Issuu on Google+

!

Virginia Policy Review SPECIAL EDITION: GOVERNANCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

!

I.

A Rally for Honor: Statement from David W. Breneman David Breneman, Senior Dean for Academic Affairs at Batten School of Leadership Public Policy

II.

Virginia: The Idea of a University Robert G. Marshall, Virginia State Delegate

III.

Eighteen Days of Hurt and Moving Forward Dorrie K. Fontaine, Dean of UVA School of Nursing

IV.

UVA and the Crisis in Higher Education David J. Toscano, Virginia State Delegate

V.

Beyond Philosophical Differences: Governance at the University of Virginia Pamela D. Tucker, Professor of Education at the Curry School of Education Jason S. Jones, Ph.D. Candidate at the Curry School of Education

VI.

The Board of Visitors and Shared Governance Brett A. McCully, UVA Student

VII.

The Role of Alumni in the University’s Actions C. Thomas Faulders, CEO of UVA Alumni Association

VIII.

Student Media: A Force for Good Governance Matthew Cameron, Editor-in-Chief of The Cavalier Daily

IX.

The Spirit of Honor Stephen Nash, UVA Honor Committee Chairman

X.

A Legislative Proposal for Higher Education in Virginia Creigh Deeds, Virginia State Senator

XI.

A Compact for the University of Virginia Ray Scheppach, Professor of Practice at Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy


!


Virginia'Policy'Review! 1! !

Editor’s Note ! On June 8, 2012 the Board of Visitors abruptly asked for and received the resignation of the President of the University of Virginia, Teresa Sullivan. It was a prime example of how higher education has moved to the forefront of policy discussions in the United States. As a student of public policy, my first thought when I heard about events this June was of transparency (or lack thereof). Transparency is something elected officials, candidates, and voters should (and often proclaim to) hold dear. It is one of the essential tenets that set us apart from other nations around the world. The UVA constituency was my next thought. There was a collective state of shock within the community that lasted approximately two days following the announcement. Subsequently, people began to demand details about the process in addition to the outcome, another central tenet in public policy. Throughout the controversy, faculty and staff led the charge in voicing their dissent. The best coverage undoubtedly came from the student newspaper, The Cavalier Daily. They played the indelible role that the media must have in politics and public policy. The publication became a watchdog. Alumni found their voices both in the press and through donations. Elected officials wrote opinion editorials. Yet, as faculty and staff rallied, the student response was more complicated due to summer vacation schedule. Students took to Facebook and Twitter but the student leadership, unlike most others, was notably hesitant to join the faculty and staff. In their first-ever emergency summer meeting, the Student Council agreed on the stance of taking ‘no position.’ And, the student representative to the Board was mum on details. Nonetheless, in the end the matter was settled and President Sullivan was reinstated. Shortly after the dust settled, the Virginia Policy Review made the decision to capitalize on the unique opportunity to engage the entire University community in a discussion of the matter. We seek to examine the relevance of policy in the University’s governance. In response to a request for submissions, the University rallied and VPR assembled a publication that brings together varied opinions from across the community. In this issue, you will find input from faculty, Deans, student leaders, elected officials, and alumni. We asked our contributors to talk about their particular constituency and the role of policy therein. Further, we sought recommendations as to how the University can best harness the forward momentum. We hope this edition of the Review will serve as a guide for University leadership and the community-at-large. Together, we can begin the process of moving forward in the Jeffersonian tradition of progress achieved through democracy and plurality.

Addie Bryant Editor-in-Chief


2'

Virginia'Policy'Review!

!

Staff Acknowledgements: !

Editor-in-Chief:

Addie Bryant

Executive Editor:

Melissa Rickman

Managing Editor:

Bailey Morton

Copy Editor:

Benjamin W. Lynch

Senior Domestic Editor:

Ammy George

Senior International Editor:

Tony Lucadamo

Outreach Coordinator:

Caitlin Cummings

Associated Editors:

Maddie Bergner Natasha Reese Evan Vahouny

!

We welcome your thoughts. Please forward any comments, questions, or concerns to virginiapolicyreview@gmail.com or visit us online at www.virginiapolicyreview.com.


Virginia'Policy'Review! 3! !

Table of Contents: ! I.

A Rally for Honor: Statement from David W. Breneman 5 David Breneman, Senior Dean for Academic Affairs at Batten School of Leadership Public Policy

II.

Virginia: The Idea of a University 7 Robert G. Marshall, Virginia State Delegate

III.

Eighteen Days of Hurt and Moving Forward 12 Dorrie K. Fontaine, Dean of UVA School of Nursing

IV.

UVA and the Crisis in Higher Education 15 David J. Toscano, Virginia State Delegate

V.

Beyond Philosophical Differences: Governance at the University of Virginia 17 Pamela D. Tucker, Professor of Education at the Curry School of Education Jason S. Jones, Ph.D. Candidate at the Curry School of Education

VI.

The Board of Visitors and Shared Governance Brett A. McCully, UVA Student

VII.

The Role of Alumni in the University’s Actions 24 C. Thomas Faulders, CEO of UVA Alumni Association

VIII.

Student Media: A Force for Good Governance 26 Matthew Cameron, Editor-in-Chief of The Cavalier Daily

IX.

The Spirit of Honor 29 Stephen Nash, UVA Honor Committee Chairman

X.

A Legislative Proposal for Higher Education in Virginia Creigh Deeds, Virginia State Senator

XI.

FEATURED ARTICLE: A Compact for the University of Virginia 33 Ray Scheppach is a Professor of Practice at the University of Virginia’s Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy. Before joining the faculty at UVA, Scheppach served as the executive director of the National Governors Association for eighteen years. He specializes in role that states have in the formulation and implementation of public policies. He has also held various positions in the Congressional Budget Office. His article discusses the challenges that face the University of Virginia and the steps needed to continue fulfilling its academic mission.

22

31


4'

Virginia'Policy'Review!

!

A Timeline of Events Benjamin Lynch !! ! It began on June 8th, as Board of Visitors Rector Helen Dragas and Vice Rector Mark Kington requested that President Teresa Sullivan resign from her post as University president. A day later, she relented and the UVA community was informed via email on June 10. Several within the University and around the State of Virginia expressed appreciation for President Sullivan’s brief tenure. Others, confused by the abrupt change, began to request additional context for the President’s ouster. George Cohen, Professor of Law and Chairman of the UVA Faculty Senate, began organizing faculty in an attempt to first gain additional insight into the Board of Visitor’s decision and, later, to reinstate President Sullivan. Correspondence between Board members began to find its way into the public domain. First, an email leaked to the Richmond TimesDispatch suggested that Sullivan’s resignation had been orchestrated by a limited few on the Board of Visitors. Days later, The Cavalier Daily released several emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The subject of these emails fueled the controversy on Grounds and intensified the calls for reinstatement. During this time, several subsets of the University populace were working to simply increase their understanding of the rationale behind President Sullivan’s resignation. Petitions began to circulate on Grounds and on the Internet. Requests for transparency grew. Actions by members of the Board did not satiate these requests. Peter Kiernan resigned from the Darden School Foundation Board of Trustees. Several statements by Rector Dragas left lingering questions. Some faculty members resigned in protest, while others began providing evidence in an attempt to refute and allay the Rector’s motivation for a change in leadership.

A day after a lengthy Board of Visitors meeting on June 18, Carl Zeithaml, Dean of the McIntire School of Commerce, was appointed as the interim president. The same day, Vice Rector Mark Kington resigned. The Board hoped that these events would lead to reconciliation and forward progress. But this was the turning point of the crisis. With Kington’s resignation, the Board was comprised of only fifteen members. This strengthened the resolve of some to push for President Sullivan’s reinstatement. A faculty-coordinated vigil was held on the lawn and alumni petitioned Governor Bob McDonnell to override the Board in President Sullivan’s favor. On June 21, ten Deans of the University requested President Sullivan’s reinstatement. Later that day, the Board agreed to hold a special meeting to conclusively resolve the leadership issue. The Governor remained consistent to his pledge not to become directly involved, but warned the Board of Visitors that their continued tenure depended on a resolution at the June 26 meeting. Interim President Zeithaml suspended his role during this time. A larger crowd assembled on the lawn for what was coined as the “Rally for Honor.” This event featured numerous faculty speakers who voiced support for President Sullivan’s reinstatement and approximately 3,000 were in attendance. On June 26, the Board of Visitors unanimously voted to reinstate President Sullivan. The Board further offered a vote of confidence for Rector Dragas and pledged to facilitate a spirit of cooperation as they seek to address the obstacles that currently face the University of Virginia and, more broadly, the institutions of higher education. Significant change has occurred because of these events. Rector Dragas was reappointed to the Board, along with two new appointments of non-voting members with experiences steeped in higher education. The University has joined an online education collaborative. The President and the Board continue to work together to overcome the challenges that face the University of Virginia.


Virginia'Policy'Review! 5! !

A Rally for Honor: Statement from David W. Breneman David W. Breneman ! Introduction In my statement for the student rally on June 24, I argue that students, primarily undergraduates or recent undergraduates, have an opportunity to observe those in leadership positions wrestle with an extraordinary event in the life of our University. At the time I wrote the statement, it was unclear what would happen at the Board of Visitors meeting the following Tuesday, June 26. One possibility was that a majority of Board members might insist on their right to force President Sullivan’s resignation despite the overwhelming outcry from students, faculty, staff members, and alumni. While entirely in their right to persist, I was hoping that they would show us all that, in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Fortunately, the Board rose to the occasion and showed us all that they were strong enough, and wise enough, to reverse their earlier course of action. In that sense, we have all learned an important lesson that true leadership requires that actions be reevaluated and possibly rescinded in the face of stakeholder feedback and new information. Additionally, I think this episode can be understood through a small book written in 1970 by Albert O. Hirschman, entitled Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Hirschman contrasts the economists' focus on exit (leaving the organization when it performs poorly), vs. the political scientists' focus on voice (remaining active within the organization and attempting to improve it from within). While we had some examples of exit in that one or more distinguished professors responded by resigning, the majority used voice to bring

!

about change. That is an example that will serve policy students and others well throughout their careers.

Statement by David W. Breneman June 24, 2012 University Professor, University of Virginia I am honored to speak at this studentsponsored rally to discuss recent events at the University. I have been privileged to serve both the Curry School of Education and the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy in my 17 years here. It is as a representative of the Batten School that I speak to you today. My remarks are addressed to the students of the University, as this is your event. As students, you are experiencing a profound, if unexpected, lesson in contested organizational change. Be alert to the lessons of leadership on display, and learn from them. As a graduate student at Berkeley in the late 1960s I lived through years of a university torn apart by violent protests against the war in Vietnam, against our leadership in Washington, and against a governor who fired a respected university president for his evenhanded approach to student protest. Those years were marked by the presence of armed police, who used tear gas in the central university plaza and pepper gas sprayed from helicopters to quell demonstrations. Those experiences had a profound effect on my thinking and learning, and I remember them much more vividly than I do many of my classes. Since the announcement of President Sullivan’s forced resignation you have made your support for her clear and have conducted yourselves with the civility, respect, and honor that defines our University. I suggest you will look back years from now and realize that these two weeks, and what happens next, will be not only among the most vivid memories of your time here, but also among your most profound learning experiences. You are participating, but also watching and learning from the behavior of important leaders in your


6'

Virginia'Policy'Review!

