This Editorial Board recently expressed optimism in Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D) plans for higher education's leadership and stability when HB 1385 arrived at Spanberger’s desk. This bill is designed to establish shared governance standards across Virginia’s universities through structural changes to Board of Visitors’ term lengths, among other transformations. Yet, rather than capitalizing on this critical moment, Spanberger introduced amendments that have significantly delayed the progress of this legislation with no transparency from the Governor’s office as to the addition of such material. The General Assembly has since rejected these amendments, but the consequences of these delays still remain — chiefly, the further postponement of vital legislation for the governance of higher education. Hesitating on this legislation without clear rationale or sustained advocacy for its passage reflects a grave departure from the urgency that University stakeholders feel is long overdue.
Saying is one thing, while actually doing is another — this distinction has become relevant in evaluating Spanberger’s governance over higher education. Indeed, this optimism in Spanberger’s leadership over higher education was first fostered during her campaign, which appealed directly to University stakeholders’ concerns about the persistent political turmoil. Spanberger consistently emphasized a renewed commitment to elevating shared governance above political self-interests. Shortly after being elected, Spanberger took the bold move — even before officially taking office — of sending a letter to the University’s Board of Visitors to delay the presidential search. Even further, in private, Spanberger urged Board members’ resignations to restore stability at a heightened moment of political turbulence. Spanberger introduced herself to Virginia as a decisive leader committed to restoring stability and strengthening governance. These recent developments, however, suggest a posture shift from the direct and decisive leader once recognized, to a hesitant and passive leader.
It is precisely the lack of clarity around the reasoning behind these amendments that makes Spanberger’s recent actions nonsensical. With HB 1385 sitting squarely at the finish line, waiting for nothing more than Spanberger's mark, she chose to introduce amendments that ultimately delayed its progress. The issue is not necessarily the amendments themselves, but rather, the fact that Spanberger lacked a clear public rationale for doing so. There may very well be substantive reasoning behind these changes — perhaps political nuances not understood by the average stakeholder within higher education. Nevertheless, absent any transparency, Virginia is left uncertain about the initiative behind these failed changes that did nothing more than delay the bill’s implementation.
Questions of governance, such as the product of these amendments or the legislation projected to guide higher education, are not abstract theoretical debates — they are immediate and consequential. This Editorial Board has spent the past year repeatedly covering the trajectory of failed University shared governance. Evident in a serious erosion of trust from the top-down, students and stakeholders alike put shared governance at the top of their priorities as a means of restoring institutional instability. By tendering these failed amendments and avoiding urgent, transparent action on a clear victory for Virginia’s higher education, it is no longer evident that Spanberger is aligned with these sentiments. Although institutional stability is built within the University, it is the confluence between the University community, its Board and the Virginia General Assembly which grounds meaningful reform. Thus, any diminishment of this relationship — including this sudden, unexpected delay — undermines the avenues through which higher education can be protected and strengthened.
One would think that, by delaying legislation through the creation of these amendments, Spanberger must have clearly defensible explanations for their significance. However, this obstructive action was compounded by reports of limited executive engagement in the General Assembly. As Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell noted in reflection of Spanberger’s amendments, “Typically, the governor's office is a lot more involved during the legislative process than this governor was.” If these amendments reflected a carefully articulated policy position, then their lack of apparent advocacy in the General Assembly raises further questions about Spanberger’s motivation to pass this legislation on behalf of impacted stakeholders. Spanberger is operating with a triumvirate of Democrats leading Virginia, yet fails to work closely together with the Democrat-majority General Assembly. If such amendments did not come from cohesive advocacy between the General Assembly and Governor’s Office, their addition becomes even less clear.
With the General Assembly having rejected these amendments, the decision now rests squarely with Spanberger — she can either sign the legislation as is or veto it. Given the urgency of restoring stability and advancing shared governance across Virginia’s universities, the path forward is clear. Spanberger should sign HB 1385 as is. This Editorial Board has already expressed its support for the bill and the promise it holds for the future of the University. Further delay through renewed executive inaction, would only deepen uncertainty around a reform effort that was once positioned as a defining priority of her administration.
Spanberger campaigned on, amongst other things, restoring stability, prioritizing shared governance and rejecting unnecessary partisanship in higher education. Those commitments resonated with voters and stakeholders alike, founded in an understanding of the urgency of these issues for Virginia’s universities in the past year. Upholding them now requires consistency, decisiveness and clarity that remains grounded in her expressed principles. If her administration is to maintain the trust it once inspired, it must follow through on its word above all else.
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
PARTING SHOT: Ends & Begins
By Leila Mohajer | 11 hours agoSo, in the face of struggle, I am opting to do what I have done and will continue to do as I navigate life after graduation. I am turning to art.
PARTING SHOT: Off the record
By Evelyn Lewis | YesterdayI had, and have, dreams for resources like “On Record” to start to rebuild conversations rooted in human connection.
DUTTENHOFER: Temporary residence does not absolve students of civic responsibility
By Lucy Duttenhofer | 4 days agoThe truth is that students are a central part of the Charlottesville community for four years, which means they must step up to voice their opinions, whether they want to or not.
