Nancy C Heffernan on 06/02/2013

I just want to observe that a year after the contemptible Helen Dragas and her cabal conspired to fire President Sullivan, Dragas is still leading the Board of Visitors and harassing the President.  Does this suggest that the governor or whoever appointed Dragas owes her or fears her in ways yet to be revealed?  When someone finds out what and how she controls the governor, then many questions will be answered.

High Quality blog commenting on 12/14/2012

As individual members of the Council of Foundations, we move unreservedly to support President Teresa Sullivan continuing as President of the University of Virginia.
http://www.seoclerks.com/scrapebox-blasts/28544/do-1PR7-3-PR6-20-PR5-50-PR4-50-PR3-high-PR-dofollow

Kelly Ceppa Envi-Sci '87 on 07/12/2012

President Sullivan—your respect, generosity, and professionalism are an extraordinary example to all!  You make women proud and show the world how real women in power could change the world!  Kudos to you!

Hob Bryan on 07/02/2012

Thank you for posting the statement of institutional purpose.  I suggest all these changes being promoted by at least some board members and heaven knows who else be judged by whether they further the university’s purpose as set out in the statement.

Susan B. Educ '61 on 07/02/2012

Amen, Messrs. Shin and Storch.
The only light in this sordid mess is the appointment of Mr.Leonard Sandridge to the BOV, but sadly without voting power. He, at least, lives by the Honor Code.

Stephen von Storch on 07/02/2012

As my friend GT Shin so perfectly outlined above, my frustration only grows as I think of the insider trading that allows the current board leadership to remain.

Our Honor Code - Not to lie, cheat or steal.

- Someone absolutely lied when one declares unanimous support and others that they knew nothing.

- Cheating on required procedural requirements to your fellow board members.

- Stealing authority to act as a minority when that authority was not granted. This is the most painful as that theft took from every current student, alumnus, teaching staff, employee and local and state resident vested in this University.

Perhaps I can sell my now devalued diploma on ebay before we elect to compete on line with the various diploma factories already widely available.

Geeez.

GT Shin on 06/26/2012

Ok, even though President Sullivan’s statement is a huge win, I am still really, really angry. This is very perplexing. So, let’s recap:

1. Dragas decides President Sullivan is not doing something enough. (What, exactly that is, is still unclear. How she came to this determination is also unclear, but it seems to involve reading at least a few articles in the NY Times.)

2. Dragas then does not tell Sullivan that she is not doing something enough. Repeatedly.

3. Dragas receives a detailed memo from Sullivan describing a strategic approach to address complex and inter-related problems at UVa, based on months of work consulting with the “Provost, the Chief Operating Officer, deans, and other key personnel”. Dragas then does not share this memo with the board.

4. Dragas then colludes with Kington and non-BOV member Kiernan to conduct a series of clandestine meetings with individual Visitors to garner their support to force Sullivan out for not doing whatever it was she wasn’t telling Sullivan she wasn’t doing. This takes months, over which time Dragas continues to not tell Sullivan that anything is amiss.

5. Dragas and Kington carefully avoid talking with three Board members who are widely believed to have been enthusiastic Sullivan supporters, and therefore unlikely to go along with such a subversive action.

6. Dragas lies to the Governor, saying that she has the BOV’s unanimous support for ousting Sullivan.

7. Dragas and Kington begin composing the announcement of Sullivan’s resignation a week before arranging a surprise, informal visit to Sullivan late on a Friday afternoon to inform her they have the votes to force her out. Stunned, Sullivan agrees to resign to save the University embarrassment.

8. Dragas then calls an emergency meeting for the following Sunday morning for an event she knew was going to occur at least a week in advance with complete disregard for the notice requirements as stipulated in the BOV Manual

SECTION 2.34 NOTICE OF MEETINGS—Due notice in writing of the Annual Meeting and all regular meetings and of any changes in the dates, times, or places of a regular meeting shall be given by the Secretary of the Board of Visitors. Such written notice shall be sent at least ten days prior to the meeting. Written notice of all special meetings shall be sent by the Secretary at least five days in advance of the meeting. (Emphasis mine)
So, either Dragas knew this and chose to disregard it, or she was acting in ignorance of the Manual. Coincidentally, the three prominent Sullivan supporters are unable to attend.

