The universities like to call it their "Third Mission", a bit pompous: apart from research and teaching, they feel obliged to exchange ideas with "civil society".
However, if you want to meet this requirement, you should also allow society to participate in the process of determining who is ultimately responsible for the dialogue with it.
Unfortunately, the Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences only did this to a limited extent before and after its recent presidential election: the press office could not elicit much more than the name, curriculum vitae and a few standard sentences from the election winner.
Up to a certain point, it is understandable that universities are reluctant to provide information about anyone who is interested in their highest office.
Outsiders do not need to know anything about applications that are already formally unsatisfactory.
It is also sometimes difficult to find suitable aspirants for a position that is moderately well paid compared to managerial jobs in business.
One or the other applicant could fear that a failed candidacy would damage his reputation.
Universities have to endure controversies about applicants
But apart from the fact that this concern appears nonsensical on closer inspection: anyone who is willing to step up to the top of a public institution has to live with the fact that their qualifications are discussed in public before the vote is taken.
Universities have to endure controversies about applicants, which have often arisen at both Frankfurt University and Goethe University.
The universities pride themselves on their autonomy.
It manifests itself in the fact that its presidents are elected and not appointed like heads of authorities.
However, this closeness to the democratic-political procedure also entails an obligation to transparency, and this should include at least making those candidates publicly known who will face the vote of the university senate after the pre-selection.
Frankfurt University should change its sometimes contradictory electoral regulations so that secrecy about the presidential election is no longer possible.
Or better not talk about dialogue with citizens in the future.