The University of Virginia is nothing without self-governance, but self-governance means nothing without integrity. We pride ourselves on this tradition, which serves as a cornerstone upon which our vibrant student life is built. However, the events before, during and after the recent Class of 2016 presidential and vice presidential elections have not just challenged this idea but have also compromised our perceptions of student self-governance’s functionality.
The president and vice president of each class are entrusted with the responsibility of carrying out the mission of Class Councils. The Class of 2016 President and Vice President-elect, Andrew Kwon and Donald Fryar, have demonstrated through their selection process for the Class of 2016’s Trustees that carrying out this mission necessitates more accountability.
From the beginning of the election process, Kwon and Fryar’s actions signalled the need for better checks and balances in Class Council processes. Questionable tactics were used, with persistent personal contact with individual class members on multiple platforms — including text and Facebook messages — creating undue pressure to support or keep silent about endorsements (particularly those supporting the opposition). As candidates seeking office, Kwon and Fryar should have encouraged open dialogue and class participation. Instead, this intimidation led to asymmetrical information for the rest of the class. Unprofessional behavior like this that went unquestioned during the election process laid the foundation for later, more drastic, compromising actions.
Kwon and Fryar’s tenure began with the most important function of the president and vice president: selecting Trustees. This is both an opportunity and responsibility to craft an inclusive and cohesive governing body. We went into this selection process with concerns, which we shared with the Alumni Association and Office of the Dean of Students. These concerns were that past experience on Class Council would be overlooked by candidate allegiances during the election, leading us to search for a mechanism to hold the recently elected leaders accountable in making fair, unbiased decisions. The Trustees’ Constitution states, “The authority of the organization of Trustees shall be derived… under the auspices of the Alumni Association… [and] shall be governed by the rules and regulations of the University as administered by the Office of Dean of Students,” yet no accountability has been enforced. The Alumni Association, given student self-governance, is limited to an “active advisory role,” required by Trustees’ special status organization agreement, failing to provide the power for any advisor or faculty to intervene and prevented further student actions.
The general return rate from Third Year Council to Trustees is 50 percent, from First to Second Year Council is 51 percent, and from Second Year to Third Year is roughly 60 percent. Under the judgement of Kwon and Fryar, the Trustees will have a return rate of a mere 29 percent.
Following the release of the Trustees decisions, one of us was selected to serve on Trustees while the two of us who were not selected sought to meet with Kwon and Fryar to discuss their reasoning for our dismissals. Rather than cite specific aspects of our applications or interviews, both of our actions and previous Council experiences were generalized as a mere baseline, as they said it would not be fair to consider past Council involvement when not all applicants had prior experience on Council. When one of us asked Kwon and Fryar for clarification, no reference was made to past Council contributions and commitment; instead Kwon’s response focused on demographic categories as an obstacle, saying the large pool of white, female Commerce students constituted a competitive category.
Historically, the University has been blessed with student leaders who embody and act with integrity and responsibility both as students and agents of the University. We trust our leaders, as peers, to make decisions for the betterment of the student body. However, when we elect leaders who make questionable decisions and the existing checks and balances in the Constitution fail to mitigate these decisions, we must re-equip the current accountability measures to ensure fairness and integrity. We are now faced with an unprecedented situation, which warrants an unprecedented response.
In its current capacity, student self-governance only protects the governing and not those being governed. It is a system put into place to empower all students; however, it is also exactly what is currently preventing any action and accountability that we, students, seek. If measures written in a Constitution cannot be interpreted and enforced now, what purpose do they really serve? In the absence of student leaders who exemplify honesty and integrity, what is there to protect the tenets of student self-governance and individual students themselves?
We urge our readers to consider this a call to action: we must not sit by idly while our leaders violate the very principles on which our school was founded. This year’s elections should serve as a catalyst for much needed reforms, including the creation of student-run ethics boards and reincorporation of the Trustees Constitution’s guidelines in Trustees matters. It is time to create a system of accountability that stops the current injustice and, more importantly, prevents it in the future.
Jasmine Chiu, Meredith Markwood and Lauren Russell are third-years in the Batten School, the Commerce School and the College, respectively. They all served on Third Year Council, and Chiu will serve as a Trustee for the 2015-16 academic year.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 9 hours agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
