Students are encouraged to embrace the concept of self-governance from the moment they arrive on Grounds. It is an ideal that is purportedly at the heart of the University’s mission. Although the institution’s administration is composed of adults, it is the students — particularly undergraduates — who are supposed to be the underlying force for change. In essence, students, not administrators, are meant to guide the University’s path.

For all the lip service given to this principle, the current condition of student self-governance is not especially robust. University administrators should do whatever is possible to foster the ideal, but the ultimate burden to sustain this tradition falls upon students. And though tradition is a word that makes some of the University’s more progressive students cringe, the true nature of student governance requires leaders that are in fact forward-thinking, perceptive and independent.

History demonstrates the potential for student leadership to accomplish impressive feats. In the early 1970s, for example, the University’s growing student population was causing a shortage of study space on Grounds. One morning in 1973, an adept Student Council president named Larry Sabato arranged a tour of Alderman Library for several members of Virginia’s General Assembly to witness the overcrowding firsthand. What the legislators did not know, however, was that Sabato also had convinced a large number of students to crowd the library that same day. The tour persuaded legislators of the need for a new library on Grounds, and construction began on Clemons Library several years later.

Naturally, applying this principle of bold student governance to contemporary efforts on Grounds proves more challenging. For instance, Council this year had to commence the difficult groundwork of building a more stable relationship with the student body. Speak Up UVA, an online forum devised by Council’s Chief Technology Officer William Reynolds, is a promising tool for this task, creating a closer-knit community between students and their leaders. The significance of such an accomplishment should not be overlooked; if Council maintains its responsiveness to student concerns via that forum, it can galvanize its own ranks and the student body in general to take on a greater role in shaping the University’s future.

Of course, the burden of student self-governance does not fall solely upon Council’s shoulders. Many organizations, including the Honor Committee, the University Judiciary Committee and Greek organizations are expected to develop insightful student leaders. Students involved in such groups form something of a prominent culture on Grounds because of their visible roles in the University community. There is, however, a difference between those who take the charge of student leadership seriously, who seek to rise above the rest in their energy and power to make the University a thriving institution, and those who simply desire the social distinction that comes with reputable offices and organizations. Only one of these two types of people fits the mold of a leader.

This empowerment of student self-governance does not mean a rift should form between student leaders and administrators. The two should see themselves as partners working toward the University’s long-term goals and ambitions. That relationship has become too one-sided, however, and student leaders must protect their autonomy if they wish to contribute meaningfully to this institution’s future.

Tasks like passing commemorative resolutions and adjusting by-laws are not without merit, but they do not invoke the full force of self-governance. Students will generally admire one of their peers for leading a prominent organization on Grounds, but those accolades are fleeting. In time, only truly exceptional effort and nerve will be remembered.

Choosing the University’s next president is serious business. So far, The Cavalier Daily has done well at keeping up with the process. Continuing that good work is about to get much more difficult. John “Dubby” Wynne, rector of the University’s Board of Visitors and chairman of the committee charged with finding the University’s eighth president, would not get into specifics when a reporter asked about what the committee discussed during its most recent meeting. “Everything is confidential from here on out,” he said.

The search for a new president will continue, according to Wynne, “until we find somebody who is superb. Then the Board of Visitors will choose that person and we will at that point announce who that person is.” Such secrecy doesn’t sound very Jeffersonian to me.

Wynne trotted out the tired old line that many people in his position have used: Candidates may be reluctant to have their interest in becoming president of the University become public for fear of losing whatever job they have now. Perhaps. But I wonder why the University would want a president too afraid or ashamed to say he or she is interested in the job.

Besides, choices made behind closed doors can keep important information from the public and the University community. And that can lead to bad choices. Not too many years ago, a Virginia university used a similarly secretive process to choose a president. That university’s trustees did not share with anyone outside their board room that the new president had serious health problems — problems that the trustees said had been resolved. The new president died less than two years after taking the office.

Near the beginning of the University’s search, the search committee released information that included a statement for R. William Funk, described as “the University’s consultant and a veteran of more than 300 presidential searches.” Funk told the committee that the presidential opening at the University “has created more excitement and interest among higher education leaders than any in the last five years.”

“People understand how important your institution is to this country,” he said. “As we move through this process you will have the opportunity to consider some of the very best candidates in the nation.” The University has received nearly 200 nominations, according to what University spokeswoman Carol Wood told The Cavalier Daily, so apparently there is a good deal of interest in the University’s presidency. But there’s a long way to go before the committee gets that long list whittled down.

“This is all the preliminary,” Wood told The Cavalier Daily, “looking at who they believe should make it to move to a list of possible candidates.” So that gives the committee a good long time to reconsider this secrecy.

Such concealment is not uncommon among universities that consider themselves too important to be open, but that certainly doesn’t make it right. Many colleges and universities keep the selection process secretive until they’ve culled the list to a group of finalists. Often, three finalists are announced. They visit the university or college to meet with various constituencies and to give the board that will choose the president a chance to see how the candidates interact with those groups and how those groups react to the candidates. I’m not talking about covert discussions with small groups of handpicked representatives. I’m talking about public, town hall meeting style gatherings that often include folks from the surrounding community.

In recent months, New Mexico State University, Gallaudet University, and the University of Rhode Island announced finalists in their searches for new presidents. Does that mean people are willing to publicly declare their interesting in leading New Mexico State but a similar process at the University would scare candidates away? I mean no disrespect to New Mexico State when I say that’s absurd.

And I still wonder why the University would want a president too ashamed or afraid to publicly declare an interest in the job. If the candidates really are too timid to say they’re candidates, they may be too timid to effectively lead the University. Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act allows discussion of personnel matters such as these in closed meetings, but it doesn’t require any such secrecy. So the trustees are free to open up the process if they wish. But I don’t hold out much hope.

