University of Colorado President Mark Kennedy announced his resignation earlier this week, marking both a low moment for CU and a cunning display of legerdemain on the part of the newly Democratic majority on the Board of Regents who worked feverishly to orchestrate this happenstance since he was first confirmed for the position.

It calls upon a special degree of naïveté to believe that this announcement was a matter of Kennedy experiencing some sort of “woke” epiphany, falling prostrate before his detractors, and stepping down on his own accord as some form of self-flagellating pittance. The fact is that he was pressured out by the hard-left majority that took over the Board in November, at the behest of the leftist throngs that were triggered by his mere existence since he took over. The fact that Kennedy has chosen to resign rather than scandalize the institution he has ably shepherded over the past difficult year is testimony to the immense personal stock of honor, decency, and loyalty that resides within him.

If Mark Kennedy did not have the confidence of the faculty and students at CU, that speaks more to the shortcomings of the faculty and students of CU than of Mark Kennedy.

Kennedy, despite the caterwauling of the left, was a top-tier candidate for the position of president, highly qualified in all respects, and has proven that since taking the helm. Setting aside his leadership of the institution during the year of COVID — successfully navigating hurdles for which no one could have prepared — Kennedy oversaw the second-most successful fundraising effort in the university’s history, increased enrollment, and strengthened CU’s relationship with aerospace and other high-tech sectors. There can be no serious question as to his performance.

Nor can one plausibly criticize him for insufficient commitment to diversity. In fact, if anything, one could argue that he overcorrected; it was Kennedy, after all, who hired a “chief diversity officer” and directed $5 million into something called the Inclusion, Diversity, and Excellence in Academics program. Reasonable minds can debate the necessity of all that, but they cannot deny that it was a concrete demonstration of fealty to the cause.

No, Kennedy’s sin was not one of performance, which ought to be the only criteria by which one in such a position is judged; his sin was being a conservative Republican. So, he was pushed out. Pushed, moreover, without cause, and without a plan for succession.

That is not, of course, how it is being presented by those who were opposed to his presidency by dint of his political beliefs, none of which had any bearing on the role of university president. Much is being made of the process by which he got there, as though it were the most corrupt system of selecting candidates this side of Tammany Hall or the Soviet Politburo (ironically, a criticism levelled by people who presumably would never have levelled much criticism toward either Tammany Hall or the Soviet Politburo back in the last century.)

An editorial in some obscure state publication calls for a more “open and transparent hiring process.” The same publication goes on to say that “the only way the public will be able to hold their elected officials accountable… is if they are provided with information about who the candidates are and what played into the decision making.”

Well, no, the way to hold elected officials accountable is… to not elect them if you feel they haven’t done their jobs. The editorial is taking aim not only at the previous CU Board of Regents, but a bill passed this legislative session, HB 1051 — an honestly bi-partisan bill, and one of the few passed which actually make good sense — which says that the identity and background of an applicant for a public executive position need not be made public until that applicant is a finalist. Previously, a public institution couldn’t name only a sole finalist, and had to publish the information of ALL of the potential finalists; causing predictable hesitation amongst qualified potential candidates who may not want it to become public that are looking for a new job.

And at any rate, why should such decisions be the purview of the public at large? Ought we to just put the presidency of CU up to a general plebiscite? Democracy has become the rod most generally used to beat those who demand higher standards. The Mobocracy has won this round, and one can only hope that Divine justice will find the talents of Mark Kennedy benefiting a more deserving institution.