The selection of trustees for the University of Illinois requires not only a change in the political process but a change in the state's political heart.

The irony surrounding the scandal over politicized admissions at the University of Illinois and the prominent role that UI trustees play in it is that the practice of appointing trustees was supposed to be a solution to what had become a politicized process of electing trustees.

In the mid-1990s, former Gov. Jim Edgar supported the transition from elected to appointed trustees and then did his part by appointing solid citizens to serve on the UI board.

Then came George Ryan, now serving a sentence in federal prison, and Rod Blagojevich, soon to be serving a sentence in federal prison. It was too common for their appointed trustees to give first loyalty to the person who appointed them and view the UI as a means of furthering their personal and political interests.

So let's be realistic when people start talking about how to organize a board of trustees that will be insulated from politics. Any solution will only be as good as the people seeking trustee appointments and the political managers who oversee that process, be it a statewide election, elections by region, continued appointments by the governor or some combination of appointments and elections.

It would seem, however, that the current system of gubernatorial appointment must be abandoned, not out of concern about the prospective appointments of Gov. Pat Quinn but out of concern over who will come after Quinn, be it two years or 10 years from now.

Former UI President James Stukel described this week how things started to go wrong when Gov. Ryan appointed former state legislator Gerald Shea, a Chicago wheeler-dealer and consummate political insider, to the UI board. It was no secret that Stukel and Shea did not see eye to eye about how the UI should be run and that the disagreement was one of the motivating factors in Stukel's decision to retire.

But Stukel elaborated on that disagreement in his testimony before the Mikva commission, characterizing Shea's approach as a legislative model in which trustees run the institution instead of establishing the policies under which the president runs the institution.

"Just another state agency" is how Stukel said Shea viewed the UI, and it's pretty clear how many of Illinois' less reputable politicians view state government. To them, it's a chicken to be plucked, a tool to be used to reward friends with jobs, contracts and admissions.

The public can see clearly where that approach has led. It has disgraced the UI.

That may seem a stretch to some. But ordinary people have no problem understanding the consequences of politicized admissions, which in this case means special treatment for those with powerful patrons on the board or in state government.

That's why the UI's reputation is tarnished and must be rebuilt. It cannot be done without top people on the board, people who understand their role and won't be tempted to overstep their bounds. Clearly, a change in the board's structure is necessary. But there is no magic bullet.