9. In fact, only three board members are able to attend to accept Sullivan’s resignation, which is far below the requisite 2/3 needed to do so as stipulated by the BOV’s Manual.
SECTION 4.21 ELECTION—The President shall be elected by the Board of Visitors and may be removed only by assent of two-thirds of the whole number of Visitors.
Now, while she may have garnered such assent informally, Dragas never convened a meeting of the board, which Sullivan would have been expected and required to attend, again as stipulated in the Section 4.21 of the BOV Manual.
The President shall attend all meetings of the Board and shall have notice of and the privilege of attending all meetings of its committees.
So, again, either Dragas deliberately disregarded these rules or was completely ignorant of them.

10. Dragas’ announcement of Sullivan’s resignation sets off a firestorm of protest, resulting in several actions unprecedented in UVa’s history, including a vote of no confidence by the Faculty Senate, Kiernan’s resignation from the Darden Board, Kington’s resignation from the BOV, and massive demonstrations by students, faculty, staff, and alumni.

11. Dragas hires a PR firm at $750 an hour to control the fallout, which fails miserably and only serves to make her case even more transparently insupportable. (Can we FOIA the final bill?)

12. The end result of Dragas’ subversive, illegal and/or incompetent actions is to force the board to meet in special session and reverse themselves publically while streaming live with thousands and thousands of people watching for the first time in UVa history, reinstating Sullivan.

13. In conclusion, the BOV votes unanimously to express its confidence in Dragas.

Now I know why I am angry. In reinstating Sullivan’s presidency, the BOV redressed a grievous error, but instead of following up the first motion with a second one calling for Dragas’ resignation, they let her get away with it. By expressing unanimous confidence in Rector Dragas, they utterly failed to hold accountable the chief agent responsible for that error, and made themselves accessories in the process.

So, either the confidence vote was a cowardly attempt to present the world with a veneer of integrity, or they really, truly don’t understand that what Dragas did was wrong.

SECTION 2.4 POWERS AND DUTIES—The powers and duties conferred upon the Board are to be exercised for the purpose of carrying into effect the Statement of Institutional Purpose contained in Chapter 1.
The major powers and duties are
1   the preservation of the ideals and traditions of the University and particularly encouragement of the maintenance of the Honor System by the student body(…)

The STATEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE reads:
The central purpose of the University of Virginia is to enrich the mind by stimulating and sustaining a spirit of free inquiry directed to understanding the nature of the universe and the role of mankind in it. Activities designed to quicken, discipline, and enlarge the intellectual and creative capacities, as well as the aesthetic and ethical awareness, of the members of the University and to record, preserve, and disseminate the results of intellectual discovery and creative endeavor serve this purpose. In fulfilling it, the University places the highest priority on achieving eminence as a center of higher learning.

While Dragas’ actions were reprehensible, the Board’s constitute a massive failure of governance and responsibility.

William Wells on 06/26/2012

I am grateful to the U.Va Magazine’s forum and to the Cavalier Daily for their work in uncovering the truth of this ugly event.
Today is a great day to contribute to UVA.
Your donation today or this week sends a powerful message to the Governor and the BOV.

David Barney on 06/26/2012

I’m grateful for U.Va. Magazine’s forum these past days since June 10th.

Joseph W. Teague Jr CLAS 84 on 06/26/2012

I hope that Rector Dragas and certain other Board of Visitor members will soul search and retire from the scene of the carnage via resignation so that real leadership can step forward from this point.

Bryan Wright, GSAS '90 on 06/26/2012

I completely agree with Andrew Miller, above.  The Board realized its error, and corrected it, and we should thank them for it.  The UVa community has emerged from this crucible stronger than ever.

Andrew Miller on 06/26/2012

I am so glad that Dr. Sullivan has been reinstated as President of UVa. This is an amazing moment for UVa and I am looking forward to the work of President Sullivan, faculty, students, alumni, and the reinvigorated board and the projects they will build from here on out. What a great example for the country of righting a wrong and moving forward together.  This will only make UVa better than ever.

Ashamed Alumn Grad 01 on 06/26/2012

Open letter to Rector Dragas:

For the good of the institution you claim to love so much, resign, immediately.

You cannot insult the intelligence of thousands of UVA community members by pretending to participate, let alone in a leadership role, in reconstructing what you’ve destroyed during the past weeks.

It’ll take years for the school to get back lost funding/donations, lost faculty members and lost potential good students to the very level where it was about a month ago before you Mrs. Dragas led the BOV with questionable and shady approach to carry its duties.

Reinstating President Sullivan tones down the outrage that generated your actions in the community, but doesn’t eliminate the cause of the outrage which is lack of trust.

An entire community trusted you and the BOV to lead the University; and you, with your actions, have boldly ask for that trust to be rescinded. And that can only be solved by your resignation.