I noticed that the agenda for a recent search committee meeting said they were going into “executive session” to discuss presidential candidates. There’s no such thing as an executive session under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. Many years ago, legislators realized that was the wrong term for such secret sessions. The language in the law now is “closed meeting,” defined as a meeting from which the public is barred.

A public institution of the University’s standing and history should not be so secretive.

Tim Thornton is The Cavalier Daily’s ombudsman. His column appears Mondays.

I swore to myself my days of opining on University issues were over, but since I spent much of my last year with The Cavalier Daily criticizing the Honor Committee’s policies for Semester at Sea students, I think I ought to congratulate the Committee on finally righting this injustice. The amendment passed this week is not perfect, but it guarantees all students — even those on a boat — have the right to a jury of their peers, and for that, the Committee deserves praise.

Daniel Colbert
CLAS 2009
119th Executive Editor

I was part of a group that handed out a pro-life publication Tuesday and Wednesday, and I wanted to comment on something written on a flyer that I had put up. The flyer stated, “what about the baby’s choice?” I noticed an hour later that someone had crossed “baby” out and put above it “fetus/US citizenship.” I find it sad that people use the scientific term fetus to cover up the fact that there’s a living human within the womb. At 21 days the “fetus” has a beating heart, and muscles, arms, legs, eyes, are ears are all beginning to form. Scientifically it is not logical to claim that the baby inside of the womb isn’t alive or it doesn’t feel pain. I have a 14-month-old boy; when my wife was 9 weeks pregnant, we were able to see our son and hear his heartbeat and I still have a photo of the ultrasound on my fridge. Finally, the argument that you have a right to life because you are a U.S. citizen doesn’t make any sense. What about African-Americans 150 years ago? Our Supreme Court said they didn’t have the right to their freedom, and do you think that was okay? I certainly don’t! Our right to life and liberty isn’t determined by the state but by an inalienable right given by our Creator. Every person, especially the most vulnerable and innocent among us, should have the right to life and liberty.

Andrew McDowell
CLAS ‘05

As the gay marriage debate rages throughout the country, the Catholic Church has told the city council of the District of Columbia that they will no longer provide social services to the D.C. area in conjunction with the government if a proposed gay marriage law passes. The Catholic Church has worked with the D.C. government to provide care for the poor and the homeless for some years, but if city council passes a same-sex marriage law without an exemption for the Church to be able to discriminate against homosexuals, the Church will pull out of its contracts with the government. While the Church has every right to pull out of its contracts, this is a petty attempt by the religious institution to prevent the passage of a law acknowledging the civil rights of gays and lesbians by using the poor and the homeless as a bargaining chip. The D.C. City Council is right in its opposition to the influence of the Church and refusal to amend the legislation in such a way that would make the Church exempt from recognizing the civil rights of homosexuals.

It is important to note that the law would not require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. Things that the law does allow include making the Church extend medical benefits to and set up adoptions for homosexual couples. This is a problem for the Church because condemnation of homosexual intercourse is a main tenet of the Catholic tradition. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently released a letter stating that “gay marriage hurts society,” as well as expressing distress over the view that marriage is a private matter, and not an issue critical to the structure of a “healthy society.” The Church is currently receiving public money via their contracts with the District, and so they must comply with city ordinances. Due to its stance on homosexuality, the Church would find it impossible to go along with the laws of the city in this case and would find a need to pull out of its obligations. But to use its services for the poor and the homeless as a bargaining chip to gain support for exempting the Church from recognizing the civil rights of homosexuals is despicable.

The Church has argued its position from the stance of allowing for a conscientious objection to laws that the Church finds morally reprehensible. The problem with this is that the city is in no way forcing the Church to comply with something the Church finds morally reprehensible. The Church can pull out of their contracts with the city (without implicitly threatening the livelihood of the poor and the homeless in an attempt to sway the city council’s opinion) and avoid having to provide equal treatment to homosexuals, thus preserving the Church’s understanding of moral integrity. They can also maintain their contracts and provide equal treatment while continuing to chastise homosexuals from the pulpit. The religious freedom of the Church is not being curtailed by these laws. The laws are affirming the civil rights which homosexuals are entitled to by the 14th Amendment, that all people are entitled to receive equal protection under the law.

The problem here is that the Church finds certain practices, such as giving employee benefits to gay couples, to be immoral. In reality, these practices are civil rights. There are plenty of examples in American history of groups of people being denied their civil rights, the most obvious example being blacks. Fortunately, the D.C. City Council has realized that homosexuals cannot be treated any differently than any other segment of society just because of their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the Church has not reached that conclusion and thus they are choosing to use their influence on social services in D.C. to influence the government’s decision to uphold civil rights.

If the D.C. City Council were to bend to the Church’s ultimatum, it would set a terrible precedent. Groups that work with the city would have ground to stand on in order to receive any number of exemptions from any number of laws based on the fact that they find them unconscionable. Government funds would be used to discriminate against a specific group of people. The fact is that homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law, and thus the Church has no right to receive an exemption from laws ensuring against their discrimination. The Church has all the freedom it deserves in terms of being able to speak out against homosexuality and encouraging its members to vote against gay marriage and extending rights to homosexuals. But for the city council to allow the Church to blatantly discriminate against homosexuals would be a grave mistake. The City Council is in the morally correct and legally correct position in this instance, and if the Church wishes to continue its social services, it will have to either comply with city laws or find another means of helping the community.

Michael Khavari’s column appears on Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.khavari@cavalierdaily.com.