! life. Let me suggest that the members of the University’s Board of Visitors are among your most significant teachers at this moment. As I come from a School with leadership in its title, let’s discuss briefly the recent actions of the Board from that perspective. I believe Board members are good and thoughtful people, committed to their beliefs about the best interests of the University. Their disagreement with President Sullivan involved the nature and pace of change required by the difficult economic environment. Viewing President Sullivan as not responding rapidly enough, they forced her resignation. All involved would now agree that the Board misread the likely response of the University community. What happens next will be a lesson in leadership and character. One view is that the Board must insist on its legal and statutory right to hire and fire the president; that to reconsider would be a sign of weakness that would cripple the Board and erode its ability to set University policy for years to come. I understand that view, as I serve on several non-profit Boards myself. But I would argue that for the Board to persist on its widely unpopular course would be an error, not a sign of strength or vision. True leaders have the wisdom and the courage to embrace new understandings and change course. In doing so they gain trust and the enhanced authority that comes from the consent of those governed. From this perspective, the Board has an opportunity to strengthen its role and the esteem in which it is held. Similarly, if President Sullivan is reinstated, she has a responsibility to work seriously and expeditiously on the areas of concern expressed by the Board. Having clearly established trust and support within the University community, she will be in a strong position to lead as we address those issues. We have gathered this afternoon on the Lawn, in the heart of Mr. Jefferson’s vision of a University that would develop human potential and preserve the public good through higher education. Today we stand as witnesses to a remarkable test of leadership that will shape

this great institution for years to come. With our students, and an entire nation, watching, I hope and pray that the members of the Board of Visitors will think of themselves as teachers, and take this opportunity to instruct the next generation of leaders on how best to act in tough situations; with wisdom, integrity, humility, and courage. David Breneman is the Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy.


Virginia'Policy'Review! 7! !

Virginia – The Idea of a University State Delegate Robert G. Marshall !

Like Will Rogers, all I know about the tiff between Rector Helen Dragas and UVA President Teresa Sullivan is what I read in the papers. Namely, this controversy centered around differences of opinion on how Mr. Jefferson’s University ought to be run. I also read that despite all the public conflict, the initial causes of discord remain unchanged. Thus, it is my belief that controversy of this sort will persist until an agreement is reached. Namely, before attempting to solve the problem, we must decide what we want from our Universities, and what UVA is supposed to be. To that end, it is my view that in consulting intellectual giants of the past, we can reach appropriate conclusions about our goals for the future. Until we find such holistic concord with regards to our objectives, the right answers will remain elusive. At this point, the remedies put forth in the press are as fragmented as one would expect in the absence of an overarching strategy. It reminds me of the Indian fable story in which each man touts a different part of the elephant in a dark room. Their partial understanding does not reflect the totality of the elephant. In taking on this issue, I turn to two particular historic thinkers. They are separated by time, country, training, office, and religion. Yet, both display remarkable agreement on the function and purpose of a university. The first, quite obviously, must be UVA’s founder, Thomas Jefferson. The second is perhaps the less commonly known, yet deeply influential, English Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman. The two men had pronounced differences. For example, Jefferson had constant disputes with Anglican clergy and at one point opposed clergy from holding public office. He wrote,

!

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance...” 1 Conversely, Cardinal Newman (1801-1890) began his professional career as an Anglican churchman and taught at Oxford en route to his eventual vocation within the church. Yet, both agreed as to what constitutes a university. If two such profoundly different men of intellect found agreement, then it surely demands consideration. What follows is an overview of their various points of philosophical cohesion regarding institutions of higher education.

The University Requires Freedom of Inquiry to Pursue Truths Both a freedom of inquiry and a general openness of the academic disciplines to pursue truth are essential among college and university settings. We must be watchful as these truths can easily be compromised, especially by those who claim to be defending freedom. Cardinal Newman wrote, “Many a man has ideas, which he hopes are true, and useful…and wishes to have them discussed. He…would…give them up, if they can be proved to be erroneous or dangerous, and by means of controversy he obtains his end. …He would not dare do this, if he knew an authority…was watching every word he said, and made signs of assent or dissent to each sentence, as he uttered it. Then…the freedom of his intellect might truly be said to be beaten out of him.”2 Likewise, Jefferson told Declaration of Independence signer, Dr. Benjamin Rush, “I

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813, Letter, From University of Groningen, The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomasjefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl224.php. 2 John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Chapter V, 1864, accessed on August 29, 2012, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman/ap ologia1.html. 1


8'

Virginia'Policy'Review!

! have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind on man.”3 In short, any practice or policy that lacks transparency or full disclosure in the academic arena violates freedom of inquiry and liberty of process. UVA’s Rector, Helen Dragas, acknowledges that she conducted one-on-one, not public meetings, with Board of Visitors members throughout the removal process. Public bodies in Virginia are normally subject to Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which mandates notices of public board meetings and records of actions taken. Conversely, Dragas, in effect, conducted a rolling BOV meeting over several months. She violated the spirit of FOIA in an effort to align support behind a leadership change. Furthermore, a spokesman for Governor McDonnell said that Dragas had communicated to the Governor a unanimous decision to oust Sullivan. No vote was ever taken to remove Sullivan, much less a recorded unanimous up and down referendum.

A University Knowledge

Embraces

Universal

What subjects should a university teach? Every subject! Cardinal Newman wrote that, “A University … by its very name professes to teach universal knowledge. Theology is surely a branch of knowledge: how then is it possible … to exclude from the subjects of its teaching one which … is as important and as large as any of them?”4 Jefferson agreed that the pursuit of knowledge at a university should touch all subjects. He

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800, Letter, Monticello, PTJ, 32:168. 4 John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University: Defined and Illustrated in Nine Discourses Delivered to the Catholics of Dublin in Occasional Lectures and Essays Addressed to the Members of the Catholic University, edited with an introduction and notes by Martin J. Svaglic (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982), 14-15. 3

noted, “This institution of my native state … will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind to explore and to expose every subject of the human mind to explore and to expose every subject susceptible of its contemplation.” 5 Jefferson had very sharp views on church-state relations. Nevertheless, he suggested that UVA should be “encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenants, on confines of the University, so near that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of the library, and every other accommodation we can give them.”6

A University Relies Primarily on Reason and Human Wisdom Jefferson and Newman both held that human reason, not Faith in God, is at the core of university teaching. Cardinal Newman was asked to assist in the founding of a Catholic University in Ireland. This gave him the opportunity for reflection, which bore fruit in his famous work, The Idea of a University. He knew that before he could help found the institution, he would have to first understand and define its prospective role and characteristics; first as a university, and then he could help construct a catholic university. Newman wrote, “Gentlemen … I have no intention … of bringing into the argument the authority of the Church, or any authority at all; but I shall consider the question simply on the grounds of human reason and human wisdom.”7 Jefferson, a Son of the Enlightenment, held that: “Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Destutt de Tracy, December 26, 1820, Letter, Ford, 12:181. 6 Conrad Henry Moehlman, The American Constitutions and Religion: Religious References in the Charters of the Thirteen Colonies and the Constitutions of the Forty-eight States, (Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2007), p. 1415. 7 Newman, The Idea of a University, 7. 5


Virginia'Policy'Review! 9! ! ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.8 Jefferson suggested that even the most fundamental truths must be examined by the bar of reason: “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”9

A University Integrates Knowledge of and for the Whole Man Confusing or identifying a part with the whole is an easy mistake to make. The increasing specialization of academic disciplines only makes this misstep more common. Ultimately, it is a source of unnecessary conflict. Newman cautioned that, “Men, whose life lies in the cultivation of one science, or the exercise of one method of thought, have no more right to generalize upon the basis of their own pursuit but beyond its range, than the schoolboy or the ploughman to judge of a Prime Minister.”10

University Education must grapple with Moral Evil but not facilitate it Both Newman and Jefferson believed that a desired effect of any university is the moral improvement of the students. In speaking at the 2010 Mass Beatification of Cardinal New man, Pope Benedict XVI said that Newman was: “Firmly opposed to any reductive or utilitarian approach, he sought to achieve an educational environment in which intellectual training, moral discipline and religious commitment would come together.” Likewise, Jefferson very directly noted that, “…the attempt [of University of Virginia], in which I have embarked so earnestly to procure an improvement in the moral condition of my native state…” 12 Jefferson cautioned against European universities where a student learns “drinking, horse racing and boxing, and ... a fondness for European luxury and 13 dissipation...”

Jefferson agreed that, “A man is not qualified for a professor, knowing nothing but his own profession. He should be otherwise well educated as to the sciences generally; able to converse understandingly with the scientific men with whom he is associated, and to assist in the councils of the faculty on any subject of science on which they may have occasion to deliberate. Without this, he will incur their contempt, and bring disrepute on the institution.”11

So, if universal knowledge is to be taught and men are not always good angels, how is this achieved? For example, what type of literature is appropriate to enhance learning and improve morals?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. A.A. Lipscomb and A.E. Bergh, (Washington, D.C., 1905), p. 2:302. 9 Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Pete Carr, August 10, 1787, Letter, PTJ 12:15. 10 Newman, The Idea of a University, 76. 11 Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, February 3, 1824, Letter, accessed on August 29, 2012, http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff16.htm.

Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, January 11, 1825, Letter, reprinted in: Thomas Jefferson and Henry Augustine Washington, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Correspondence, cont,” (Washington: D.C.: Taylor & Maury, 1854), p. 392-394. 13 Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to J. Bannister, Jr., October 15, 1785, Letter, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson, Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers of Thomas …, Volume I, (London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, 1829), p. 346.

8

!