Can’t have 100% certainty that the university will not face trust issues in the future, but we will move on and hope that that the future will show otherwise.

On the other hand we presently know with 100% certainty that you Mrs. Dragas act in a very questionable manner that does not breed and/or nourish trust; something of the utmost importance right now for the University to move forward, bring back the donors and faculty that are still in limbo, and begin reconstructing what was destroyed by your actions.

The University will survive this, and will emerge stronger out of the crisis, do the right thing and help jump start the reconstruction journey with your resignation.

Deborah Roberts Horst, CLAS 79 on 06/26/2012

Here’s to hoping the BoV does the right thing—it is time both literally and figuratively!

Ben Terry, CLAS, '78 on 06/26/2012

I keep hearing this “corporation sole” nonsense.  That’s the theory used to perpetuate an IRS scam, whereby you incorporate yourself, and you, as an individual legal entity, cease to exist, so you don’t have to file a tax return any longer.  Google it—you can send $29.95 and get a DIY packet to become a “corporation sole.” 

Any board of directors acts in a fiduciary capacity.  They serve either the owners, or the shareholders, or, in this case, the General Assembly.  They don’t represent anybody.  But they have a duty to place the interests of UVA and the State above their own.  They don’t have a duty to faculty or students, except that it would be impossible for them to discharge their legal duty without taking into account the well-being of the students and the faculty.

The idea that they are a “corporation sole,” which in this context I suppose means they act as their own agent, free to advance their own personal agenda in the operation of the University, is complete and utter nonsense.

Ben Terry, CLAS, '78 on 06/26/2012

Required by Virginia law:

Section 23-63 Branches of learning to be taught
The following branches of learning shall be taught at the University: the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, Spanish, Italian, German, and Anglo-Saxon languages; the different branches of mathematics, pure and physical; natural philosophy, chemistry, mineralogy, including geology; the principles of agriculture; botany, anatomy, surgery, and medicine; zoology, history, ideology, general grammar, ethics, rhetoric, and belles lettres; civil government, political economy, the law of nature and of nations and municipal law.

So if Dragas wants to drop any of these, she would be in violation of the law.

John, College ‘79 on 06/26/2012

To: R Richard Schweitzer
These are all arguable points, and while I could certainly sit here debating the matter with you for quite a while, I sincerely hope there is further discussion on these matters among those with authority to consider changes.

R Richard Schweitzer on 06/26/2012

@John, College ‘79 (et al. simil.)

The R and BOV is a Corporation Sole, not a “representative” assembly. It has specific functions to determine the objectives and the means of attaining those objectives for the University.

The functions of the faculties and administrators are to execute the tasks assigned to them to attain those objectives, so determined, by the means, so determined.

It is not the function of those bodies of persons to “represent” any other “interests.” Once the interests of faculties and administrators are deployed by them in the determination of the objectives and means he character of The University will change to that of institutions you have mentioned, with results such as Lawrence Summers’ experience will become common. Self-perpetuating oligarchies will evolve, with self-importance and self- interest as priorities, the space for actual learning rather than extensions of doctrines will shrink.

Other institutions may go their ways, and they do, but none, not one, in the present trends of their developing characteristics or doctrines offers The University a nobler example for the opportunity for learning.

As for students’ “interests” or “representation,” that belongs at the level of the individual schools within The University, constrained to their relationship to the functions of the schools.

The faculties have adequate range for their “interests” in the operations and structures of their several schools.

If something else is wanted, for the faculties and administrators, explain why and to what (and whose) benefit.

Rahul Keshap on 06/26/2012

If anyone wants to make a pledge to UVa to support President Sullivan’s reinstatement, we’ve created a Facebook page to track the pledges - http://www.facebook.com/groups/396297147073185/.

Regards,
Rahul Keshap
CLAS ‘96, LAW ‘99

John, College ‘79 on 06/26/2012

In reply to Frank Goodpasture III:  I completely disagree with your statement that “There is no need to change the charter of the BoV to include faculty.”

I believe that a key issue highlighted in this mess is the flawed structure of the BoV at UVA.  One outcome should be that the Governor revisit the governance structure at UVA.  Faculty and students should be represented.  UVA’s proclaiming that they allow their students a large voice in how the University is run but not including a student rep on the Board strikes me a hypocritical.

Many other universities have Boards that include academics and student representatives.  Examples: 

The Boards of Harvard, Princeton, UNC, VA Tech all include academics, albeit they are often from other universities.

Harvard and Princeton include their Presidents.

UNC, Princeton, and the University of Texas all include a current student.

