The question that should be on every student’s mind is a very simple one: What are the new criteria for a permanent university president, and who gets to determine those criteria?

Texas A&M has made national news for all of the wrong reasons, and we are bound to put ourselves in that position again if A&M leadership continues to accommodate the state’s anti-diversity agenda at the expense of the student body.

In the last two years, two former A&M presidents have left the strenuous position under anomalous circumstances involving anti-diversity rhetoric. As a result, A&M has become a controversy machine that has lampooned academic freedom across the state and country.

Barely one week after Welsh resigned, Texas Tech University Chancellor Tedd L. Mitchell sent a letter to the five universities in the System explaining that they will comply with “applicable law.” However, this is done in the context of the U.S. Executive Branch’s call to limit classroom discussions to two genders — legal course content protected by the first amendment. Hence, this limitation is not law, but instead stems from anti-Diversity, Equality and Inclusion, or anti-DEI, initiatives that masquerades itself as such.

The plethora of empty accusations of “DEI” and flimsy interpretations of non-existent laws coming from politicians and state-appointees actively dismantles the structures of excellence at A&M.

A president missing-in-action may not faze some Texas politicians — especially those who called for Welsh’s resignation. However, the ongoing meltdown over “child indoctrination” tends to overwhelm university leadership, put faculty under the threat of continuous surveillance and most of all, worry students who are concerned about the value of their degrees. 

The carving out of Welsh — the former four-star general, director of the CIA on military matters and dean of the Bush School of Government & Public Service turned A&M president — indicates a stark transformation of what leadership means. If proper leadership today means acting in accordance with fear and volatile politics, then A&M is in deep trouble.

Given the latest crackdowns on gender identity dialogue and studies in higher education, the finding of a permanent president is overshadowed by a polarized online milieu of leaked videos, character assassinations, real assassinations and faculty doxxings.

Chancellor Glenn Hegar’s solution is a blue-ribbon committee composed of the same regents whose messages and emails were leaked in the botched hiring process of Kathleen McElroy, Ph.D. — a seasoned journalist and Aggie who aimed to revive A&M’s journalism department. 

Some of these individuals are Chairman Robert L. Albritton and two other Regent members — John W. Bellinger and Mike Hernandez. Each member of the Board of Regents, including those on the committee, is appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott. 

Hegar’s new blue-ribbon committee is composed of 16 members who ironically come from diverse backgrounds including military, engineering, business and educational professionals. By definition, a blue-ribbon committee is supposed to be an independent group of professionals who are not motivated by political influence.

The focus should be on finding the correct candidate who can navigate multiple pressure points. Unfortunately, this is far from reality.

In the Texas Tribune article published in August 2023, both the Board of Regents and former A&M President Kathy Banks’ emails were released. In Hernandez’s conversation with Banks, he assumed that McElroy’s prior work with the New York Times and the University of Texas meant that her work was progressive-leaning. This sentiment ultimately led to her not being offered tenure — certainly not what McElroy had expected.

Furthermore, Regent Jay Graham, who was promoted this year to vice chairman of the Board of Regents, wrote the following in a released message: “I thought the purpose of us starting a journalism program was to get high-quality Aggie journalist[s] with conservative values into the market. This won’t happen with someone like this leading the department.”

In November 2023, Bellinger emailed Albritton, saying “We really need[ed] to vet this guy”  in response to a Texas Scorecard — a right-wing website — post about Welsh’s transition from interim to permanent president.

In light of Welsh’s resignation, Albritton made unsubstantiated claims about the law; Albritton, who was elected chairman in April, claimed that McCoul’s class “broke the law,” but could not specify which law. Likewise, the state DEI ban does not actually regulate the content of college courses, but rather refers to employment practices.

Needless to say, the same regent members who lead the charge against McElroy — and more recently, McCoul — were reappointed and reelected to their positions of power. Today, they determine the fate of A&M’s academic and professional reputations.

It still remains unclear why and for what reasons certain committee members were chosen instead of others. But we can be certain that these three regents were not reprimanded, but rather promoted for treating professors and Welsh as poorly as they did since the Banks scandal. 

Furthermore, when asked about the role Student Body President Carter Mallory has as a search committee member, the Student Government Association executive did not reply to two emails I sent out inquiring about his role in the search committee.

In September, both Mallory and Student Body Vice President Kathleen Parks wrote a letter about rules for course descriptions, inferring that McCoul’s course did not align with academic integrity. However, they did not provide evidence backing up this claim or specify how students would benefit from the alleged university policies they are supposedly advocating for. The operation is completely opaque to students.

When anomalous mistakes become more like patterns, we become bound to repeat those same mistakes. A more transparent and candid selection process is long overdue. We need a permanent president who can stand up for the entirety of A&M and all its 16 academic colleges. We deserve that president, and we’re still waiting.

Sidney Uy is a philosophy junior and opinion writer for The Battalion.