Newman answers, “…if Physical Science be dangerous…it is dangerous, because it necessarily ignores the idea of moral evil; but Literature is open to the more grievous imputation of recognizing and understanding it too well. …I am speaking of University Education…which has to deal with…the classics of a language…from the nature of the

12


10' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! case…It is a contradiction in terms to attempt a sinless Literature of a sinful man.”14 Jefferson supported classical learning in history and literature. His support primarily centered on the rationale that such subjects offered descriptions of the vices of many a leader from the past, a valuable lesson for any future generation of leaders. Jefferson, in discussing the education of females, was of the opinion that a passion for novels would be a hindrance to a good education. Jefferson favored, “Marmontel’s new Moral Tales, but not his old ones, which really are immoral.” Furthermore, he advocated, “Pope, Dryden, Thomas, Shakespeare, and of the French Moliere, Racine and Corneilles, may be read with pleasure and improvement.”15

A University is Preparation for Society and the World The goal of university education is not learning for learning’s sake. Rather, it is to train students to work within the context of society. They are to be informed citizens and neighbors for the benefit of all. Thus, institutions must inculcate in their graduates the tools necessary to act in this manner throughout their lives. Newman states, “A University…is not a Convent, it is not a Seminary; it is a place to fit men of the world for the world…with all its ways and principles and maxims, when their time comes…we can prepare them against what is inevitable; and it is not the way to learn to swim in troubled waters, never to have gone into them.”16 Jefferson wrote that the benefits of university training, are that, “the boys of this age are to be the men of the next; that they should be prepared to receive the holy charge which we

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Newman, The Idea of a University, 229. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Burwell, March 14, 1818, Letter, accessed on August 29, 2012, http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotatio ns-reading#_note-8. 16 Newman, The Idea of a University, 232. 14 15

are cherishing to deliver over to them; that in establishing an institution of wisdom for them we secure it to all our future generations.”17

A University requires the Personal Influence of Teachers on Students There is always the temptation to reduce costs by reducing the teacher student-ratio. Others have tried to find mechanical alternatives to faculty. I understand the importance of saving tax dollars. And I am not saying that UVA should not have distance learning or on-line courses. Eliminating student-teacher contact and influence for university training is a tactic that both Jefferson and Newman would reject. Newman noted that, “An academic system without the personal influence of teachers upon pupils, is an arctic winter; it will create an ice-bound, petrified, cast-iron University, and nothing else.”18 Furthermore, Jefferson attributed his love of Greek and Roman classical authors to his first teacher, who was also his father: “I think myself more indebted to my father for this than for all the other luxuries his cares and affections have placed within my reach; and more now than when younger…”19 Teachers are valuable and necessary to train students, not for the present, but the future, as Jefferson noted: “Respect and gratitude [are] due to those who devote their time and efforts to render the youths of every successive age fit governors for the next.”20

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to General James Breckinridge, February 15, 1821, Letter, accessed on August 29, 2012, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomasjefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl266.php. 18 John Henry Newman, Rise and Progress of Universities, Historical Sketches, vol. 3 (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1888), p. 74. 19 Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to John Brazier Popular Forest, August 24, 1819, Letter, accessed on August 29, 2012, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomasjefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl256.php. 20 Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson to Hugh L. White, May 6, 1810, Letter, accessed on August 29, 17


Virginia'Policy'Review! 11! ! Conclusion I do not claim that my selections from Jefferson and Newman are exhaustive and these two men certainly did not agree on all particulars for higher education. Nevertheless, the ideas listed above provide excellent common ground to start from. They offer what should be considered a blueprint for higher education and must be heeded as we begin to rebuild both the University and the Commonwealth. Robert G. Marshall is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates from the 13th District, which includes portions of Prince William and Loudoun counties. He was elected to the House of Delegates in 1991.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2012, http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomasjefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl203.php.

!


12' Virginia'Policy'Review! !

Eighteen Days of Hurt and Moving Forward Dean Dorrie K. Fontaine ! The Event and Eighteen Days Now that we have some distance from the wound inflicted on June 10, 2012, it can be jauntily called “the recent unpleasantness.” That moniker might make some guffaw or roll their eyes. But what happened on June 10, 2012, and began two days earlier, sparked an 18-day odyssey I will never forget. On that day, the deans of the eleven schools at the University of Virginia were summoned to the Rotunda to hear from the rector of the Board of Visitors that President Teresa Sullivan had resigned. We were stunned by this revelation. From that moment forward the details of that resignation never came into exact focus. The Faculty Senate, along with the local and national press, did the only logical thing they could: they sprang into action, hungry for information, and for 18 days the nation’s attention seemed riveted by our drama on Grounds. My first instinct as a long-time critical care nurse was to staunch the blood flow to my family of colleagues here in the School of Nursing – the alumni, students, faculty, and staff – and to provide some degree of comfort and acknowledgement of their shock. I sent a message to relay my support to all faculty and staff that afternoon, as did many deans. Here, dismay, sadness, and anger were endemic. We called an emergency gathering. A packed classroom of faculty and staff came together to express their bewilderment and outrage. Alumni and friends of our school sent continuous messages of support for our president. Listening to them, my own personal and professional resolve to support President Sullivan sharpened and swelled. In every conversation, I shared how supportive President Sullivan was for our school.

And supportive she has been. When I arrived in 2008, I thought it was strange that the dean of the Medical School was a member of the Medical Center Operating Board and that the School of Nursing had neither presence nor voice in that group. Expressing this to President Sullivan shortly after her 2010 arrival, she moved quickly, assertively and competently to ensure that my presence on this board was expected – and that hers was, too. She asked the Board of Visitors to approve me as an ex-officio member, which they did. In those early days of my deanship, President Sullivan demonstrated that she understood the importance of “who is sitting at the table.” It is part of the code by which she operates. It is ironic today to review President Sullivan’s “Three Laws of Administration,” which were provided to deans and vice presidents upon her arrival two years ago. First on the list should be to never surprise an administrator. Second, find resources and get control of them – including the ever-important human capital, arguably the most critical part of a university community. Watch and care for good faculty and staff, she advised. And her final piece of advice to us: Don’t leave anyone out who ought to be consulted. President Sullivan lives those values and promotes them at the University with respect and honor, integrity and trust. Honor, integrity, and trust: many at the university felt those ideals were trampled by the actions of the Board. As a result, the Faculty Senate was out in front early to


Virginia'Policy'Review! 13! ! express its dismay, becoming a beacon of outrage and coordinated action. I watched as my own faculty joined their faculty senators, staging a rally one week later, and working with students to orchestrate the Rally for Honor on the Lawn, an event at which I spoke – that began the relentless drive for reinstatement of President Teresa Sullivan. What began as a disparate group joined by their love for the university began to be a united chorus singing in a strong, clear, harmonious – and single – voice: “Reinstate her. Bring Sullivan back.” And it worked.

! What began as a disparate group joined by their love for the university began to be a united chorus singing in a strong, clear, harmonious – and single – voice: “Reinstate her. Bring Sullivan back.” And it worked. Lessons Learned Two lessons can be taken away from the “recent unpleasantness.” The first is that when there is a gap in information, people crave answers and speculate in all directions. The second is that in adversity, people encircle a common purpose. And that is what happened here, as faculty, deans, students, and staff came together. Questions were asked in hopes of starting a back-and-forth dialogue with the Board. Calls for honesty on their part were constant. Not squandering the power of this synergy, we developed a deep sense of what matters most to us as a university and found strength in our numbers. As a result, the unseen divisions came down as people from eleven schools, the health system, and staff joined to act as one. Even looking back, there is still magic in that. Channeling the shock, sadness, and distrust of the Board of Visitors into cohesive action and forward movement has been an uphill battle

!

for many. And these months later, it is not perfect harmony here on Grounds, by any stretch; trust must still be cultivated, ears, eyes, and hearts opened. As nurses, we are involved with prevention of sickness and the healing of patients, families, and communities. Healing involves forgiveness. But let’s be clear: we can forgive but not condone. We ask ourselves in our work, and now: how can we prevent this from happening again? How can we repair relationships? How can we move forward? The Board has an opportunity to be clear and open, despite rampant speculation about dynamics within its ranks and the relationship of members to the rector – and how that will impact our president. With near unanimous support on Grounds, the president is poised to seize the momentum and use the academic strength of the deans and schools to move our vision – one that is united, and in the best interests of the university – forward. Darden Professor John Colley’s Corporate Governance offers a sound starting point. During the decades he has served as a professor at Darden, Colley teaches, among other subjects, the business, legal, and ethical challenges faced by boards of directors– subjects he addresses in his book. I have served on many health care boards, and have been at the helm of several, and find his words instructive as they may relate to board governance in academia. An interesting point to consider is that the board-management relationship is crucial as the board hires the president. This can be a productive and complex relationship. Though it is the entity that green-lights the appointment, according to Colley, a board crosses the line by interfering and micromanaging, which undermines the effectiveness of a president and his or her team. However, as we have seen from recent scathing challenges at other major public universities, Penn State and Florida A & M for example, an academic board holds important oversight responsibilities. The trusting relationship between board and president


14' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! needs to be grown, cultivated, and reflected upon constantly. Colley recommends a governance model that includes clarifying mutual goals, evaluating plans, and then reviewing results, all at regular intervals. He suggests a delicate balance, with trust and honesty at the foundation. The Board had been explicit that President Sullivan should not spend her first years doing yet another strategic plan, and then the rector complained that the University had no plan. It is easy to see how the policies of non-interference Colley mentions were violated. The question now is can we get to a better place? Can trust be restored? What are the steps to take?

ingredient in any healthy workplace. It’s also a primary element of respecting others.

An additional critical question of policy is who, exactly, should make up the board. Even Jim Collins, the prolific leadership guru, talks about “getting the right people on the bus.” In Virginia, the governor appoints members to the Board of Visitors and it remains a highly sought after appointment. Board members are often those who have shown devotion and loyalty to the university and the governor through donations. However, does this make them always knowledgeable in the ways of academia? Many suggest that having a seat on the Board for a faculty member, perhaps the Faculty Senate chair as a voting member, would be a good move to not only increase transparency but to engage and educate other members who may lack on-Grounds perspective, academic perspective. I concur.

This event is a lesson for life, not just for the University of Virginia. Ours is a story of public universities everywhere, strapped by the same constraints – declining public aid amidst a staggering-to-get-up economy, and increasing costs at all levels – and heartened by the same devotions of students, professors, alumni, and staff. As we are viewed by tens of thousands of students each year, by their parents, our alumni, and other visitors to our venerable Grounds, let us uphold the ideal: watching, listening, synthesizing, and thoughtfully responding after listening deeply and without interruption. Throughout this process, we have learned so much about ourselves, and our community. We have mettle, pluck, and endurance that we might not have anticipated.

Finally, whatever the board’s composition, the importance of listening cannot be dismissed. As nurses, we understand this well. Our ability to listen – to hear a patient, or a family member through, without interruption, then to ponder what was said, ask good questions, and react once all the information is offered – is second to none. That kind of listening is what’s required, along with the transparency that so many in the University of Virginia community call for. It’s not easy, like democracy, and is messy, and can be timeconsuming and frustrating: but it’s collective. Moreover, it is the right way to govern – Board members must be willing to hear, to listen, before they make their decisions. It’s a critical

The Board of Visitors and President are not the only ones who must be conscientious of their efforts in the future. We as a university community must not settle back into complacency, getting lost in the minutiae of our lives as academics, staff, and administrators. Like complaining about election outcomes when you don’t take time to vote, it is increasingly incumbent upon us, the university community, to pay attention, and to speak up when we see something amiss. We certainly did here. And how.

There are so many ways this fracas, this “recent unpleasantness,” might have been avoided. Openness on both ends – the Board’s, and University’s – along with intentional, deliberative, thoughtful discussion will surely inform our relationship going forward. Things can, as they say, only get better. Dorrie K. Fontaine is the Sadie Heath Cabannis Professor of Nursing, and the dean of the School of Nursing at the University of Virginia. A long-time critical care nurse, Fontaine has taught and held leadership positions at the University of California, San Francisco and Georgetown University, and is past president of the American Association of Critical Care Nurses. She lives in Pavilion IX, on the historic Lawn, with her husband, Barry.


Virginia'Policy'Review! 15! !

UVA and the Crisis in Higher Education State Delegate David Toscano !

