The destabilizing consequences of the present appointment process have revealed critical and unsustainable fault lines that rest within our political system.
Kneecapping the foundation of the country’s research enterprise just to follow nativist principles is an absurdly self-defeating, short-sighted strategy that is a threat to us all.
While this law does work to restrict the camera use, the data is still very loosely regulated, leaving it exposed to outside interference.
It is difficult to imagine how the University can universally take on such a widespread and continuously evolving problem. Thus, students must also be a part of the solution.
In a political climate where economic policies are mislabeled as a means of persuasion, it is becoming imperative to prioritize economics education.
Fortunately, there is a remedy for this that can produce a diverse student body without resorting to affirmative action based on race or gender. It is affirmative action based on socioeconomic status.
It seems clear to us that expanding the available pool of faculty and students has heightened the School of Law’s standards and dramatically improved the University.
So long as students’ power is limited to an advisory role in the administration, governance at the University will remain fragile.
The time has come for the Governor and Attorney General to stop abandoning their duty to defend Virginia.
Having six Black persons is an unexpected improvement over past search committees of this stature and importance.
With 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.
No number of “listening sessions” or other forms of outreach provide constituencies with the access, accountability and real influence that come with serving on the search committee.
Honor is still a staple of the student vocabulary — just more often as a facetious justification for leaving one’s backpack unattended than as a true rationale for remaining academically honest.
For better or worse, a substantial number of students bring their cars to school every year. The University can either choose to ignore this fact, or they can accommodate their students.
The Board’s actions and inactions as summarized above have generated a great deal of mistrust, widespread concern and indeed fear among our faculty
Our University does not have legal counsel independent from the state government nor, in this case, from the Trump administration.
What follows are a few respectfully proffered suggestions that I think can help you try to restore the University to the greatness it enjoyed when I was a student decades ago.
The lessons from 1997, though brutal to learn, are clear — battling weight cutting requires systemic change. Yet, they are lessons that high schools have failed to grasp.
The self-serving actions of the Board are not just harmful to students and faculty today, but they are harmful to our institution as a whole and the future president who will be invited to lead it.
This University was built on student self-governance, and a University governed by alumni cannot stand.