Va Tech includes two current students, a faculty rep, and a staff rep.

Frank Goodpasture III on 06/25/2012

There is no need to change the charter of the BoV to include faculty.  The defense of this form of university governance I’ll leave to others but suffice it to say, this construct has worked well for decades yielding the University we all love.

Nevertheless, the fact that President Sullivan lunched with the Rector Dragas, who allegedly threatened dismissal if her resignation was not received and that the President capitulated without a vote of the full Board is troubling indeed. No one except the two parties know what was said.  The capitulation short circuited board governance and ignited the current furor.  Clearly, this is not a legitimate indictment of the current governing construct.

Tomorrow’s vote, ostensibly, to reinstate is not a given nor is the willingness of the President to rescinded her resignation if requested…the Governor’s charge intensifies the gravity of the vote…the drama is palpable.  My fondest hope is everyone can accept the outcome as this is how we govern and get back to work for the good of the U.

Glenn Showalter on 06/25/2012

Yes Greg Evans i and many others understand. This is not a “family affair”. Politicians have a formal term, to “save face”. They take lots of our money for this which is why they talk the way they do. The powers to be let this system be in place all these decades and it could destroy UVA. That such a system could be in place that is governed on the say so of one person is against a free Democratic society of a Republic. Virginia was established out of opposition to kings, queens, and dictators. Virginia believes this in its soul to the point of establishing the law that no person may serve as Governor more than one term of office.

A Board system of shared governance solves this problem. It also integrates the national and universal higher education policy that the President serves at the pleasure of the faculty.

Amy A on 06/25/2012

I know that in the wider world people often get McIntire and Darden confused - or at the very least, don’t understand what they are and how they are (and are not) related.  Normally this isn’t a huge deal, but given the high visibility of both deans these past few weeks, it’s not surprising that this confusion would eventually have found its way into the press.  The surprising part, to my mind, is that of all publications to botch it (if that is what it was), it was the WSJ.  Of course, they seem to have botched several facts in this editorial, so maybe that shouldn’t be such a surprise after all…..

Amy A (COM ‘86)

Bryan Wright, GSAS '90 on 06/25/2012

Robert Bruner, Dean of the Darden School of Business, refutes what seems to be an intentionally misleading and inaccurate article in today’s Wall Street Journal:

http://blogs.darden.virginia.edu/deansblog/2012/06/to-fight-for-the-truth/

Tova Maria Solo on 06/25/2012

My husband and I, parents of a 4th year student, just wrote to the BOV urging them to reinstate Theresa Sullivan as President and in addition, to amend the by-laws to assure that the BOV represents government and civil society in greater numbers than corporate society. I do wonder as I write, if the term “civil society” is still in use?

Jutta Clarke on 06/25/2012

My son is a member of the Class of 2015. He is very proud of his school. Over the past year, in our transatlantic phone calls, he often talked about the honour code and how something like this could never exist at a European University. He also often talked about Mrs. Sullian, how he found her inspiring and leading by example, in a quiet and unassuming way. My husabnd and I were surprised that our 18 year-old would notice something like this and comment on it. Very few of the accounts of the events on grounds I had to read over the last couple of weeks were inspiring, or unassuming, or examplary. As a matter of fact, they did not sound at all honourable. If Mrs. Sullivan would be reinstated, I would see my son off much less worried at the end of the summer!

Adele Stotler COMM '80 GSBA '85 on 06/25/2012

Mr. Anderson, please don’t lump all Darden graduates together. I commented right after Mr. Holland and I was followed by Stan. We are both Darden graduates and have a very different viewpoint than Mr. Holland. Mr. Holland expressed Mr. Holland’s point of view. Darden is not the evil school some are making it out to be.

Logan Anderson, College 1983 & GSAS 1985 on 06/25/2012

With today’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal, the Rector’s investment in Hill & Knowlton starts to see national fruit and point to a national agenda playing itself out on Grounds.