The recent events at the University of Virginia (UVA) did not arise in a vacuum. They are product of a general financial crisis in higher education today, structural inadequacies in the Board of Visitors, and evolving challenges stemming from technological change. These forces exist independent of the personalities involved in the UVA debacle, even though it was those individuals that actively engaged in creating the crisis. Regardless of what happens at UVA, there remain serious deficiencies in our system of higher education. These challenges have been building over time, and must be addressed.

Challenges First, a review of the last 20 years shows a general decline in the Commonwealth’s financial support for higher education. State funding per student, in constant dollars, has fallen from $15,247.00 in 2001 to $8,300.00 in 2012. Virginia’s investment per student is now $13,795.00 lower than per student spending in North Carolina. In 2008, the Commonwealth of Virginia provided $1.89 billion in support for its colleges, universities, and research institutions. By 2012, this had fallen to $1.47 billion. This figure will increase in 2013, but barely enough to keep pace with the costs of hiring, rising enrollment, and inflation. In 2010, among the 50 states, Virginia ranked 39th in state appropriations per $1,000.00 of personal income. This places it lower than both Maryland (34th) and North Carolina (2nd), and lowest among all the southern states. The Virginia General Assembly simply has not placed as high a priority on higher education as it has on other areas. As a proportion of the state’s general fund budget, higher education dropped from 13.0% in 1997 to 9.0% in 2012. To meet budgetary needs, universities and colleges have done two things. They have

!

raised tuition, thereby placing a higher burden on Virginia families and students. For the first time ever, the costs of education at the University of Virginia are paid more by tuition than by state funding. In 2011-12, the average in-state tuition increase was 9.7%. While UVA has done better than most institutions, it has nonetheless increased tuition by 8.9% for 2011-2012 and 3.7% for 2012-13. Virginia Commonwealth University, by comparison, recently approved a tuition increase of 29%. Many community colleges have faced multifold increases in tuition over the last 10 years. In addition, Virginia’s public universities and colleges have placed greater emphasis on private fundraising and the cultivation of larger donors. The University of Virginia has been particularly good at this. Yet, the danger exists that the educational mission and principles of the university might be compromised by the pursuit of private funds. This tension was clearly evident in the recent UVA crisis involving President Teresa Sullivan and Rector Helen Dragas. Such sources of conflict will likely only become more acute over time. Smaller schools have an increasingly difficult time utilizing this strategy. Raising tuition potentially prices them out of the market for students, and their donor bases are neither as large nor as wealthy as UVA’s. Second, there are serious governance questions. The Board of Visitors’ structure at the University of Virginia was a system established during the time of Thomas Jefferson. While the statutory framework suggests that the Board of Visitors is under the control of the General Assembly, the legislature has shown little oversight. The appointment process is left largely in the hands of the Governor, where it has too-often functioned as a vehicle of political patronage. Although the quality and abilities of individual board members are generally outstanding, recent events illustrate the risk that the body will succumb to a kind of “group think” in the absence of diversity among appointees. Sound policy suggests reserving seats for members with strong academic backgrounds. Either


16' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! professors at UVA or those from other schools who have obtained advanced degrees and understand higher education suit this aim. Additionally, the alumni should have a greater role in selecting members of the Board. Alumni are funding substantial portions of the UVA budget. Yet the Board of Visitors is largely unaccountable to this group who are among the most loyal UVA supporters. It is impossible to legislate good governance. But certainly another look at how we choose Visitors is justified by recent events. Finally, one cannot explain the challenges that face UVA and other institutions of higher learning without acknowledging the actual and potential challenges posed by technological innovation, particularly online and remote learning. Just as the Internet and social media have transformed the newspaper industry, new technology undoubtedly alter how higher education is delivered. This is not to say that UVA or other institutions of higher learning should embrace a top-down learning approach or renounce the traditional approach of faceto-face interaction and thought-provoking discussion. But we ignore technological change at our peril. We must recognize that conditions are changing rapidly and that universities have a responsibility to their students, the public, taxpayers, and donors to provide the best “product” at the lowest cost.

Looking Ahead While the reinstatement of President Teresa Sullivan has brought calm to the University of Virginia, the challenges faced by the institution, and higher education in general, are not going away. The debate about the role of higher education in the future of our country is still contested terrain. Recent events will hopefully accelerate an open discussion that must occur among a broader cross section of the public, including the legislature. In 2011, Virginia passed the Higher Education Opportunity Act, a measure designed to create a framework for increasing the number of degrees granted by Virginia’s colleges and universities, particularly in high demand areas

such as science, technology, math, and engineering, as well as health care (STEM-H). Praised for its focus on higher education funding as an engine of growth, the Act was less than specific about state funding. While additional monies were included in the recently enacted budget that will help fund 6,000 new degrees, to achieve the goal of the enacted legislation – 100,000 new degrees over 15 years – a more sustained effort is required. The Governor’s original promise to establish a dedicated source of revenue to sustain the initiative has yet to materialize. Beyond the funding issue, legislative measures have only scratched the surface in dealing with other long-term challenges of higher education. In particular, obstacles affecting our smaller and less visible schools are yet to be adequately addressed. Many of these institutions have more financial liabilities, higher debt service, lower endowments, and lesser ability to raise tuition to make up the difference. Reaching our goal of adding 100,000 new degrees in 15 years requires a more coordinated system of higher education, which better uses our largest institutions for their comparative advantages while integrating the smaller institutions into a seamless web of educational excellence. The bedrock of the American dream has been built largely on public access to higher education. Our investments in universities and colleges have spurred much of the technological innovation that has kept the United States the world’s dominant economic superpower. Without continued investment, it will be increasingly difficult to compete with some of the fast-growing economic engines of the world, and to sustain higher education as the engine of economic growth and opportunity, which America has come to expect. The Honorable David J. Toscano has represented Charlottesville and a part of Albemarle County (57th District) in Virginia’s House of Delegates since 2006. He presently serves as the House Democratic Leader.


Virginia'Policy'Review! 17! !

Beyond Philosophical Differences: Governance at the University of Virginia

with Sullivan’s temporary removal. Governor McDonnell enumerated three general goals in his reappointment of Helen Dragas and appointment of the other new members of the Board of Visitors: 1. 2. 3.

Dr. Pamela D. Tucker and Jason S. Jones !

!

Many in the University of Virginia (UVA) community heaved a collective sigh of relief after the reinstatement of President Terry Sullivan. While Sullivan’s reinstatement was a wise and welcome decision by the Board of Visitors, the reappointment of Helen Dragas who advocated more rapid changes and online learning sends a strong, symbolic message by Governor McDonnell about his priorities and agenda for higher education. It also raises serious questions about university governance in general. Governor McDonnell argues that Rector Dragas offers a necessary “critique of the challenges facing the university.” 1 Diagnosis of organizational challenges is far different than developing creative and context specific responses, especially when these challenges are well understood by the University’s leadership. President Sullivan was building momentum for such responses in a systemic manner based on buy-in from UVA’s multiple constituents. 2 Efforts to gain support for change of this magnitude take tremendous time and energy. These efforts were halted

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Governor Bob McDonnell, “Statement by Governor McDonnell Regarding Appointments to the Board of Visitors to the University of Virginia,” June 29, 2012, accessed July 30, 2012 http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewReleas e.cfm?id=1314. 2 The importance of multi-constituent buy-in for colleges and universities is well documented. For example: Susan Hill, Edward Thomas, and Lawrence Keller, “A Collaborative, Ongoing University Strategic Planning Framework: Process, Landmines, and Lessons,” Planning for Higher Education (JulySeptember 2009): 16-26. 1

!

Reduce college costs, Increase slots for in-state students, and Make schools more efficient.3

Consider each of these counter arguments and facts.

College Costs UVA is already at the top of most rankings on value in the entire country. 4 For example, Kiplinger ranks UVA third in its top ten best value public colleges. Princeton Review ranks UVA second in its top ten best value public colleges 5 and third in its great financial aid rankings.6 Likewise, U.S. News & World Report ranks UVA 24th in its Best Value Schools 7 among its National Universities list and 2nd in its Top Public Schools list.8 It should be noted that these best value rankings would be impossible without AccessUVA, a financial aid

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Statement by Governor McDonnell.” “Tuition, Fees and Estimated Cost of Attendance,” University of Virginia, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www.virginia.edu/Facts/Glance_Rankings.ht ml. 5 “The Princeton Review’s 2012 Best Value Colleges,” Princeton Review, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www.princetonreview.com/best-valuecolleges.aspx. 6 “University of Virginia,” Princeton Review, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www.princetonreview.com/schools/college/ CollegeBasics.aspx?iid=1022826. 7 “Best Value Schools: National Universities,” US News and World Report, accessed July 30, 2012, http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/be st-colleges/rankings/national-universities/bestvalue?src=stats. 8 “Top Public Schools: National Universities,” US News and World Report, accessed July 30, 2010, http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/be st-colleges/rankings/national-universities/toppublic. 3 4


18' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! program that supports the school’s commitment to need-blind admissions.9 UVA is a leader in cost effectiveness compared to its peers despite the trend of declining state funding for higher education. For example, Virginia state funding for public, four-year institutions has decreased 18% between 1992 and 2010, and has dropped from 18% to 11% of total state appropriations. 10 In actual dollars, the state funded $8,601 per in-state student during the 2010-2011 fiscal year.11 In contrast, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor receives $15,595 per student and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill $26,034, both of which charge comparable in-state undergraduate tuition and fees as UVA.12 This trend is by no means limited to Virginia. The national average of educational appropriations per full time student in 1992 was $7,171, and in 2010 it decreased to

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “AccessUVA,” University of Virginia, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www.virginia.edu/financialaid/access.php. 10 “The Erosion of State Funding for Virginia’s Public Higher Education Institutions,” State Council for Higher Education of Virginia (SCHEV), 2009, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www.schev.edu/Reportstats/ErosionHigherE ducationFunding.pdf. 11 “The State of the University: Q&A with President Teresa Sullivan,” The University of Virginia Magazine, Summer 2011, accessed July 30, 2012, http://UVAmagazine.org/features/article/the_state _of_the_university/. 12 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill charges a total of $20,660 for undergraduate tuition and fees, whereas University of Michigan charges $25,848 for freshmen and sophomores and $27,498 for juniors and seniors. In contrast, UVA charges $23,984. “Tuition and Registration Fees,” University of Michigan, accessed July 31, 2012, http://www.ro.umich.edu/tuition/tuition-fees.php. “Tuition and Fees,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, accessed July 31, 2012, http://admissions.unc.edu/Aid_and_Scholarships/ Tuition_and_Fees/default.html. “Tuition, Fees, and the Estimated Costs of Attendance,” University of Virginia, accessed July 31 2012, http://www.virginia.edu/Facts/Glance_Tuition.html . 9

$6,451. 13 To offset decreased state appropriations, college and university administrations have increased tuition and sought private donations. This trend reflects an ideological shift in treating education as a private good to be paid by individual students instead of a public good. Fortunately UVA has a large endowment from which the interest along with generous alumni gifts contribute 10.1 % of the budget (2012-2013) compared to the 6.8% provided by the commonwealth of Virginia.14

