Job Posting: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
North Carolina's flagship public research university has opened a search for its next University Ombuds and Director of the University Ombuds Office. The full-time position reports directly to the Chancellor and serves faculty, staff, students, administrators, and postdoctoral scholars across the university. The position is expected to begin in October 2026 and succeeds Dawn Osborne-Adams, who served as University Ombuds from 2018 until earlier this year. The successful candidate will join Josh Canzona, who is serving as Interim Ombuds, and Victoria Dowd, Assistant University Ombuds and Program Specialist.
Applicants must have an advanced degree and at least three years of related professional experience, although candidates with a bachelor's degree and additional experience will also be considered. Preferred qualifications include a terminal degree, five years of professional experience, and a strong understanding of the Ombuds role, higher education environments, conflict resolution principles, and formal institutional processes. Applications are due August 5, 2026. No compensation indicated. (UNC Posting.)
A recent anonymous comment on this post raised concerns about the use of interim appointments in higher education searches and the possibility that some external candidates may be reluctant to apply for positions when an internal candidate is serving in the role on an interim basis.
ReplyDeleteI chose not to publish the comment because it included speculation about the integrity of this particular search process that was not supported by publicly available information. The Ombuds Blog welcomes discussion and differing viewpoints, but I generally avoid publishing anonymous allegations about specific institutions or individuals.
That said, the broader issue of interim appointments and perceptions about internal candidates in higher education hiring is a legitimate topic for discussion. If the commenter wishes to resubmit a revised version focused on those broader issues rather than on this specific search, I would be happy to consider it for publication.
Thank you Tom. Commenters on this blog continue to disappoint. But they are also good reminders of the qualities that make bad ombuds. Nothing says "don't hire me" and "don't ever trust me to be your ombuds" like making accusatory, malicious, speculative, corrosive, and unsupported allegations without evidence. Conspiracy podcaster, yes. Ombuds, hard no.
DeleteWow, "included speculation about the integrity of this particular search process that was not supported by publicly available information" is a far cry from " malicious, speculative, [and] corrosive."
DeleteNot a far cry at all. Jumped to conclusions without evidence and made it personal, hence the reason the comment wasn’t published. I agree with the first commenter. Inappropriate and unbecoming of an Ombuds.
DeleteThose of us at the University of California recently updated our collective Declaration of Best Practices document and added some new language around interim appointments (See https://ombuds.ucr.edu/sites/default/files/2026-06/uc-best-practices-final-third-version-may-2026.pdf, https://ombuds-blog.blogspot.com/2026/06/university-of-california-ombuds-update.html). UNC Chapel Hill appears to be following a process very similar to what we recommended as best practice.
ReplyDelete