In the aftermath of Rector Helen Dragas’ attempted ouster of University President Teresa Sullivan last summer, one of the biggest questions University community members raised was whether or not the two would be able to work together effectively after Sullivan’s reinstatement. Some thought the animosity created by their conflict would impede Dragas’ and Sullivan’s professional relationship, but both leaders expressed optimism that they could reform a strong partnership.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. According to emails recently obtained by the Washington Post, Dragas in February gave Sullivan a list of 65 goals for the University and wanted action taken on all of them by the end of the academic year. Sullivan protested that such demands constituted “micromanagement” and pointed out that some goals were impossible to complete in the time allotted and another was not legally permitted. Sullivan felt, quite rightly, that she was being “set up to fail.”
Dragas has been an unpopular figure since the events of the past summer, but despite significant protests Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in July reinstated the rector for another four-year term on the Board. Dragas’ term as rector ends this June. She has made it clear that she is unwilling to step away from a university that largely dislikes her. But what Dragas must realize is that she cannot continue to act as if she has absolute power, like she did last summer, and expect positive outcomes. Dragas is both unwilling to admit she lost the battle of wills last summer and unable to shelve her pride and trust the woman who defeated her. But to salvage her legacy, she must do both.
The list of 65 goals Dragas sent to Sullivan speaks to the rector’s lack of understanding and belief in Sullivan. If Dragas had learned from last summer’s debacle, she would know Sullivan has too much faculty, student and community support to be toyed with in a disrespectful manner. And if Dragas respected Sullivan’s judgment, she would give Sullivan the leeway to choose her own priorities within larger areas of importance provided by the Board.
But Dragas seems to think that even though she was compelled to back down in June, she can act as if Sullivan is a puppet by dictating what her actions must be with an extreme level of detail rather than a broad strategic vision. Dragas seems to want to do the job of both rector and president, but all she has done is cause further embarrassment for herself and the University. The consequences of her open lack of respect for Sullivan’s capabilities made clear by her micromanagement have effects far beyond Sullivan herself. How many prospective students decided not to apply to the University after hearing about the ouster? And how many accepted students will think about her continued, public failures as they decide whether or not to become a Cavalier?
What Dragas needs is renewed credibility. She needs to demonstrate that she has been humbled, she is learning and she is willing to admit her mistakes and move beyond them. Renewing her credibility will require a lot of apologizing — to the student body, to the faculty, to her fellow Board members and especially to Sullivan. These apologies need to be public, strongly worded and full of remorse, not excuses. Apologizing will be embarrassing, but unlike her previous actions, it will only be embarrassing to her, not to the University she serves. And it will win her sympathy from the University community for the first time.
Once Dragas gains a little empathy from the community, she will be able to begin working to regain respect from the University. One way to win more respect from the University would be to publicly support Sullivan’s efforts to increase faculty salaries. If Sullivan and Dragas can mutually support an initiative to boost faculty retainment and recruit new professors of high quality, they will not only help address one of the biggest issues facing the University but also provide a feeling of stability and functionality that has been lacking since June. More importantly, what they do to solve the problem almost doesn’t matter as long as they do it together. Empowering Sullivan to be confident in her role as the face of the University would be beneficial to any fundraising or recruitment efforts, and that is something that Dragas can help accomplish.
Thomas Jefferson once said: “Pride costs us more than hunger, thirst and cold.” Dragas has a simple choice — let her pride lead her to be remembered as one of the most damaging figures in the history of the Board of Visitors, or be an example of a woman willing to put her pride away for the benefit of the University. I hope she makes Jefferson proud.
Forrest Brown is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. Contact him at f.brown@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | 20 hours agoBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | 5 days agoIn continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
