Faculty and staff volunteers request ``explanation'' on University of Tokyo presidential selection, handling of internal voting, etc.
Quick Look
- After the candidate who received the most votes in an on-campus vote was not selected in the University of Tokyo's presidential selection process, faculty and staff volunteers submitted a request to the selection committee demanding transparency in the selection process and an explanation of the criteria for judgment.
- There are 523 supporters.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
At the University of Tokyo's presidential selection meeting, Yuko Fujigaki, who came in second place in the internal vote, was selected as the new president. The transparency of the selection process is being questioned because the difference in votes between him and Takao Someya, who came in first place, was large.
On the 13th, volunteers from the University of Tokyo's faculty and staff submitted a request to Yuko Kuniya (Director of the Tokyo University of the Arts), the chairperson of the selection committee, asking for an explanation of how the university's internal voting results were taken into consideration regarding the University of Tokyo's presidential selection process.
At a selection meeting held at the end of September, Yuko Fujigaki, a professor at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, was selected as the new president. However, in an on-campus vote among faculty members, Takao Someya, a professor at the Graduate School of Engineering, received the majority of votes, 1,107 votes, while Fujigaki came in second place with 553 votes. There were calls for an explanation from both inside and outside the university regarding the turnaround due to a nearly doubling of the vote difference.
The request letter asked for answers to questions such as how they considered and compared the five other candidates, and what differences they found in each candidate's ideas and achievements regarding the concept of an international research university of excellence and governance reform.
According to faculty and staff volunteers, as of noon on the 13th, there were 523 supporters. It spans 30 departments and includes 387 faculty members who have the right to vote on campus. ``We are concerned that the lack of sufficient explanation of what has happened has led to widespread speculation and continued attacks on specific individuals, and we are calling for a state in which discussions can be based on explanations rather than speculation.''
The lack of transparency that was questioned in the previous selection process
In addition, faculty and staff volunteers can submit a request...
Open Questions
- How will the selection committee respond to the written request?
- Will the details of the selection criteria be made public?
