The University of South Carolina and its Board of Trustees must answer questions about how the institution will be protected from political pressure in choosing its leadership, according to its accrediting agency.
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools’ Commission on Colleges sent a letter this week to the university regarding the appointment of its president, Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen Jr., in July. “There appears to be adequate evidence of undue influence from the governor during the presidential-selection process,” said a letter from Belle S. Wheelan, president of the accrediting agency.
The commission has not put any kind of penalty on the university, but will require a monitoring report in the fall.
The university’s board had halted a search process in the spring, when it couldn’t settle on a finalist. Within a few weeks, Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, began calling board members to urge them to vote for Caslen. The board approved the former superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point on a split vote that prompted student protests.
The university had already been asked by the accreditor to show whether it was meeting the commission’s standards — a special report from the university did not satisfy the commission.
“The current report is only partially responsive to steps that will be taken regarding board education and related processes,” said the letter from the commission. “The institution has not yet demonstrated that its governing board protects the institution from undue influence.”
The governor’s office disputed the accreditor’s findings. A prepared statement, reported by the The State, said that McMaster’s advocacy had been well within his role as an ex-officio board member. “To suggest that he can’t make phone calls to fellow board members about such an important decision is ludicrous,” the paper quoted the governor’s statement as saying.
Through a representative, the university declined to comment on the accreditor’s latest determination, but re-sent a statement it originally issued in December, following the commission’s decision not to issue any penalty: “The board sees the review as an opportunity for reflection and to reaffirm our commitment to meeting the highest standards of ethical, transparent, and accountable board governance, both in word and in action.”
