 "Photo: N/A")
The chairman of the North Carolina State University Board of Trustees recently resigned from his job for what appears to be a conflict of interest concerning the hiring of Mary Easley, the former governor’s wife, for a $170,000 per year salaried position.
Specifically, attention has been called to a conversation between Campbell and the University provost, who appears to have shunned both taking responsibility and offering comment, regarding Ms. Easley’s hiring for the job. This situation calls attention to several interesting issues at hand.
When your job responsibilities give you influential powers such as deciding high-figure budgets, assigning six-figure jobs, or controlling enormous quantities of money, certain freedoms are given up in the name of fairness.
Equal opportunity and meritocracy are both names we use to label this idea of fairness, that is, the idea that jobs are earned solely on the basis of pertinent and professional and criteria and that no other factors influenced a decision to hire a certain person.
Of course, the most common factors that have perverted this fairness in the past, or at least tainted the ability for a situation to be beyond suspicion are personal relationships between people who also hold related business positions.
This is called a conflict of interest. The application of such an idea can even be seen in Goodwill’s policy whereby store employees are not allowed to shop at their store, so as to give fair opportunity for anyone and everyone to have access to the same low priced goods.
In an academic setting, where it is hoped that people are more aware and sensitive to caustic imbalances of power and opportunity, which are the result of unjust (especially racist and sexist) institutionalized systems from the past, a special emphasis is placed on preserving this ideal of meritocracy.
A trustee’s job is inexorably influential to a chairman, so in a way there is no ‘casual passing mention’ about a friend’s wife’s job application.
While resigning, Mr. Campbell asserts that the Ms. Easley’s hiring process was free from any inappropriate influence.
However, just as one can do harm by shouting fire in a crowded theatre while no fire is actually present, similarly one can unhinge a professional hiring process by simply having a conversation about interested parties at an inappropriate time.
Though it may seem paranoid, as people will fear a fire without seeing flames or smoke, so will people fear unfair favoritism at the ‘mere’ presence of a conversation. Suspicion is corrosive, and both the trustee chairman and the provost (though he claims he does not specifically recall such a conversation about Ms. Easley), are responsible in their positions to avoid behavior that could reasonably create suspicion.
1 comments