This WSJ edit is filled with lies, half-truths, distortions and misinformation. It’s a right-wing attempt to rewrite history. And it makes me sick to say I once identified myself as a conservative.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577481043087404280.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Logan Anderson on 06/25/2012

This is Murray Holland’ vantage point on the Dragas scandal ... a Darden MBA:
Murray T. Holland is a Principal of Convergent Equity Partners L.P. Mr. Holland served as the Chief Executive Officer of Convergent Media Systems Corporation since 1992. Mr. Holland served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BTI Americas, Inc., from February 1995 to June 1998. He acquired his interest in mergers and acquisitions when he was Managing Director of Kidder Peabody & Co. Before that, he served as Senior Vice President of First Boston Capital, which he joined after spending six years with the Dallas-based law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, where he practiced corporate and securities law. He has been Chairman of the Board of Convergent Media Systems Corporation since 1992. He served as Chairman of Convergent Group Corporation from June 1993 to August 1999. Mr. Holland has been a Director of BanTec, which provides advanced imaging, workflow and e-business technologies since 1999. He serves as a Member of Advisory Board at MHT Partners, LP. He served as Director of BancTec Inc. since July 1999. Mr. Holland graduated from Washington & Lee University School of Law and holds an MBA from the University of Virginia and a B.S. from Washington and Lee University.

Ben Terry, CLAS, '78 on 06/25/2012

I would like to respectfully respond to the Holland post, which was a reaction to the Dragas explanation.  The Dragas enumerations listed several points which the writer said presented an immediate, “existential” crisis.  There was no detailed discussion about the solutions, and in particular there was no explanation of how President Sullivan was failing to address the problems.  The implication of the Dragas memo is that we are in such an immediate crisis that drastic, sudden, and unexplained action by those in authority must be accepted without question.  Thus, “the BOV had to do what it did . . . .”

The question is whether the suddenness and severity of the crisis is being manufactured or embellished to circumvent normal political constraints on such a unilateral and drastic exercise of power. 

Most in the UVA seem to think that it is.

Greg Evans on 06/25/2012

The decision of a small, unaccountable minority of the Board of Visitors to commit a coup d’état in secret violates every founding principle of the University of Virginia.

I will not donate another cent to the University until Helen Dragas is no longer on the Board.

- Greg Evans, CLAS ‘99

mark c. lewandowski on 06/24/2012

Well, it is refreshing to see most posts about this issue to be far more polite than most blogs.  That being said, I feel that stronger terms are in order.  How did a world class University come to be dominated by a real estate developer?  And is no one even slightly disturbed by the BOV’s apparent plans to have courses taught by internet?
Nevermind their comments about determining what is taught by what is profitable?  In the end, what is the purpose of the University?
-Mark C. Lewandowski, CLAS ‘80.

Rochelle Jobes, Nursing ''78 on 06/24/2012

No, Rector Dragas, I beg to differ: it was the WRONG thing done in the wrong way.

I understand that you have been on the BOV since 2008, and were chosen Rector in 2010. It seems that sometime during that period it should have become apparent to the BOV that no strategic plan had been created since 2002. This update should have been requested at the very least in 2009 before the departure of President Casteen.

But instead a new President was chosen, and in her contract was reportedly a clause that she should NOT create a new stragegic plan. When she presented a statement of her concerns about the University in May 2012, you used it against her. Though others may have influenced you, it was you who chose to act in the dark of night.

The status of the University has declined in some ways, as many have noted, but this has not happened just in the past year. It has happened over the past 20 years under the BOV’s watch. I fear that if you fail to acknowledge your activities as misconduct and your decision as a “mistake,” your very brief visit as the first female Rector may well be forever linked with notoriety rather than esteem.

If there is to be any silver lining to this international dishonoring of UVA, it will be that We the People now know that we must more closely attend to the activities of the BOV, demand transparency, and support broadened Faculty involvement.

I am a 1978 UVA grad and this year received a certificate of appreciation from UVA for my 25 years of ongoing service as a UVA nurse. I support the Reinstatement of President Sullivan so that she may continue to work with the faculty and BOV to improve Our University.

Jon Guillot on 06/24/2012

No one visiting this site and reading the comments above could come away without conviction that a university must be loved which inspires such passion about its direction and its conduct.

From a friend I hear reports that members of the Board of Visitors have received emails insulting them.  These cannot be helpful, if you are asking someone to reconsider his or her earlier decision to replace Teresa Sullivan as President.  While many of us are passionate in believing that the process by which the Rector and then-Vice-Rector seem to have engineered her ouster was ill-informed, underhandedly secretive, unwarranted by explanations offered to date, out of character with Jeffersonian principles, we all should reflect that there is no perfect knowledge and all of us are capable of making mistakes.  What’s important is that we try honestly to recognize when we’ve gone wrong in judgment, and if so, that we then try to retrieve or redeem our mistakes.