Slots for In-State Students The governor would like to increase the number of available seats for in-state students. UVA has increased enrollment steadily over the last 10 years. In 2000, the University enrolled 18,550 students, which grew to 20,895 by 2010, or an average of 234 slots per year.15 In an effort to be responsive to demand, UVA has already agreed to enroll more in-state students in the future. In the summer of 2011, the Board of Visitors agreed to increase undergraduate enrollment by 1,500 students over the next five years. This increase will place additional strain on the school to maintain its current student-faculty ratio of 16:1, adequate student housing, as well as classroom and research laboratory space for faculty to accommodate increased numbers.16

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! William Zumeta, David W. Breneman, Patrick M. Callan, and Joni E. Finney, Financing American Higher Education in the Era of Globalization, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 16-19. 14 “University Operating Budget: Sources for the Operating Expenditure Budget 2012-2013,” University of Virginia, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www.virginia.edu/budget/operatingbudget.h tml. 15 “The State of the University.” 16 Brian McNeill, “UVA Developing Strategy for Increasing Enrollment,” The Daily Progress, November 27, 2010, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2010/nov/2 7/UVA-developing-strategy-increasing-enrollmentar-679911/. 13


Virginia'Policy'Review! 19! ! Increased efficiency One of President Sullivan’s key initiatives at UVA has been the introduction of the Responsibility Center Management (RCM) budget model. Much of the 2011-2012 academic year was spent introducing the concept and engaging faculty in discussions of its implementation. A website was established to communicate with the public about the university’s efforts.17 In a letter to readers by Sullivan, the first sentence reads: “One of my highest priorities as president is the development of a new internal financial model that inspires inclusive planning and that ultimately allows the University to more effectively fulfill its mission.”18

Future of the University of Virginia Online education and distance learning

One of the directions in which Sullivan did not move swiftly enough was online teaching despite its “limited revenue potential.”19 Some online education programs work as well as a brick and mortar classroom education with regard to student interest and completion rates, but the same cannot be said for learning outcomes or cost. Old Dominion University (ODU), a public Virginia school founded in 1930, is one example that offers distancelearning programs, which generate substantial interest. For the 2010-2011 school year, ODU had 15,651 registrations for Internet courses.20 It also had 10,772 and 2,746 respectively for satellite and video stream based courses. Concerning completion rates, Rochester Institute of Technology employs online

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Resourcing the Mission,” University of Virginia, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www.virginia.edu/resourcingthemission/. 18 Ibid. 19 “President Sullivan’s Statement to the Board of Visitors,” The Cavalier Daily, June 18, 2012, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2012/06/18/preside nt-sullivans-statement-to-the-board-of-visitors/. 20 “Fast Facts,” Old Dominion University, accessed July 30, 2012, http://dl.odu.edu/about/fast-facts 17

!

learning courses with completion rates as high as 94%.21 At best, distance learning has resulted in similar learning outcomes and costs as traditional classroom education. 22 To the former point, online education itself only produces high quality instruction with a low student-to-faculty ratio.23 Multiple studies have found that this ratio must be lower for online courses than traditional classroom education to produce a similar high quality experience.24 For online education to cost less than traditional classroom education enrollment must increase significantly and faculty costs must be reduced through fewer full-time faculty and more adjunct faculty. 25 In other words, the same product must be delivered to more students by a part-time faculty (i.e. the experts who developed the courses cannot be paid to teach them, rather lower-cost adjunct faculty would teach them). Quality cannot be maintained in this scenario.26 Distance learning

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Richard Fasse, Joeann Humbert, Raychel Rappold, “Rochester Institute of Technology: Analyzing Student Success,” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 13: Issue 3 (2010). 22 Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research, vol. 2, (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005). See also Binh Thi Nyugen, “Face-to-face, Blended, and Online Instruction: Comparison of Student Performance and Retention in Higher Education.” (EDD diss., University of California Davis, 2011). 23 David Smith and Darryl J. Mitry, “Investigation of Higher Education: the Real Costs and Quality of Online Programs,” Journal of Education for Business, January/February (2008). 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Approximately 70% of college and university instructors are part time or adjunct faculty. Researchers like Adrianna Kezar are worried that as the number of adjunct faculty increases, learning outcomes will decrease. Audrey Williams Junes, “With Student Learning at Stake, Group Calls for Better Working Conditions for Adjuncts,” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 31, 2012, accessed July 31, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/Adjuncts-NeedSupportSays/133265/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_mediu 21


20' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! and online education have yet to become a cost-effective alternative. UVA recently announced its partnership with Coursera to increase its online course offerings. 27 The massive open online courses (MOOCs) that have “legitimized” online education have extremely low completion rates. For example, Coursera’s artificial intelligence course has a 12.5% completion rate compared to the national six-year graduation average of 56.5% and UVA’s stellar 93.8% graduation rate, and it requires an enormous amount of money and 28 infrastructure to support. It is currently unclear what role Coursera will play in UVA’s academic programs and curricula, how free courses will generate revenue 29 , how faculty will be compensated for time working on free online courses, or its impact on UVA’s image and reputation. They will definitely create additional demands on faculty and staff time and institutional resources. A liberal arts heritage We are at a crossroad for the University of Virginia. Will our historical role in higher education be preserved or will the Governor

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! m=en. For work and life conditions of adjunct faculty: Stacey Patton, “The Ph.D. Now Comes with Food Stamps,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 6, 2012, accessed July 31, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/From-GraduateSchool-to/131795/. 27 Nick DeSantis, “After Leadership Crisis Fueled by Distance-Ed Debate, UVA Will Put Free Classes Online,” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 17, 2012, accessed July 30, 2012, http://chronicle.com/article/After-LeadershipCrisis-Fueled/132917/. 28 Kyle Johnson, “Harvard-MIT’s edX Brings Research Focus to Cloud Ed,” Wired Magazine May 7,2012, accessed July 28, 2012, http://www.wired.com/cloudline/2012/05/edx/ “Current On-Grounds Enrollment,” University of Virginia, accessed July 30, 2012, http://www.virginia.edu/Facts/Glance_Enrollment.h tml. 29 Advertising or the selling of consumer (in this case student) information to other businesses are likely ways Coursera or edX will generate revenue, as seen in other popular online ventures.

and the Board redefine it? UVA’s Statement of Purpose and Goals lists as its second goal “to sustain liberal education as the central intellectual concern of the University, not only in the curricula of the College of Arts and Sciences, but also as a foundation for the professional undergraduate programs.” The ideals of liberal education as we know it in America can be traced to Greek antiquity. 30 Aristotle advocated that male youth between puberty (i.e. teenagers) and adulthood (approximately 21-years old) should attend lectures and discussions to cultivate mental and character development. This tradition was adopted by the Romans and reconfigured into collectives of teachers and students, which further evolved in the Middle Ages to licenses (i.e. credentials) and codified into colleges, as we understand it in 13th century England.31 The first American colleges were founded in the 17th century, and from the beginning, sought “’to develop the whole man – his body and soul as well as his intellect’ toward the formation of a person inclined to ‘unity, gentility, and public service.’”32 To be clear, these ideals and values that UVA embodies are one part of this history spanning over two millennia. In 2019, the University of Virginia will celebrate its second century in existence. To survive and flourish over these many years, UVA as an institution has functioned extraordinarily well.

Conclusion The reasons for the forced resignation of Sullivan remain unclear long after the event and the reasons for the reappointment of Dragas by Governor McDonnell lack credibility. Philosophical differences continue to exist and seem inherent in the governance structures.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Andrew Delbanco, College: What It Was, Is, and Should Be. (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2012). Bruce Kimball, Orators & Philosophers: A History of the Idea of Liberal Education (expanded edition). (New York: College Board Publications, 1995). 31 Delbanco, 2012. 32 Ibid. 40, see also Victor Ferrall, Liberal Arts at the Brink. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011). 30


Virginia'Policy'Review! 21! ! To align University goals and governance, the current appointment policy for the Board of Visitors must change. The Board of Visitors with its broad powers to hire and fire university presidents should not be the exclusive domain of political supporters appointed by a governor, especially when state support for the institution is at an all time low of 6.8%. The Board should be comprised, at least in part, of exceptional individuals elected by students, faculty, staff, and alumni of the University of Virginia. Such direction would better reflect the diversification of revenue sources and institutional initiatives. In her research on university boards, Adrianna Kezar found that boards function best with transparency, buy-in, and clear communication and that having politically appointed boards can negatively impact effective governance and management practices. 33 Establishing the Board of Visitors through an electoral process would not only diversify the professional expertise of board members, but also foster an inclusive and democratic approach to governance, something sorely needed at UVA. Those who enter and dedicate their professional lives to academia, do so for the intangible benefits of community, service, teaching, and scholarship. 34 These are the individuals and leaders that have guided the University of Virginia through the years, and they are essential to its future. Only with elected board members will governance, expertise, and university initiatives align to properly address the demands of today and the opportunities of tomorrow. Pamela D. Tucker is a professor of education in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. She serves as Coordinator of the Administration and Supervision program area and Senior Associate Director of the University Council for Educational Administration. During

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Adrianna Kezar, “Rethinking Public Higher Education Governing Boards Performance,” The Journal of Higher Education, 77:6 (Nov.-Dec., 2006), 997. 34 Linda Serra Hagedorn, “The Meaning of Academic Life,” the Review of Higher Education, 35:3 (Spring 2012), 485-512. 33

!

2011-2012, she served as the Faculty Chair of the Curry School of Education. Her research on teacher effectiveness, school leadership and school improvement has been published in journals such as Educational Administration Quarterly, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, and Educational Leadership. Books co-authored with others include: Teachers’ Guide to School Turnarounds and Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Achievement. Jason S. Jones is a higher education doctorate of philosophy student in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. He holds a M.A. in religious studies from the University of Virginia and a M.T.S. from Vanderbilt Divinity School. His research focuses on the liberal arts and moral education. He currently serves as the Education Council President at the Curry School for 2012-2013.


22' Virginia'Policy'Review! !

