The faculty decided to wait until the current dean search was over before considering any changes in future procedures. Some professors want the faculty to play a more formal and central role in the decision process, although Bok opposes any move toward the establishment of a search committee to draw up a list of possible candidates methodically and openly. A democratic process, Bok argues, is not always the way to get the best man for the job. He cites outstanding former deans who would not have been selected, in Bok's view, under an open search process. The ultimate decision should remain with the president, he argues, because even if the president is not totally informed and aware of all the circumstances, he is capable of obtaining the information and making the best decision.

There is a strong argument for leaving the ultimate decision with the president. He must consider the views of students, alumni, faculty, and outsiders, and must weigh all the ramifications of his choice. These broad considerations are not always perspicuous to students, whose obsession with a few important issues--now dismissed cursorily--may preclude the overview afforded by the president.

But the arguments employed by Bok to argue against a formal student role are specious. Bok fears that opening up the process and making public the names of the candidates will scare away worthy candidates. Some candidates, Bok argues, would not agree to consider the job if they had first to undergo student scrutiny.

A candidate who is afraid of damaging his career or embarassing himself by meeting with students, would not perform well as dean. Students are concerned with adding women and minorities on the list of possible candidates, and there is no guarantee that these candidates would be given serious consideration without the openness that accompanies student participation in the process.

The president can profit from the unique perspective of students if he lets them inform themselves. Rather than making a meaningless solicitation for their uninformed views, Bok should let students suggest names of possible candidates, interview the candidates, and submit an evaluation of the final candidates for his serious consideration. It would be harder for Bok to make a decision against the students' and faculty's wishes, in the face of this public student position. An open process would make the president more accountable to students and faulty and less likely to betray them, because their views would be publicly know.

A law dean is chosen only once a decade. By the time the next dean is selected, the faculty might have tried to formalize the process to give themselves a larger role. But the students--who will probably be unaware of the battle just past--will again protest their exclusion from the decision, and, at best, duplicate the action of CORDS. The institutional memory of a student body is inherently short. The knowledge, and perhaps cynicism, that students acquired during this lengthy ordeal will probably be forgotten by all but a few.