Perhaps some Board members are at that place of recognition as they face a final vote Tuesday afternoon on whether to reinstate President Sullivan.  I believe those of us who support that aim (though not given a chance to vote) can best help it by respectfully asking Board members to consider what makes the UVa experience special, what traits they think vital to our community of trust and shared interest in learning.  Ask them then to ask themselves if the vision and actions of President Sullivan in her brief tenure accord with those traits and have deepened that sense of community.  If she does not fail that examination—and the degree of support shown her in these past two weeks by faculty, students, staff and, yes, a broad spectrum of alumni suggest that she passes THEIR inspection—then pushing her from office has been a mistake, one that should be retrieved on Tuesday by a vote to restore her to active presidency, with apologies for misappreciating her strengths and her powers to inspire those around her.  Because, while the University may well face challenges—all vibrant institutions do!—there are few, even financial ones, that could daunt the concerted energies of a charged up UVa community.

If you feel moved to write to members of the Board of Visitors, imagine that they will likely have feelings as tender for this University as yours are.  Ask them to walk the Lawn one more time before they vote, perhaps, to remember Jefferson’s passion for inquiry and honesty and sharing of knowledge, to think of people who have found the best part of themselves in this place—and of others who someday will.  And don’t omit to thank them for their service to UVa, their desire to preserve and protect and to build her, too.  Say we are all in this together, people of UVa, not mere faceless consumers or dispensers of education, and always, always, more than ciphered numbers.
                      Jon Guillot
                      A & S B.A. ‘73, M.A. ‘76

Here are the Visitors’ addresses for email: Susan Harris, secretary to the BoV sgh4c@virginia.edu , Deborah Rinker, clerk of the BoV dr6n@virginia.edu , Timothy B Robertson tbr4cg@virginia.edu , John L Nau, III nau@sedbud.com , Vincent J Mastracco vjmastracco@kaufcan.com , George K. Martin gmartin@mcguirewoods.com , Stephen P Long, MD splpaindoc@aol.com , Randal J Kirk rj.kirk333@gmail.com , Glynn D Key glynn.key@ge.com , Robert D. Hardie rhardie@riverg.com , Marvin W Gilliam, Jr marvin78@bellavistava.com , W. Heywood Fralin fralinh@mfa.net , Alison C Dinardo cryordinardo@gmail.com , Alan Diamonstein adiamonstein@pwhd.com , Hunter E Craig huntercraig@earthlink.net , A. Macdonald Caputo mac.caputo@morganstanley.com , and Helen E Dragas, Rector hdragas@dragas.com,

John W. McCarthy, Master of Planning, 1986 on 06/24/2012

I take no pleasure in the long slow death march of the Rector, the which was begun at least partially due to a sense that certain academic by-ways (the classics, German language, etc.) needed to be discarded for the good of the broader mission.  I would submit that very little that has happened since could not have been anticipated by even a casual reading of Thucydides.  That hubris which doomed Athens remains, and has now engendered in the University’s detractors a giddy schadenfreude.
With thanks for the “teachable moment”, I believe that the Rector loves the University and so it is time for her to go so that it may begin to recover and learn new lessons.

Glenn R. Showalter, M.Ed. on 06/24/2012

  It makes us proud to see all of these outstanding informative commentaries in what must be a tribute to UVA nationally. Stan brings us the resource of a delightful video above, which airs its own aspect of this matter and while i was going to wait to express the sentiment, it would be good to follow-up Stan’s video.

  From the onset i knew what sparked this matter, at least in my opinion. Love. People can be jealous of those who have true love. It is something a lot of people think they have yet they do not even know what love is, in its most pure form. People of the money type of wealth spend their lives trying to buy love, yet the Bible teaches us to “store up treasurers in Heaven”. Have mentioned to Nuns, ‘Sister you are very wealthy’. God is love and pure love is of God. Teresa A. Sullivan radiates that love. Her professional qualifications have been well stated in these web pages. You have also touched upon what i say here but wanted to be objective. I think i speak for the vast majority in expressing our love for our President in addition to our objective admiration for her steller performance as President and nationally rare qualifications especially for a woman. Look around the country, you can find that in many university presidents, but what singles out our Teresa Sullivan is that in just two years, she is one of the most loved university presidents in America. Thank you Terry for being our President. We love you.

Bryan Wright, GSAS '90 on 06/23/2012

Regarding Mr. Holland’s comments, above, I’ll readily admit that Helen Dragas is smarter than I am.  (Regrettably, very many people are.) I’m not, however, willing to stipulate that she’s smarter than all of the members of the Faculty Senate, all of the Deans of all the schools at UVa, two former University presidents, and all the thousands of individuals and organizations that have expressed their disagreement with the Rector.