The Board of Visitors and Shared Governance Brett A. McCully ! On June 18 , University of Virginia Rector Helen Dragas stated, “The Board [of Visitors] is the one entity that has a unique vantage point that enables us to oversee the big picture.”1 She did not, however, elaborate on the reasons for such a “unique vantage point.” th

At issue is whether the board has the moral high ground to act as it did to remove President Teresa Sullivan from office; that is, without consulting various University constituencies such as students, faculty, and staff. Is it necessary for outside pressure to be ignored for the Board to make sound decisions? Should universities have an independent governing board unaccountable to local stakeholders? Important matters of democracy, accountability, and transparency are at stake. The current voting Board is made up of sixteen individuals chosen from the fields of business, medicine, law, and higher education. Each member has a career separate from the University of Virginia. Further, it is an open secret that political contributions are an important factor in the selection process.2 The Board has included a non-voting student representative since 1983. However, the Board

of Visitors selects the student member,3 which effectively rules out a potentially strong dissident voice. There is no faculty or staff representative on the Board, voting or otherwise. It is important to point out that it is not at all uncommon to have faculty and student representation on governing boards. In fact, among public universities surveyed by the Association of Governing Boards (AGB), half have voting student members. More than a fifth of college governing boards had at least one non-voting faculty member and over seven percent have staff members with voting privileges.4 The “AGB generally doesn’t support the inclusion of students or faculty as voting board members because of the inherent conflict of interest, especially for an employee, in serving on his or her own institution’s board.”5 This opinion, however, has an uneasy time coexisting with ideals of democracy: that those parties affected by decisions ought to have a stake in the decision-making process. Political scientist Robert Dahl “holds that an inalienable right to democratic government arises whenever an association of competent people must reach binding joint decisions.” 6 Furthermore, as economist Friedrich Hayek noted, each individual “possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Vice President & Chief Student Affairs Officer, University of Virginia, accessed on July 24, 2012, http://www.virginia.edu/vpsa/bov-stud/index.html. 4 Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, “Policies, Practices, and Composition of Governing Boards of Public Colleges, Universities, and Systems,” AGB Press, accessed on July 25, 2012, http://agb.org/sites/agb.org/files/u3/2010PublicBo ardCompositionSurveySummary.pdf. 5 Ibid. 6 Gregory K. Dow, Governing the Firm: Workers’ Control in Theory and Practice, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 27 (citing Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985). 3

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dragas, Helen, “Statement of Rector Dragas to the Board of Visitors,” Cavalier Daily, accessed August 28, 2012, http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2012/06/18/stateme nt-of-rector-dragas-to-the-board-of-visitors/. 2 Anita Kumar and Daniel de Vise, 6/12/2012, “UVa. president’s ouster puts spotlight on governing board,” Washington Post, accessed on July 24, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dcpolitics/u-va-presidents-ouster-puts-spotlight-ongoverningboard/2012/06/12/gJQABMpPYV_story_1.html. 1


Virginia'Policy'Review! 23! ! or are made with his active cooperation.”7 In other words, if students, faculty, and staff are not consulted about important decisions, the university cannot benefit from their knowledge.

! In other words, if students, faculty, and staff are not consulted about important decisions, the university cannot benefit from their knowledge. What is rather common is the strong presence of businesspersons on boards: 49.4 percent of governing board members at public universities have a background in business. 8 Though it is no doubt important to hear from diverse groups about university policy, the overwhelming abundance of businesspersons on university governing boards is surely out of line with their genuine expertise and devotion to higher education. Thomas Jefferson envisioned a University faculty that would be intimately involved with administration. Indeed, “[h]e provided for a faculty chair to convene and preside at meetings, to identify matters affecting institutional governance,” 9 a practice which continued until 1904. It is time to return to the Jeffersonian ideal of shared governance, but to also to include faculty and students that have been entrusted with voting capacity as chosen through an election among their constituents. Clearly we cannot trust the Board to do the right thing; reform is absolutely critical.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F. A. Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review, 35:4, 519-530. 8 “ABG Releases Reports on Composition of Independent and Public Governing Boards,” Association of Governing Boards, accessed on July 24, 2012, http://agb.org/news/2010-11/agbreleases-reports-composition-independent-andpublic-governing-boards. 9 “Chapter 2: The Faculty,” Faculty Handbook, University of Virginia, accessed on July 24, 2012, http://www.virginia.edu/provost/facultyhandbook/ faculty.html#history. 7

!

Brett A. McCully is a fourth year in the College, majoring in mathematics and economics.


24' Virginia'Policy'Review! !

The Role of Alumni in the University’s Actions C. Thomas Faulders ! The roughly 200,000 University of Virginia alumni woke up on Sunday, June 10, 2012 with only a tiny fraction of them giving any thought to their University. That changed in a flash when each received an email from the Rector of the Board of Visitors announcing the resignation of President Teresa Sullivan. At that point, the University community went into a collective shock. The announcement itself and a subsequent press release from the Board of Visitors did little to clarify the rationale for the resignation. Questions immediately came to mind amongst the alumni: Did the President do anything wrong? What is the Board of Visitors and who are its members? Has the Board of Visitors uncovered any malfeasance? Does the Board of Visitors actually have the authority to do this? Yet, other than the announcement and the Rector’s remarks to the press later that day, there were no answers forthcoming from any official University source. There is an old saying that “Nature abhors a vacuum,” and it can reasonably be assumed that there is a parallel in the public relations field. Given no satisfactory official explanation, social media, and conspiracy theories erupted. Print, radio, and television media jumped on the story. Rumors paraded as fact throughout the media. Deans of each respective school dutifully sent emails to their faculty, students, and alumni with their version of provided talking points. Statements were released from student and faculty organizations with sentiments of support for the resigned president and calls for her reinstatement. Senior University officials issued a statement urging the academic community to move forward. Alumni, who were confused by the plethora of theories and sometime contradictory statements, became concerned about the University. They were

angry about what they were reading in the national press. The University of Virginia Alumni Association’s mission statement directs, inter alia, that it provide a center for alumni communications and a voice to alumni for their comments and concerns. In the midst of media chaos, both social and mainstream, the Alumni Association determined that the alumni base was not being well served by the journalistic rushes to judgment and hysterical conspiracy theories. To provide a reliable source of news from the University, the Alumni Association created a web-based timeline. 1 The objective was to provide reverse chronological statements about the resignation and subsequent reinstatement from the University community. The site became the preferred location for many alumni to read the latest information and ultimately, seventy-five statements were posted to the site. Sources ranged from the Governor of Virginia to the student representative to the Board of Visitors. To complement the informational effort, the Alumni Association also saw a need for alumni to be able to express their concerns to the Board of Visitors. In order to accomplish this, a web-based portal was made available to all alumni.2 During an 18-day period, the Alumni Association received more than 6,000 comments. These comments were delivered to all Board members via email and the physical print out of all comments was delivered to the Board of Visitors’ offices in the Rotunda. The comments were articulate, passionate, and varied. The vast majority of alumni had grave concerns about the process the Board of Visitors undertook to seek the President’s resignation. Many supported reinstating the President, while others supported the Board’s

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 “Responses to President Sullivan’s Resignation, Part 1,” accessed on August 28, 2012, http://uvamagazine.org/top_university_news/articl e/responses_to_president_sullivans_resignation_pa rt_1. 2 “Alumni Feedback,” accessed on August 28, 2012, http://alumni.virginia.edu/contact/alumnifeedback/.


Virginia'Policy'Review! 25! ! actions. At least one-third of the comments evoked Mr. Jefferson in one-way or another. All were clearly focused on the University. In the aftermath of this episode, alumni are more aware and focused on the University than at any time in recent history. They want the best for the University and while generally not approving of the process, are supportive of the result. They have a renewed appreciation for the challenges facing the University and are poised to assist in any way they can. Thus, it is an opportunity for the University to capitalize on the renewed focus that exists among our alumni. Their passion and their capabilities must be utilized to enhance the University for future Wahoos. C. Thomas Faulders is the CEO of the University of Virginia Alumni Association.

!


26' Virginia'Policy'Review! !

Student Media: A Force for Good Governance Matthew Cameron ! In the wake of University President Teresa Sullivan’s surprising removal and subsequent reinstatement, there has been much discussion about the future of the American public university. Yet not a lot has been said about the future of student media, which played a crucial role in determining the outcome of the Sullivan saga. If any lesson is to be learned from the events that unfolded at the University this summer, it is that independent student media is crucial to the successful governance of public higher education institutions and the nation in general.

! If any lesson is to be learned from the events that unfolded at the University this summer, it is that independent student media is crucial to the successful governance of public higher education institutions and the nation in general. One reason for the importance of independent student media has to do with the governance structure of most public universities. Boards of trustees such as the University’s Board of Visitors essentially function as public universities’ legislatures by setting institutional policies, approving budgets, and hiring and firing administrative staff. Yet unlike true American legislative bodies, most boards of trustees are not representative of their constituents, who have no say in their selection. Instead, board members are political appointees who answer to their state governors rather than the students, faculty, and staff members of the universities they govern. This board composition is purposeful and is meant to ensure accountability to state governments and the citizenries whose taxes

have historically paid for a large portion of public universities’ budgets. As taxpayer funding of public universities continues to dwindle, it is now necessary for boards to be more responsive to their constituents. Until state politicians recognize this fact and enact needed structural reforms to boards of trustees, however, accountability is only possible through transparent proceedings and engagement with constituents. Without these conditions, students, faculty, and staff are susceptible to the whims of board members and whatever third parties — be they donors, businesses, or politicians — have enough power or access to influence their actions. The media provides transparency and an opportunity for engagement when boards fail to do so themselves. This is a particular responsibility of student media since it is composed of stakeholders with a unique understanding of what information university communities need to make informed decisions. Moreover, student media can leverage connections with faculty, staff, and administrators to gather information other outlets may not think to seek. Finally, student media is often the most effective channel through which university community members can air their voices during times of debate. By serving as a conduit for community opinion, student media allows those removed from campuses to gauge the public sentiment about a particular subject.

As the editor-in-chief of The Cavalier Daily, the largest student-run media organization at the University, I was able to participate firsthand in the fulfillment of these roles during the Sullivan saga. The Cavalier Daily reported on the story from its outset, using Twitter to break the news about the


Virginia'Policy'Review! 27! ! resignation before other news outlets and following subsequent developments during the next few weeks.1 We did so with a staff of fewer than 10 people who tirelessly covered events by writing stories, producing videos, and monitoring the Internet for community reactions. Our initial success came on the day Sullivan’s resignation was announced, when one of our reporters captured raw video footage of the press conference given by Rector Helen Dragas and then-Vice Rector Mark Kington.2 We were the first organization to publish this footage online and our video has received more than 7,700 views to date on YouTube. This reporting allowed community members to see for themselves how Board members were handling the resignation, and the footage prompted criticism of the Board for its tight-lipped approach. Following the release of a leaked email3 from Peter Kiernan, then-chairman of the Darden School Board of Trustees, in which he described having prior knowledge of the plan to remove Sullivan, we decided to seek more information about the backstory using a familiar tool: the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Every year, Cavalier Daily staff members learn about this document by using it to request the University’s list of salaries paid to faculty and administrators. With this experience in mind, we requested emails sent between Dragas and Kington during the weeks preceding Sullivan’s resignation. We obtained a cache of correspondence showing that Dragas and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Cavalier Daily, “Breaking: #UVA President Teresa Sullivan is stepping down Aug. 15, according to a University-wide email distributed by the Board of Visitors,” accessed on August 28, 2012, https://twitter.com/cavalierdaily/status/21184099 2884690945. 2 “President Teresa Sullivan Resigns – Press Conference,” accessed August 28, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh6VsLByAXE&f eature=plcp. 3 “Full text of Darden Foundation board chair’s email,” accessed on August 28, 2012, http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2012/jun/1 2/full-text-darden-foundation-board-chairs-emailar-1983832/. 1

!

