter; however, the latter claimed in response that he “watches Fox News and the radical left is trying to control all conservatives on University campuses, including our Board.” These messages further solidified the deep partisan lines drawn behind closed doors.

ACCREDITATION AND A CALL TO ACTION

News coverage from the 2019-2020 academic year examined the search process in light of U.S.C.’s potential consequences with accreditation. In October, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Commission on Colleges discovered “evidence of a significant accreditation-related issue,” and stated they would complete a “formal review” of the U.S.C. hiring process. Former student Jonathan Rodgers, who graduated in 2020, said in an interview that he was rather unbothered by the search, but “when [he] began to hear that McMaster’s involvement could affect [U.S.C.’s] accreditation, it began to really worry [him].” The University received no material penalties from the SACS Commission on Colleges, but the association was adamant that McMaster had “undue influence” in the process. This review damaged the institution’s credibility in the eyes of the general public and prospective students. 

In an interview with me, Lyric Swinton, who also graduated from U.S.C. in 2020, said that the Board’s final decision to elect Caslen was “the most frustrating part [of the process]. You had students telling [the Board] not to do it, you had faculty telling them not to do it, you had alumni telling them not to do it… only for the Board to say that none of it matter[ed].” A Caslen protester and former candidate for student body president, Swinton advocated for universal inclusion for women and students of color. When discussing how U.S.C. and other universities can diversify their hiring process, she said “I think a lot of people aren’t ready to have those intentional conversations… People hire people who look like them, and representation matters, top-down and bottom-up.” Swinton’s evaluation rings true—research shows that the implicit biases of recruiters influence whom they hire, with some experts suggesting that recruiters take an implicit associations test to recognize and unlearn their own biases. Swinton later cited the recent interim trusteeship appointment of former N.B.A. star and U.S.C. basketball alumnus Alex English as having added “much-needed diversity” to the Board. However, English’s interim status indicates that his position is not yet permanent. If the Board is not ready to have one of many intentional conversations about racial inclusion, then English’s appointment may have been a performative move by McMaster to compensate for the lack of diversity in his previous appointments. Swinton also noted that many people in the state legislature are up for re-election in 2022. As the governor and state legislature appoint Board trustees, more diversity in the state legislature could translate to a more diverse Board. Swinton also stressed the need for “more [gender] diversity, race diversity, age diversity…[including that of] occupation,” citing that lawyers, who make more than double the median household income in South Carolina, compose a large portion of the current state legislature. When asked for last thoughts, Swinton stated that “college is all about finding your voice, and to have young people use [their voices] and be shot down, what kind of message does that send?” By ignoring the voices of U.S.C.'s multipartisan student body, the Board sent the message that student opinions do not matter.

Political interference in state colleges hurts everyone involved. It hurts students and faculty, whose continued attempts to advocate for diversity and inclusion go unheard. It hurts alumni and donors, who will now question if their generous contributions now indirectly support a politician’s re-election campaign. It hurts Robert Caslen supporters, whose candidate could have been elected on his own merit, but now, South Carolina will never know if his position was justly awarded to him. It even hurts the trustees, as partisan borders divide them into staunch political camps. Most of all, it hurts the university’s credit as an institution. A public university that promotes “personal and academic integrity” does not deserve to have its reputation ruined because a political operative at the top let his partisanship get the best of him. It does not deserve to be branded as inferior due to the unscrupulous actions of one man.

The University of South Carolina deserves to become the best version of itself—with a more representative Board of Trustees, more diverse finalist pools for future positions, and, perhaps, a new ex officio chair of the board.

Caroline Mullooly is a copy editor at CPR and a rising junior at Barnard College studying Political Science and Human Rights. She’s a New Yorker who spent her freshman year at U.S.C. before transferring into Barnard. And no, she does not find “Columbia University/Columbia, South Carolina” jokes funny.