University of Tokyo President Selection: What Was the Faculty and Staff Vote For?
Takao Someya won a majority of ballots cast. The council chose Yuko Fujigaki.
The University of Tokyo chose Yuko Fujigaki as its president-designate, although Takao Someya won a majority in the faculty and staff preference vote. What does the gap reveal about trust in university governance?
Based on public information available October 1, 2026 (Japan time).
Faculty and staff voted one way; the selection council decided another. What, then, was the vote meant to decide?
What happened
On September 28, 2026, the University of Tokyo selected Professor Yuko Fujigaki as its president-designate. Subject to appointment by Japan's education minister, she is expected to serve as the university's 32nd president from April 2027 through March 2033. She would be its first woman president. Fujigaki researches science and technology studies and scientometrics; as an executive vice president, she was responsible for areas including student support and research ethics. University announcement
The preference vote held that day among eligible faculty and staff told a different story. In a second round among the top three candidates, Takao Someya received 1,107 votes, approximately 51.0 percent of the 2,169 ballots cast. Fujigaki received 553 votes, or about 25.5 percent, and Takashi Yamamoto received 451, or about 20.8 percent. There were 58 blank ballots. After considering the vote alongside candidate materials and interviews, the President Selection and Oversight Council chose Fujigaki. Official results and selection statement
| Second-round preference vote | Votes | Share of ballots cast |
|---|---|---|
| Takao Someya | 1,107 | About 51.0% |
| Yuko Fujigaki | 553 | About 25.5% |
| Takashi Yamamoto | 451 | About 20.8% |
| Blank ballots | 58 | About 2.7% |
This was not a direct election in which the leading candidate automatically became president. The final decision belongs to a council composed of eight members from outside the university and eight from within it. Its rules require the council to consider candidate submissions, recommendations, interviews, statements of intent and the preference vote as a whole. Choosing someone other than the vote leader is therefore not, by itself, evidence of a breach of the rules. Voting eligibility is limited to professors, associate professors and certain other faculty and managerial staff; students cannot vote. Selection process · Council rules · Eligibility rules
If the vote is advisory, why hold it?
Understanding the rules does not settle the question. Eligible employees took time to express a preference, and the leading candidate received a majority of ballots cast. When a council reaches a different conclusion, it owes the university an account of how it weighed that preference and what it considered more important.
The council cited Fujigaki's experience crossing disciplinary boundaries, her ability to improve communication inside and outside the university, and her capacity to rebuild trust in scholarship. Its previously published criteria also call for a president who can command broad support among members of the university and attend to consensus-building. The public statement explains what the council valued in Fujigaki. In this article's assessment, it does not make sufficiently clear which comparative consideration outweighed Someya's large lead in the vote. That assessment concerns the published explanation, not the council's confidential deliberations. Selection statement · Published criteria
At a news conference, council chair Yuko Kuniya said she expected criticism but did not think the discrepancy would cause a major problem; she described the vote as one source of evidence in the selection. Fujigaki said she wanted to strengthen communication with those inside the university whom her message had not yet reached. The University of Tokyo Newspaper's account of the news conference
Between a vote and an expert judgment
A university president must make decisions about finances, research conditions, student support and academic freedom. There are reasons to evaluate candidates through more than a ballot. Yet even a carefully constituted selection council needs the trust of the people who will work under its decision.
The philosopher Jürgen Habermas offers a useful lens through his emphasis on public reasoning and discussion. His theory concerns political democracy and law; it does not directly prescribe how a university should choose its president. Still, it draws attention to a practical point: a decision gains legitimacy when those affected can examine the reasons for it, raise objections and receive an answer. Publishing vote totals begins that conversation. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, excerpt
Fujigaki's expected appointment as the university's first woman president is historic. Kuniya said gender was not a subject of the council's deliberations. That milestone and questions about the process can both be taken seriously. News conference coverage
What the university should explain next
The public does not need every confidential detail from the candidate interviews. It does need to understand the weight assigned to the preference vote, the criteria that led the council to choose differently despite the vote margin, and how Fujigaki's promised dialogue will give students and employees without voting rights a meaningful role in university decisions.
If participants come to believe that their vote cannot affect a decision, future invitations to take part will ring hollow. Those who welcome the outcome and those who question it alike need an explanation they can examine. The deeper question is how a university turns the voices of its members into accountable decisions.
Question for readers: When a selection council chooses someone other than the candidate backed by a majority of ballots cast, what explanation would make its decision acceptable to you?