Kington orchestrated the removal at least in part because they were afraid the University was not moving fast enough to integrate online education into its operations.iv The emails revealed what the Board members themselves would not — the rationale for the removal — and the emails finally allowed community members the opportunity to judge for themselves whether the Board was justified in its decision. The answer was a resounding “no,” and within another week the Board had apologized for its missteps and unanimously reinstated Sullivan. This entire saga demonstrated three facts about student media and its role in higher education. First, it is imperative that student media organizations remain financially independent of their universities even in an era of declining advertising revenue. Had The Cavalier Daily been beholden to the University for funding, our coverage could have been jeopardized — after all, Dragas made it clear early on in the controversy that the University’s Public Affairs division was to report directly to her until an interim president could take over control of administrative functions. The Cavalier Daily also could have been reporting directly to Dragas had she controlled the organization’s purse strings. Second, student media groups are vital training grounds for those aspiring to be journalists or merely informed citizens. Cavalier Daily staff members have the opportunity to conduct independent reporting without administrative oversight, and they gain hands-on experience with FOIA, a law that empowers journalists and ordinary citizens to gain access to information about the proceedings of public bodies such as the Board of Visitors. Even for those members of The Cavalier Daily who do not go on to work in the media, the experience of informing the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Rector, vise rector emails and other information obtained through Freedom of Information Act,” accessed on August 28, 2012, http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2012/06/23/rectorvice-rector-emails-and-other-information-obtainedthrough-freedom-of-information-act/. iv


28' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! public through journalism is likely to instill a lifelong appreciation of the free press and laws such as FOIA. A final lesson the Sullivan saga taught about student media is that it is changing drastically. Because The Cavalier Daily does not publish print newspapers during the summer, in the past we would have been severely limited in the coverage we could have provided of the Sullivan removal. By using the Internet, however, we were able to produce and distribute content rapidly and in a variety of formats to people both on- and off-Grounds. This is the latest indication that traditional media is becoming obsolete, but that is not something student journalists and University community members should dread. Rather, our coverage of the Sullivan removal serves as a sort of case study of what to expect in a world of digital news: information which travels faster and farther than ever before and allows individuals who previously would have been paralyzed in the wake of such a sudden event to instead mobilize quickly and demand corrective action. Our coverage of the Sullivan removal offers hope for a future where the barriers to information gathering will be almost entirely removed. Throughout our reporting, The Cavalier Daily operated much more like a small start-up company or a group of citizen journalists than an established media organization that has been around since 1890. The methods we used to report the story — Twitter, videos shot on smartphones and handheld cameras, and FOIA requests for public documents — are available to any citizen who wishes to unearth and share information about a particular subject. Which means the next time a governance crisis occurs at the University, Cavalier Daily staff members and other media outlets will not be the only ones doing the reporting — it will be the entirety of the University community. This exciting possibility does not signify that The Cavalier Daily and other student media organizations will become irrelevant. Quite the opposite is true. Because community members will want to disseminate their content to a

wide audience, student media groups’ strong local and online presences will make them valuable curators of community-produced content. Moreover, these organizations will continue to separate fact from fiction. With the growth of citizen journalism and the proliferation of new media technologies, everincreasing quantities of information will surround major news events. In many cases, this will be a boon for transparency and accountability, but the public could be led astray if misinformation or speculation is reported. Established media groups such as The Cavalier Daily certainly are not exempt from lapses in reporting, but the training we offer our staff members teaches them both the ethics and the techniques for accurate reporting. These lessons were applied during the Sullivan saga when we declined to publicize rumors, instead choosing to focus on hard facts rooted in tangible documents and in-person conversations even while striving to break the news through Twitter. In fact, we went a step further by allowing members of the public to see for themselves much of the unedited source material that served as the basis of our reporting. By using best practices such as these, student media groups will continue to thrive as trusted sources of news and the verifiers of community-produced content. What all of this means for University governance is simple — there will be more eyes than ever before watching for indiscretions, and there will be fewer opportunities to keep the public in the dark about how decisions are made. There is still the chance a determined Board could ride roughshod over public opinion, but overall the system will become much closer to the inclusive, representative idea of government which Thomas Jefferson and other early American leaders envisioned when they established the nation and its network of colleges and universities. Matthew Cameron is the editor-in-chief of The Cavalier Daily and a rising fourth-year majoring in Political and Social Thought.


Virginia'Policy'Review! 29! !

The Spirit of Honor Stephen Nash ! Looking back on the period of events surrounding the resignation and reinstatement of President Sullivan, it is often difficult to figure out how we should refer to it. In e-mails or phone calls, it usually goes by the label “the events of the summer.” The University of Virginia Magazine described it as a “Leadership Crisis” in its latest edition. Professor Larry Sabato took a stab at it by coining it the “recent unpleasantness.” Yet, none of these characterizations seem to be able to do justice to exactly what transpired in Charlottesville. Despite all of these opaque terms we use to categorize this summer’s events, one thing emerged; members of the University community stood up with vigor and spoke out with clarity on the fundamental and most important question of whom we are. I believe that when University historians eventually write the story of these eighteen days in June, they are going to write of a Sunday morning e-mail in the haze of the summer that transformed the University into a battleground over our identity. Although there were opposing sides in the unfolding events, I saw this as more than a conflict about the reinstatement of President Sullivan. In many ways, this was also a fight about whether our distinctive values were more than the lofty rhetoric we repeat out of obligation to tradition. We at UVA call freshmen “firstyears,” our campus “Grounds,” and our founder, and the third President of the United States, “Mr. Jefferson.” We uniquely and characteristically have an Honor System that both springs from and develops our concept of a Community of Trust. To say that Wahoos have a particularity about rhetoric might be an understatement. These eighteen days in June, however, challenged us to prove that what this University offers is not the same as every other school dressed up with different terminology. As our founder instructed us, “In matters of style swim with the current, in

!

matters of principle, stand like a rock.”1 This summer, members of our community stood firm for what they believed was right, and demonstrated that this rhetoric does indeed have deep roots and practical meaning in our collective identity at UVA. While addressing incoming students at their convocation in 1955, Professor Robert Gooch focused less on the System of Honor at the University and spent more time addressing what he considered to be the more essential “Spirit of Honor.” Professor Gooch argued that a System of Honor could not fully exist without an underpinning Spirit. As we mark the 170th year of the Honor Code’s at UVA, some say that it is nothing more than a relic of the past. With a University expanding its student body and diversifying the cultural understanding of what is honorable, some contend this rigid System will only face decline. Undoubtedly we should, and will continue to, reflect on and debate the best way to administer our System of Honor. For me, however, this summer made clear, more so than at any other point during my time at UVA, that the most essential element, the Spirit of Honor, is still very much alive today.

! For me, however, this summer made clear, more so than at any other point during my time at UVA, that the most essential element, the Spirit of Honor, is still very much alive today. At first, this feeling might seem at odds with the actions of the Committee that I lead. Indeed, the Committee took the unprecedented step of releasing a statement to express what we saw as a “challenge to our Community of Trust.” Further, we felt we were experiencing an environment that was “inconsistent with the value of trust that runs

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Society of California Accountants, “Annual Convention Issue 1973-1974,” The California Accountant, 28-30, (1973), p. 70. 1


30' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! through the very fabric of our University.”2 Yet while this challenge was strong and struck at our core, the Spirit of Honor was also echoing all throughout our University. Despite the different words that people used – Community of Trust, doing what is right, integrity, honor – many individuals kept going back to our guiding principles and ethical framework that we have demanded of each other for all these years. At other schools, students, faculty, and alumni might have found disappointment in the decision and separated themselves over the merits of the action. At UVA, we could have also split upon the reinstatement lines and exclusively defined this period based on those terms. Yet, while there were obviously differences of opinions, we united as a community to affirm that what started out as a sixteen-word pledge two centuries ago still impacts the way we currently conduct ourselves. Those supreme words continue to guide our expectations for the future. It was a period when our Community of Trust was challenged, but also when the Spirit of Honor prevailed. Neither the events of June, nor the Spirit of Honor will probably ever be explained in a few succinct words. There will always be lingering variations and disagreements about what is truly right. Nonetheless, this summer showed me that though the spirit Professor Gooch outlined might be aged, amongst thousands more students from many different countries, and often hard to describe, it still carries on with vitality; and that makes this University truly unique and prepared to tackle any issue that might come our way. Stephen Nash is a rising fourth year student studying an Interdisciplinary Major. He is a College of Arts & Science Representative to the Honor Committee and is the Chairman of the Committee for the 2012-2013 academic year.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stephen Nash, "A Challenge to our Community of Trust,” accessed on August 28, 2012, http://www.virginia.edu/honor/. 2


Virginia'Policy'Review! 31! !

A Legislative Proposal for Higher Education in Virginia State Senator Creigh Deeds ! On December 20, 1787 Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, “Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty.”1 As a legislator, these words resonate with me. Education is a key ingredient to success. The more education one has, the more opportunity one will find. Further, public higher education is critical to our whole American notion of upward mobility. The events put in motion by the forced resignation of President Teresa Sullivan force us all to consider our commitment to Virginia’s system of higher education. Have our priorities shifted too much?

Higher Education Funding The state’s failure to provide adequate funding is a major cause of recent stress among institutions of higher education. Public higher education is the key not only to building a middle class but also to creating prosperity in all communities. Because state funding continues to drop, tuition has increased dramatically. As a result, college administrators are forced to overemphasize the importance of fund raising. The constant search for dollars negatively influences the overall culture of higher education and administrative priorities. State funding for education at all levels continues to stagnate or decline as is the case with higher education. Funding per full-time

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Julian P. Boyd, Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950, 12:442, quote retrieved from www.monticello.org. 1

!

student has decreased 23 percent since 1992. And state funding for core academic functions at our public institutions reached a new low last year of only 33 percent. This has occurred despite the fact that the goal is for the state to cover two-thirds of those costs. 2 The difference is made up through tuition increases. This drives up the need for financial aid programs at the schools. It makes higher education less accessible to low-income families. The University of Virginia in particular is under extreme pressure to provide financial aid to needy students. The University is expected to grow the number of degrees awarded with diminishing support from the state. At some point, fiscal realities envelop decision makers from pursuing the mission of the University, or the needs of students and faculty. A prioritization on higher education funding by the General Assembly is needed to correct this imbalance.

