WHEN THE class of 2008 moved into first-year dorms just a year ago, things at the University were different. New students had their first taste of ice milk at the old O-Hill. Most of them had never even heard of thefacebook. And the administration was focusing on one important legislative priority -- the Charter -- which would give the University more autonomy in exchange for less state funding and would revolutionize our community's relationship with the Commonwealth.
As the Class of 2009 moves in now, a new dining facility pumps out ice milk in style. Incoming first years swarmed the facebook before they had set foot in a class. And the administration is focusing on one important legislative priority -- "restructuring" -- which would give the University more autonomy in exchange for less state funding and would revolutionize our community's relationship with the Commonwealth.
Well, perhaps not all things change.
Last year, the University administration -- along with the administrations of Virginia Tech and William & Mary -- invested immense amounts of energy into pushing for the passage of the Charter initiative. It was the most significant legislative effort by a U.Va. administration in recent memory. Yet one year later, all the same points remain on the table. How did this happen?
Essentially, it happened by the administration losing. Few people disputed the central notion of the Charter -- that the University should have more control over its own procurement, capital projects and procedures, especially in an era of declining state funding for higher education. However, the draft proposal the University and its two partners submitted went further than that. Two issues in particular created controversy: the proposals to remove University staff from the state worker roles and take their compensation and benefits out of state hands as well as the proposal to grant the Board of Visitors the power to raise tuition without legislative consent while not requiring financial aid increases.
Taking away regulation of a public university's labor and tuition from elected officials was a radical proposition and the administration proposed it to the state without significant community input. The labor and tuition provisions formed only a part of a larger mosaic of proposed reforms, but they ended up spawning skepticism, bringing down the Charter and bringing us the Higher Education Restructuring Act instead.
At a teach-in hosted by Charter skeptics last November, Religion Prof. Corey Walker asked, "How can we effectively respond to [the Charter] when the framework for our response has already been dictated to us?" How was the University community supposed to respond to two such radical proposals when the administration's consultation with the community consisted mostly of President John T. Casteen, III asking workers to trust him and administrators reminding students that tuition would go up anyway?
The administration's failure to engage the community in regards to the Charter issue had led to a proposal that was aggressively opposed in many quarters, instead of a proposal that focused on the common ground that most people did share about the purpose of the Charter. While a moderate bill could have united the University behind autonomy, a bill devised behind Madison Hall's closed doors divided the University and the General Assembly alike.
The final days of a General Assembly session are always stormy as legislators scramble to finish their business, and during this rush last year the Charter was finally scuttled on the rocks. Despite the three schools' efforts, skepticism had taken root in Richmond, and the General Assembly nixed the Charter and instead passed the Higher Education Restructuring Act.
The Restructuring Act, instead of granting the University and other schools more autonomy outright, establishes three basic levels of autonomy and allows schools to apply for them by submitting proposals to the state. The state and the university can then enter into a long-term agreement, subject to the university's pursuit of certain general goals set by the state. Failure to achieve on those benchmarks at any time allows the General Assembly to scratch the plan. Essentially, the Restructuring Act established a framework for negotiation and agreement and left all the real issues for another day.
So this year we face the same issues again, largely due to the administration's failure to include the community last time around or to moderate itself in the face of opposition. This year, the University has already been talking restructuring to the state, but they must include another crucial party: the community. This time discussion should occur before the administration submits a draft plan, not after.
And when the University does submit a plan, they must have a modest proposal, founded on the broad common ground and shared aspirations held by our community, not upon a controversial vision that many oppose. Otherwise, the only skepticism that will melt away is first-years' virgin wariness of ice milk.
Mike Slaven is a Cavalier Daily Opinion editor. He can be reached at mslaven@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 7 hours agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
