The University of Michigan Board of Regents has announced the selection of C. Cebele Raver as the next president of U-M. A formal vote will be taken on September 1. Raver, a developmental psychologist, is currently provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at Vanderbilt University.

I’m breathing a sigh of relief, as I did a few months ago when the Board selected Kent Syverud — who then, sadly, had to withdraw following a diagnosis of brain cancer. Compared to the previous two searches, which resulted in one unsatisfactory appointment followed a few years later by a disastrous appointment, the selection of Syverud and now Raver suggests that the Regents have finally gotten into the right ballpark. There is much that is promising about Raver. Vanderbilt is an academic peer, albeit a private one. As provost, she expanded its academic programs and solidified its academic standing. She is herself a highly accomplished researcher. And, it could be good to have again a social scientist at the head of the University, following a string of biological and biomedical scientists. She has in many respects shown herself to be a strong leader and administrator, one who engages in good faith with faculty even on matters of difficulty and dissent.

So, I am hopeful. But I do have some questions.

Vanderbilt has been relatively accommodationist when it comes to Trump 2.0, declining to engage in confrontation with the Administration. (One important exception: Raver signed onto the lawsuit opposing Trump’s efforts to cap indirect costs on NIH grants at 15%.) Vanderbilt has actively cultivated relationships with Washington rather than treating Trump as an adversary. It was one of nine universities chosen by Trump to participate in the so-called “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” and unlike seven others, it refused to reject the compact. It did not sign the compact, but it did treat it as a basis for ongoing dialogue with the government (as did UT-Austin). And, it is worth noting that Vanderbilt has an official “institutional neutrality” policy — something that I find problematic, for reasons that I can go into another time. While the university has been staunch in its defense of academic freedom and freedom of speech, I’m not sure it has as capacious a view of their scope as I do.

Though, I must say, while Raver strongly supported Vanderbilt’s ejection of pro-Palestinian student protestors from the administration building, with the arrest of some and ultimate expulsion of three, she also publicly defended the university’s decision to permit a weeks-long Pro-Palestinian encampment. Unlike at U-M, there was no forcible removal of the encampment; it simply dissipated at the end of the academic year.

So, what to make of all this? Raver is not the architect of these approaches and policies, but it seems clear that she has actively supported and enforced them. In some ways, Vanderbilt’s approach to Trump 2.0 is not unlike U-M’s — although it has been more visible. U-M has largely flown under the radar and has not suffered much in the way of direct assault by Trump & Co. — though it has, sadly, been preemptively accommodating on some very important matters. Are we to take Raver’s appointment as a signal from the Regents that what’s coming will be more of the same? Is that to be hoped for under these difficult circumstances, or is it the slow erosion of fundamental U-M values?

To be sure, a person’s performance as provost is not a pure predictor of performance as president — and what we get might not be what the Regents think we are going to get. The roles of president and provost are quite different. Raver will surely evolve and develop her own leadership philosophy as she learns U-M. And, though it seems unlikely she will be a Robben Fleming — also appointed president at a very challenging time — perhaps she will prove to be a leader of genuine vision and courage. Godspeed to her.