! At some point, fiscal realities envelop decision makers from pursuing the mission of the University, or the needs of students and faculty. A prioritization on higher education funding by the General Assembly is needed to correct this imbalance. Board Composition – Implications for Public Policy The Board of Visitors is given clear statutory authority to make decisions on the hiring and firing of a school President. 3 However, the method utilized most recently seriously undermined the tranquil prestige for which

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Senate of Virginia: Senate Finance Committee, “Higher Education in Transition, accessed on August 28, 2012, http://sfc.virginia.gov/pdf/retreat/2011%20Retreat /Presentation_Final%20PDF%20for%20Website/4.HE %20-%20FINAL%20Retreat%202011.pdf. 3 Code of Virginia § 23-76, accessed on August 28, 2012, http://lis.virginia.gov/cgibin/legp604.exe?000+cod+23-76. 2


32' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! the University of Virginia is known. The University community – including faculty, staff, and students – deserves better. The decorum that has existed for nearly two centuries requires more collaboration from university leaders. The past several weeks leave an indelible mark on the history of the University in both negative and positive ways. The spirit of community and commitment has never been stronger. Watching students, alumni, faculty, and staff unite for a common purpose was tremendous. I am convinced we are all stronger as a result. We cannot, however, neglect to learn from this experience. There are lessons that must be utilized to inform public policy. For instance, we must look at our system of appointing Boards of Visitors. For years, Republican and Democratic Governors have appointed contributors and supporters to these posts. Without question, most appointees take their roles seriously and few solely relish in the prestige and ceremony of serving. However, we must ask ourselves: Do we want board members without any educational background playing such a significant policy role? A diversity of backgrounds and experience can generate novel approaches to challenges. Yet a board devoid of any expertise in education policy is insufficient. Although I am in the early stages of contemplating prospective legislation, I think we need to inject a number of criteria to the system of appointments. First, candidates must be qualified in terms of education and training. Second, appointees must possess significant connections to the community of the university or college they are to serve. This can be by residency, alumni affiliation, or present or past work relationship. Third, successful candidates cannot have pecuniary conflicts that would create the appearance of a conflict of interest. In 2007, I sponsored legislation to add a nonvoting faculty member to the boards of all

intuitions of higher learning in Virginia.4 While many boards throughout the Commonwealth already provide a voice for faculty, the University of Virginia does not. The bill failed. I remain convinced that the addition of a faculty member to the board would add much needed balance. Without one, an important perspective in board deliberations is overlooked.

Moving Forward The General Assembly does not convene until January. Thus, several months of planning and discussion remain. We should consider changes carefully and not be so anecdotally driven that we fail to consider the big picture. Our primary goal is to make certain that the University of Virginia remains one of the most prestigious institutions in the country. Thomas Jefferson did not create the University on a whim. Further, he did not hold low expectations for our system of public higher education. Rather, he saw the pursuit of knowledge as critical to preserving liberty and ensuring the strength of our nation. The same holds true today. The reinstatement of President Teresa Sullivan would not have occurred without the voices of students, faculty, staff, and alumni. The legislative process demands the same fervor and input. Creigh Deeds is a current Virginia State Senator from the 25th District, which encompasses part of Charlottesville. Deeds served from 1991 to 2011 as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates representing the 18th District. If you have suggestions or ideas on how to improve our laws, you can contact Senator Deeds at district25@senate.virginia.gov or in writing at Post Office Box 5462, Charlottesville, Virginia 22905.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Creigh Deeds, “SB 892 Higher Education, Council of; requires Governor appoint nonvoting faculty representative thereto,” accessed on August 28, 2012, http://lis.virginia.gov/cgibin/legp604.exe?071+sum+SB892. 4


Virginia'Policy'Review! 33! !

A Compact for the University of Virginia Ray Scheppach ! Postsecondary education is in crisis in the United States as the recent events surrounding the University of Virginia’s President and the Board of Visitors can attest. Much of the recent problem in Charlottesville was due to the lack of informed communication. However, the University of Virginia, similar to most other public postsecondary institutions, faces significant revenue, cost, and performance challenges. To meet these, the University needs to adopt a vision and strategic plan that has the support of all major stakeholders in the state.

The Challenges First, funding for public higher education from both state and federal governments will decrease in real terms and perhaps even in nominal terms over the next decade. State governments had robust revenue growth over the 1978-2008 period of almost 6.5 percent per year.1 When the “Great Recession” hit in the last quarter 2008 state revenues fell over five consecutive quarters by 3.9, 11.6, 16.4, 10.9, and 4.1 percent, respectively.2 Most state revenues are still below the 2008 level. Furthermore, the “best case” scenario is that state revenues will grow about four to five percent over the next decade. But most of those additional revenues will go to Medicaid, which is about 22 percent of the average state budget.3 If Virginia and other states opt for the Medicaid expansion as part of the Affordable

Care Act, then all elementary, secondary, and higher education will continue to be cut. Governors will be more protective of the first two because they can shift the costs of higher education to students and parents. The situation at the federal level for education is just as bleak. Most education and research and development (R&D) spending falls under the domestic discretionary budget, which receives annual appropriations. Given the inability of Congress to cut major entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and given an outstanding debt of $14 trillion, this category of the budget will witness significant cuts in the future. As a result, higher education and R&D will receive its proportionate share of these cuts. Second, even though the United States postsecondary education system is still the envy of the world, it has fallen significantly relative to those in many other countries. Other nations have not only copied our system, but many have developed new models linking their institutions to specific market needs. This is the case in Singapore, South Korea, China, India, Finland, and Ireland. Further, not only has the rest of the world made major jumps in the quality of higher education in the last two decades, but there are signs that the United States has declined. Our system is not meeting the demands of an increasingly competitive international economy. Some of the signs are as follows: •

Many public colleges and universities do not provide all their graduates with the critical thinking, problem solving, and adaptive skills, including science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) necessary for 21st Century jobs.

Public education has not kept up with demand for highly qualified nurses, engineers, and K-12 teachers.

A total of 12 OECD countries have higher first time graduation rates than the 38 percent seen in the United States.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “The Fiscal Survey of States, 1979-2009,” The National Association of State Budget Officers, Washington, D.C. 2 The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, “State Revenue Flash Report,” The State University of New York at Albany, February 23, 2010, Albany, New York. 3 “The State Expenditure Report, 2010,” The National Association of State Budget Officers, Washington, D.C. 1

!


34' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! The United States is the only country in the OECD where 25-34 year olds are not better educated than 55-64 year olds.

performance standards. It comes in exchange for the state’s commitment to multi-year, stable funding.

Third, the costs of higher education have soared over the last few decades. For example, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all goods and services has increased 115 percent from 1986 to 2012, but tuition and fees for higher education increased 498 percent. This means that a school that cost $10,000 in 1986 would cost a shocking $59,000 today.4

The number of high-quality degrees awarded by an undergraduate, graduate school, or professional schools would comprise to measure output. Performance standards might include graduation rates, persistence rates, and productivity metrics. Employer input would also be very helpful to ensure that the University is meeting their needs for highly trained graduates in the state. It also brings the private sector to the table not only regarding their R&D needs, but those that they may be willing to fund. Once a compact is agreed upon that meets the needs of the private sector and the political leadership in the state, it should help to adequately fund the University.

Education is the key to being able to compete in an increasingly competitive international marketplace. It is the major source of innovation and productivity changes, which underlie increases in real wages and real incomes. From both an economic and civil society standpoint education is the cornerstone. For that reason we must overcome these three challenges and build a more robust system.

A University Compact Given the magnitude of these challenges, and the importance of higher education, it is critical to bring together the postsecondary public leadership in the state, specifically, representatives from the Governor’s office and the state legislature, with major employers including those that are currently funding R&D with the University leadership. It means bringing together all key stakeholders of the University to see if a consensus can be derived regarding a vision, goals, financing, output, and performance standards. Thus, the role for the Board of Visitors would change to one of an honest broker. The compact should include both long and short run goals. Once a vision and long-term objectives are established, the University would be aligned to attain them. The agreement would hold the University accountable for meeting a set of output and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gordon H. Wadsworth, “Sky Rocketing College Costs,” accessed on August 28, 2012, http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Article s/Education_Inflation.asp. 4

The state’s political leadership is most interested in three areas where they believe the state gets the highest rate of return on investment. They are as follows: •

Graduates with the critical skills and capabilities to enhance the state’s competiveness. Particular focus is placed on the rapidly growing, high wage industries that export goods out of the local area.

Graduates that will become highly skilled teachers, particularly in the STEM area. They are best suited to aid the elementary and secondary education system in the state.

Creation of new knowledge. This occurs by investing in R&D and by establishing partnerships and policies that disseminate innovations and convert them into economic value.

The Steps in Creating a Compact The creation of a successful compact requires high quality data on the state economy, and similar data on the University. It requires the right stakeholders at the table and an open


Virginia'Policy'Review! 35! ! and transparent process. The following steps are necessary: 1. Determine the needs of the state. The state compact must be based on a comprehensive understanding of regional economic needs. The specific industries and regional clusters that offer high wages and growth potential are given precedence. This includes knowledge of the critical skill requirements of these industries. It is also important to understand which firms and industries are funding the bulk of the R&D being done in the state. Specific business cluster and market analysis can help all stakeholders understand the composition of local industries and the global market factors that might impact them. It may be important to survey industry leaders to learn how the University system is contributing to the needs of the state. Finally, the requirements of elementary and secondary institutions for teachers by subject, as well as principals and superintendents, are an important component of the needs assessment. 2. Understand the University. All parties must have an in-depth understanding of the University. They need to understand the governance of the institution, levels of state, federal and industry support, areas of faculty and research expertise, and relative standing among similar states. It is also important to know the number and type of graduates each year and their individual skill sets. Graduation rates, persistence rates, and productivity metrics are also important. Finally, it is important to understand state rules and regulations and their respective impact on university performance. 3. Establish high quality data systems. The foundation for the entire process has to be a high quality data system. It should include cost, revenue, and output— including the number of graduates—for each department and school. It should also detail performance metrics. For instance, understanding graduation rates including

!

productivity measures is critical. Data should initially be developed for the last ten years, but also include a tracking mechanism to measure progress relative to adopted goals. Privacy of students must be protected, but the system should be public and easily accessible. 4. Convene the Stakeholders. The success of a compact agreement requires that all stakeholders take ownership of the final agreement and their respective responsibilities. •

Public Sector. The Governor, in consultation with the legislature, needs to appoint representatives of state government. The team could include cabinet officials, the appointed or elected chief school officer, and legislative leaders in post secondary education and economic development.

Governing Board. The Governorappointed Board of Visitors would be responsible for leading the discussion. They should play the role of honest broker.

The University. The President should lead this team. It should also include Deans with administrative and finance expertise, as well as academic Deans and other faculty representatives.

The Private Sector. The private sector is a critical component of this negotiation. To help understand the skill needs of industry as well as the role of R&D and innovation in the state they must be present.

The process and meetings need to be open and transparent. A draft agreement should be made available for public comment.


36' Virginia'Policy'Review! ! A Final Comment The future challenges faced by the University of Virginia are no different than those faced by most postsecondary institutions in the United States. They include decreasing public funds, high costs, and declining quality of output relative to the rest of the world. On the other hand, the nation needs now, more than ever, a robust high quality University system in order to compete in world markets. The compact approach outlined here is not a silver bullet, but it is a more formal process. It is data driven and will educate all parties as to critical challenges. The process is also transparent. For this reason, output and performance can be monitored over time. Hopefully, this would lead to a stronger commitment in the state, from both the

political leadership and the employment community, for the University as it is a huge state asset. Getting all the major stakeholders on the same page pays huge dividends for all stakeholders and the University over time. Ray Scheppach is a Professor of Practice at the Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy and Economic Fellow at the Miller Center of Public Affairs. Note: This article depends heavily on a report that the author supervised and partially wrote when he was the Executive Director of the National Governors Association entitled Innovation America: A Compact for Postsecondary Education. Washington, D.C. 2008.


Special Edition: Board of Visitors & University Administration