The University community began last semester clouded by uncertainty, with an interim University president, interim provost, interim CEO of U.Va. Health and an illegitimate Board of Visitors. This semester has traded the instability of Board vacancies for the entrenchment of politicization at the University. Recently, Gov. Abigail Spanberger unprecedentedly pressured five members of the Board of Visitors to step down — including former Rector Rachel Sheridan and former Vice Rector Porter Wilkinson — and appointed 10 new members.
In some ways, Spanberger fulfilled pleas from the University community to fill Board vacancies. However, this anticipated moment of internal stability failed to materialize, and was instead spoiled by political maneuvering from the Spanberger administration — ousting five members and appointing 10, rather than simply filling five vacancies, does not stabilize the University’s governance. Indeed, this University requires a steady, legitimate Board to navigate difficulties ahead. But to inspire a productive future, the community must acknowledge the flaws of this Board transformation in order to hold future governors accountable to the deleterious forces of political overreach.
Since July of last year, our Board has dealt with unfathomable turmoil intensified by political interests, from negotiations with the Department of Justice to the forced removal of former University President Jim Ryan. Specifically, regarding the operation of the Board, political dissension with the Virginia General Assembly led to the rejection of five of former Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s Board appointees. Operating with only 12 members over the past months, several stakeholders disputed the Board’s legitimacy and compliance with Virginia law. Despite the spectrum of perspectives about this tumultuous period, many in the University community held a common hope — for stability manifested through the fulfillment of vacancies on the Board.
Although Spanberger called for depoliticization, her recent actions have undermined this promise. The pressured removal of five members of the Board divided the University community along partisan lines once more. In effect, this demand led to precisely the partisan animosity this Editorial Board hoped Spanberger’s election would prevent. Of course, it is Spanberger’s responsibility to fill the vacancies on the Board, and appointing 10 new individuals will give the Board the statutorily-required amount of members for the first time since last summer. But this responsibility does not provide her with a mandate to manufacture a Board majority largely aligned with her own political interests — pressuring resignations in an unprecedented manner, antithetical to the autonomy of the University.
Of course, former Rector Sheridan and former Vice Rector Wilkinson have a well-documented history of alleged misconduct, and it would be foolish to turn a blind eye to those details in the wake of their resignations. Yet, it must also be noted that these requested resignations were done strategically. By pressuring the resignation of five Board members, Spanberger gained the ability to unilaterally appoint her own majority of appointed members and further her own perspective for higher education. Although it is the responsibility of Spanberger to fill vacancies, it should not be within her remit to make seismic political changes to University governance.
Looking forward to the Board’s unending list of University affairs to manage, one of the most pressing issues facing the new Board is the election of a rector and vice rector. These officials lead the Board’s Executive Committee, which acts in place of the full Board between its quarterly meetings and is vested with all the powers of the full Board. From determining salaries to fixing the cost of tuition for students, the Executive Committee makes crucial University decisions, all under the watchful eye of the rector. To its credit, the Board has suggested that a Special Committee meeting will be held soon to elect these members. As the new members take office, the Board must work to restore trust within the University community and prioritize our University’s mission over political differences.
In light of these concerns of stability, it is incumbent upon Spanberger to recognize the error of her ways by pressuring the resignation of these five members, and for the Board to progress with a focus on institutional autonomy and collaboration with incoming leadership and the University community. To that end, a governor who fulfills necessary duties in filling vacancies — and who leaves the complicated disputes of this institution’s future to the stakeholders within it — will tread a path towards stability.
The Cavalier Daily Editorial Board is composed of the Executive Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the two Opinion Editors, two Senior Associates and an Opinion Columnist. The board can be reached at eb@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
Faculty commend Spanberger’s appointments to Board
By Lauren Seeliger and Luca Bailey | 1 hours agoFaculty also shared their hopes for what this new Board will accomplish, with most saying they hope the Board will prioritize active engagement with community members in the future.
OLIVER: Where are our standards?
By Seamus Oliver | YesterdayEven those critical of the process that appointed him have admitted Beardsley’s considerable fundraising ability, but does he check any other box?
Flu cases are on the rise in a severe seasonal outbreak
By Michael Racz | YesterdayAccording to the Flu Tracker on the Student Health and Wellness website, as of Jan. 24 there have been over 40 diagnosed cases of influenza at Student Health and Wellness since the start of the semester.
