When former University President Jim Ryan abruptly announced his resignation this summer, it kicked off a wave of community protests. Yet, the real lesson is not that this turmoil was about one individual — it was the predictable result of a governance system that persistently sidelines students. By historically and consistently disenfranchising student voices, the University stripped itself of a stabilizing mechanism in its moment of uncertainty. The Student Council’s subsequent resolution of no confidence in the Board of Visitors — which called for transparency and student involvement in the presidential transition — underscored a larger problem. So long as students’ power is limited to an advisory role in the administration, governance at the University will remain fragile. This must be rectified.
At the University, the student voice is too often relegated to performative and student-facing committees. Student Council serves uniquely as the primary vehicle through which students can engage in dialogue with the administration on University governance. Historically, the Council has played a key role in shaping University life — for example, successfully mobilizing influential public protests that convinced then-University President Edgar Shannon to publicly call for an end to the Vietnam War. Today, it excels in organizing events, allocating the Student Activities Fee and raising concerns about dining hall quality.
However, when it comes to pulling institutional levers, Student Council is relegated to rubber-stamp status. Representatives may draft policy recommendations and research reports only to see their “input” summarily overridden by appointed, technocratic senior administrators. Though Council members meet with the administration and often sit on advisory committees, they have no formal vote on the Board — a stark reminder of how student disenfranchisement is baked into the system.
The Board further reflects this imbalance. Although there is a designated student representative, that role carries no vote and is restricted to being a nonvoting member by state law. This ensures that even when students gain access to the highest level of governance, they lack the authority to amend, block or ratify decisions that shape their own University experience. The consequences of this are a student government that looks impressive on paper, but is fundamentally stripped of any meaningful mandate to enforce its ideals or insert itself into policies that directly affect students.
This institutional power imbalance was laid bare in the aftermath of Ryan’s resignation. In response to the concern and confusion it sparked across Grounds, Student Council passed a non-binding resolution requesting to be included in the search for a new president. Yet, despite their careful and respectful position — contrasting notably with the Faculty Senate’s more assertive stance — the final composition of the presidential search committee failed to reflect even Student Council's more modest requests for genuine student representation.
This goes to show how little weight their voice carries in moments of crisis. Frustrated by this exclusion, the Council formally passed a vote of no confidence in the Board — which itself will have no impact. Disenfranchisement means that at the very moment student leadership was most needed, their input could be dismissed without consequence, fueling instability instead of guiding the University through transition.
Reversing this chronic disempowerment means overhauling the laws that restrict students to this position. This requires coordinated challenges at every level of the government. The University and its alumni must work with state representatives to challenge the statute which relegates students to a non-voting role on the Board. Currently, Democrats in the Virginia Senate have launched challenges to contest Governor Youngkin’s appointments, securing a circuit court ruling that removed several appointees. By leveraging this momentum and mobilizing bipartisan support, we can spotlight the suppression of student voices at our University.
Looking at institutions of higher education across the world, this sort of change should be entirely feasible. At many universities in Europe, for example, co-governance is a guiding principle. In Austria, student union membership is obligatory, ensuring students have a level of influence over their university’s governance. And at most universities in the United Kingdom, elected student representatives sit on governance councils, affecting everything from tuition hikes to campus sustainability. In contrast, our Board’s charter still bars students from binding decision-making, reducing their role to token consultation. This exclusionary framework practically invites crises by leaving students without a formal recourse when decisions go against them.
In hindsight, the marginalization of student voices made the crisis that was Ryan’s resignation all but inevitable — and that realization must guide our next steps. If our governance structure leaves students out on the curb, we invite future shake ups and Groundswide disillusionment. By contrast, a truly resilient university embeds student voices at its core through greater autonomy and the authority to hold its leadership to account. Only through these measures can we close the doors to disenfranchisement, before it opens up another controversy and further isolates students from this institution.
Muhammad Ali Rashid is a senior opinion columnist who writes about student self governance for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
KING: Why are Virginia Democrats the only ones defending Virginia’s authority?
By Michael King | 2 days agoThe time has come for the Governor and Attorney General to stop abandoning their duty to defend Virginia.
A statement on the U.Va. presidential leadership transition by Ubunye
By Ubunye | 2 days agoHaving six Black persons is an unexpected improvement over past search committees of this stature and importance.
EDITORIAL: Back to Grounds, and back to repairing institutional credibility
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWith these recommendations, we wish the University a great and good academic year — a year which will take significant administrative repair to heal this institution after some of its darkest hours.
