William H. Goodwin, Vice Rector of the Board of Visitors, was recently appointed the Co-Chair of Ed Gillespie’s campaign for the US Senate Seat in Virginia. Goodwin is an active participant in the political field not just through his actions, but through his donations: he has given more than a million dollars to political causes.
The Board of Visitors is composed of 17 voting members, 12 of which must be University graduates, who are appointed by the governor and then confirmed by the General Assembly. This means the governor has immense control over the selection process, resulting in a Board composed more of political players who want a cushy position than people qualified to make decisions about the University’s future. While Goodwin has given the most, all but two current members of the Board contributed to the campaigns of the governor who appointed them. And most of the membership has no background in higher education, because the selection process favors those who could make enough money to donate significant amounts to political campaigns. The result is a Board that doesn’t sufficiently understand or connect with the University’s students, faculty, or administrators. This disconnect leads to debacles like the attempted ouster of President Sullivan in the summer of 2012 or the elimination of all-grant aid through AccessUVa.
Some potential changes have already been suggested. A group of wealthy alumni have pushed for 8 of the 17 members to be selected by University alumni and supporters. This would probably improve the situation, but would still leave more than half the board composed of people who earned the position as a thank-you gift from someone whose job has no direct link to the University. And it would still leave students and the University administration without a voice in the process. A more fundamental change is necessary to fix the problem.
More voices need to be involved in the selection process. Separate panels of faculty and alumni could be formed to identify candidates for open positions, a pool which could also be contributed to by the President’s office and by the Student Council. The Governor could then choose members of the Board from among these options, which would be approved by the General Assembly, as they are now. This would allow the Governor to retain the final say in the selection process, but would remove the temptation to use the appointments as political rewards rather than as important selections to the future of education in Virginia. The diversity of groups contributing candidates would ensure the selection pool was varied and qualified, as each group would seek to nominate individuals who not only understand their unique concerns but are viable appointments for the governor. And the fact that every member of the Board would have been supported by either alumni, faculty, students or the president would keep the Board composed of people who understood the institution they were governing and the issues confronting it.
The last few years have been replete with examples of the Board of Visitors being out of touch with the University. By giving students, faculty and alumni a say in the composition of the University’s ruling body, that gap could be bridged, leading to a more cohesive vision for the future.
Forrest Brown is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at f.brown@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 19 hours agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
YOUNIS: The danger of dehumanizing language
By Ayat Younis | 5 days agoThe administration’s failure to condemn blatant discrimination exacerbates an impossible situation, fostering an atmosphere that misinterprets pro-Palestinian sentiments as support of terrorism.