What secret knowledge does Rector Dragas possess that trumps the combined wisdom of all of these people?  Her explanations to date have been interesting summaries of current trends in higher education, but included no information that wasn’t known to all.  UVa is already engaged in online education, and has been for some time.  Those opposed to Rector Dragas have long been well aware of each of the challenges listed in Rector Dragas’ recent messages.

Nothing that she’s said so far explains the necessity for immediately dismissing President Sullivan, without time for a Board meeting or consultation with faculty, staff and students.

Is there some explanation?  And if so, why isn’t the Rector sharing it with us?

Stan - Coll 71 and Darden '74 on 06/23/2012

If you would like to see a moving tribute, visit the following link prepared by an alumna. (get a tissue first).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMr3_wIQJNE&feature=player_embedded

Adele Stotler COMM '80 GSBA '85 on 06/23/2012

After reading Murray Holland’s comment I felt compelled to write. In my household of 4 UVa alumni we have had heated discussions about this situation so I am aware that it is not a clear cut answer. However, I have to say whether the BOV was correct or not in their assessment of President Sullivan, (And Mr. Holland is correct; I do not have the needed information to even begin to make that determination.) the processed was handled in such an extraordinarily poor way - poor leadership, poor execution, and especially poor anticipation of the reaction of the UVa constituents.
I believe that is what truly caused such an emotional reaction and an outright condemnation of the Board. We expect our leaders to act in an honorable fashion. When we, as constituents, discover that the Board did not meet to discuss this action and that those Board members who might not back such a plan were not notified of the plan until there were 11 positive votes, and still the Board did not actually meet to discuss the plan, that is what upsets many of us.
I can not say whether I agree with the Board’s decision or not as I don’t have the necessary information to make the decisions. But, I do know I do not trust the Board leadership that led the previous process and thought that the UVa constituents would all think we would all be okay with the way they handled it.
Even today, the students still believe in respect for one another. The process showed no respect for President Sullivan.
President Sullivan, on the other hand, has been a role model in the days following her forced resignation. She has gone about doing her job; she has only spoken in support of UVa, and she has asked that others stop fighting and starting supporting. I may think she should be reinstated because she is the only one who can properly handle the healing process.

Bruce Deemer on 06/23/2012

    I have re-read the three-page “fuller explanation” H.E. Dragas, Rector, provided by email on June22, 2012 with regard to the Board’s (unspecified) action that lead to President T. Sullivan’s recent, precipitous resignation. 

While the 10-item partial list of challenges facing the University poses considerable challenges to be discussed and worked on, nowhere in the explanation does Ms. Dragas state, “These concerns the Board made known to the President from the beginning and on repeated occasions since.”  I am left wondering why a “long-range,” “centralized,” and “deliberate and strategic approach” and plan are not part of the Board’s duties, or at least shared duties. 

Some of the concerns the explanation cites are at odds with each other: the (#1) funding challenges to spiraling costs are in part due to the large increases in compensation to faculty (#6), as noted under (#4) “competing demands.”  To discuss faculty compensation in terms relative to other institutions is to join in spurring on endlessly spiraling costs that have seen educational costs rise at twice the rate of national inflation.  To speak of needed technological inputs(#2 and #5) and “faster, multi-platform communications (#10) threatens to add to the costs competing for resources and brings to mind that educational costs have risen 50% faster than our nation’s bloated expenditures on medical care.  The need for further technological changes in all the areas noted is not clear to me.  Language laboratories were helpful, but it was my instructors and hours of traditional study that taught me Russian.  Swedish and German I learned without the labs.  Good textbooks paired with good teachers and professors – will the hoped for technologies replace or add to these to a degree significant enough to justify their costs?  Is that question not open for discussion? 

I am left wondering whether it is feasible to create any long-term plan that reliably can address all these issues.  Will such a plan necessarily face such frequent revisions as to become itself incremental in actual practice?  Abraham Lincoln noted that any river boat pilot on the Mississippi who had a set navigational plan was bound to run aground in the ever- shifting waters and bars of that river, as an analogy to having a set, clear plan for governing the nation.  Grand Strategies may be needed, but it is often ad hoc decisions on the battlefield that make such “visions” succeed or fail.  When I am informed that the University must “be a leader in fulfilling its mission, not a follower” I am left asking, “a follower of what or of whom?”  Events such as recessions?  Political shifts that denigrate the value of a college education?  How many alumni share Ms. Sullivan’s difference of philosophy?  How many students?  Does the Board decide these issues for us?

