With the selection of the next KAIST president unresolved for more than a year, students demanded a responsible explanation and apology from the board of directors.
The KAIST undergraduate student council and the graduate student council issued a joint statement on the 6th, urging the board for an official explanation and apology regarding the recent rejection of the presidential appointment plan, swift follow-up selection procedures, and an overhaul of the overall presidential selection system.
Earlier, on the 26th, the KAIST board put to a vote whether to appoint the next president from among three people: current President Lee Kwang-hyung, KAIST electrical engineering professor Kim Jeong-ho, and former Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) President Lee Yong-hoon. However, the motion was ultimately rejected as no one won a majority.
This is the first time in the 55 years since KAIST was founded that a presidential appointment plan has failed to pass the board. In particular, observers noted that the decision came after more than a year of ongoing selection procedures following the recommendation of a three-person shortlist in Feb. last year, further fueling turmoil on campus.
The student council stressed that the situation cannot be seen as a mere procedural issue. In the statement, the student council said, "This rejection, handed down amid a presidential election delay that has already lasted a year, is by no means light," and expressed concern that "the leadership vacuum at KAIST, which should lead the science and technology field, could be further prolonged."
The student council also criticized the board for betraying the trust of campus members by rejecting the plan without a convincing explanation. It added that the board must clearly disclose to the community on what basis it made its decision and how it will proceed with follow-up steps.
The students' demands fall into three main categories. First, they called for a detailed explanation of how the rejection of the presidential appointment plan came about and an official apology to campus members; second, for swiftly continuing the selection process to minimize damage from the leadership vacuum; and third, for fixing the presidential selection system, which has been criticized as closed, to create a transparent system that reflects the views of campus members.
The two student councils reiterated, "A decision without explanation cannot be considered a responsible judgment," and emphasized, "The board must clearly present the reasonable grounds for this decision and its future measures to the campus community."