Affirmative Action

5.1 Sample Search Committee Report - Affirmative Action Searches

SAMPLE SEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT (It is understood that not all units will use quantitative rating systems. This report is an example of the extent and level of comments useful to unit administrators and the Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives.)

Dear Dr. __________ and Dr. __________: 
The faculty and search committee evaluations of the candidates for the position of _____________________ are shown below.


Dr _________________________
Highly acceptable 13   1  11  17
Acceptable 11   5  10   4
Not acceptable 0  15   3  21
Total 24  21  24 21


Dr. __________________________
Highly acceptable 5   0   2   6
Acceptable 2   1   5   0
Not acceptable 0   5   1   0
Total 7   6   8   6

Graduate student and clerical/technical evaluations reflect the general trends above. Based on these data and our in-depth interactions with the candidates, the search committee made, seconded and discussed the following motion: Drs.________________________ and ________________________ are acceptable candidates for the chair position of _______________________________. Dr. ________________________ is not an acceptable candidate. Seven members favored the motion; one member opposed the motion. The opposition was in reference to considering Dr. ___________________ an acceptable candidate because of a weak understanding of __________________________ and possible concerns regarding the extent of commitment to affirmative action. Brief summaries and comparisons are provided on the next pages to elaborate on the search committee/faculty evaluations of the candidates.



Strengths: excellent interpersonal skills; good affirmative action record; excellent administrative record; extensive linkages and ties in the professional field; thorough and well prepared.

Limitations/weaknesses: limited experience in academic environment; little knowledge of outreach efforts; somewhat limited knowledge of (key sub discipline).


Strengths: good research record in area of expertise; good visibility because individual is a co-author of a widely used text; potentially good administrative abilities; committed to affirmative action.

Limitations/weaknesses: lacks interpersonal skills; faculty felt individual is brisk, abrasive, overly aggressive and not capable of interacting with peers in a non-threatening manner; appears to have a superiority and possessiveness attitude for those under direction rather than encouraging a team spirit.


Strengths: excellent publication and grants record; good administrative record; nationally recognized in discipline and in sub-specialty circles; a proven administrator in an organization similar to MSU.

Limitations/weaknesses: inexperienced in some aspects of the field; somewhat weak in knowledge of outreach; commitment to affirmative action less strong than others.


Strengths: excellent interpersonal skills; very organized and very thorough; good administrative record; good affirmative action record; good visibility because individual is an author of a widely used text.

Limitations/weaknesses: no serious limitations/weaknesses; needs to be more aggressive in establishing outside contacts for research purposes and national visibility for the department.


While Drs. _______________, _____________ and _______________ are all very acceptable to the department, Dr. _____________ was not regarded quite as highly. Dr. ___________ would be closely involved in the day-to-day operations of the department, whereas Dr. _____________ would delegate more responsibilities and put more energy into matters which would promote the strength and visibility of _______________, the colleges and MSU. Dr. _______________ appears to be a quick learner and would quickly overcome the limitations/weaknesses listed. Dr.______________'s administrative style would be somewhere between the styles of _____________ and _____________. Of the three, Dr. ________________ is best known in the field. All three of these candidates are articulate and good communicators.

Dr. _______________ and Dr. _______________ have superior interpersonal skills.

Dr. _______________ is adamant regarding the need to continue some research while chairing the department. Some faculty do not see this as a problem, but some see this as a potential red flag. This concern should not prevent the individual from being seriously considered, but it did need to be brought to your attention.

The faculty, staff and students were overwhelmingly negative to Dr. _______________. His/her style (interpersonal skills and attitudes) was objectionable and it is clear that it would be a mistake for Dr. _______________ and for MSU if he/she were appointed as the chair of __________________.

As members of the search committee we feel we have completed our duties, but we remain available, either as a group or individually, to provide more input regarding the candidates or the search process. If we can assist in recruitment, we would be pleased to do so.


__________________________, Chairperson

Search Committee, Dept. of _____________________

c: _____________________




Back to the Handbook for Faculty Searches with Special Reference to Affirmative Action