In short, more questions are raised than answered by this explanation.  The list does not show why President Sullivan could not continue to be part of the needed process of development or that there were clear expectations that she purportedly failed to meet.  If the Board’s actions and, now, explanations cause backers and supporters to back off and hold back, then the wrong way to do the putative “right thing” simply becomes effectively the wrong thing.  Period.  The Board may cite values of “honor, integrity and trust” but by its actions those values are in real danger of ringing hollow, or, should I say unbelievable?

Murray Holland on 06/23/2012

I have never met President Sullivan but from all the comments by Professors and students, she was apparently loved by many. I have never met any member of the BOV either.  What I have seen are a lot of emotionally charged comments on this page, most of which are critical of the BOV. I am appalled by the severe reaction of many before any facts about why she was terminated became public.
The reaction of many who apparently loved President Sullivan by outright comdemnation of the BOV was not well thought out. The behavior of many in the faculty, and some students, is nothing more than an emotional reaction to someone they love getting terminated. No one knew any facts a week ago, but that did not bother many from convicting the BOV. I think this emotional reaction, rather than well thought out reasoning with reserched facts and objective analysis, is the real tragedy of this situation. One person has been terminated by sixteen people and the overwhelming response by the faculty is that one person is absolutely right and sixteen people are dead wrong…and by the way, “we have no facts just our emotional reaction”.

Rector Dragas, whom I have never met, set out why the decision was made. Notice that her communication, like all communication on this page should be, was restrained, never blaming President Sullivan publicly and never condenming President Sullivan. The message, nevertheless, was there. President Sullivan was obviously expert at relationships with the faculty: the faculty is obviously more than willing to fall on their swords for President Sullivan before knowing any facts. Just take a look at this page.

President Sullivan, however, was not good at managing the finances of the University. Items 1-8 of Rector Dragas’ message were essentially financial, except item 2, which was technology related. The University is facing serious financial problems, including lower compensation to faculty, lower financial assistance to students, less funding for research, etc. In addition, a number of top universities are trying online cirricula and our University is not. And, by the way, these other universities are making a lot of money on these courses. Many in the faculty are not financially oriented and miss the importance of this issue. It may be sad to say, but without money, there is no university, unless of course we can get the faculty to take a 50% pay cut when we actually need pay increases to keep up with the competition.

In order for the BOV to come to the point of terminating President Sullivan for not taking care of these items, these issues must have gone on for some time without adequate progress by President Sullivan. What I read between the lines is that she should have been full time meeting with wealthy University graduates, meeting with alumnae chapters, and all other potential sources, explaining the dire financial situation and asking for money, rather than spending time creating relationships with faculty.

The University, before all other issues are addressed, has to have money available for all its other functions. All other issues are secondary to running out of money. If we lose great faculty because they are under paid or great students because there is limited financial aid, the University will fail. The University has over 20,000 students total. If the state support has dropped by $7,000 per student over the last twelve years, that is a loss of….$140 million. This is a big number and under any circumstances is a financial emergency. This is the number one issue facing the University and, in the opinion of the BOV, was not being addressed adequately by President Sullivan.

It sounds to me like the BOV had to do what it did in order to save the University.

Jim Harrison (parent and faculty member) on 06/22/2012

It may be of interest to this group that some of the material released by the BOV resembles guidance brochures for university boards and governors released in May by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA):

http://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/AcademicPriorities.pdf
http://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/Governor’sBrochure.pdf

In addition, ACTA did a study of Virginia colleges and universities that was published in January:

http://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/VirginiaReportFinal.pdf

This appears to be mostly high level student and financial summary statistics compared with cutoffs established by ACTA, followed by value judgements of the result (i.e., no significant analysis).

Finally, the top item on ACTA’s Web site (http://www.goacta.org/) is an open letter supportive of the BOV.

Tim White, Chair EVP/COO Council on 06/22/2012

By agreement of the full council at the June 21, 2012 meeting, the EVP/COO Employee Communications Council endorses the statement below released one week ago by the Faculty Senate.

Faculty Senate Resolution, sent to Board of Visitors and to Governor on 6-14-12:

The University of Virginia Faculty Senate Executive Council met this afternoon in emergency session and unanimously adopted the following resolution.

Resolution:

University of Virginia Faculty Senate Resolution on the Resignation of President Sullivan

Resolved, that the Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia hereby:

1. Expresses its strong support of President Sullivan.

2. Expresses its lack of confidence in the Rector, the Vice Rector, and the Board of Visitors.

We offer this resolution mindful of the best interests of the University and the Commonwealth.

George Cohen
Chair, U.Va. Faculty Senate

Ben Terry, CLAS, '78 on 06/22/2012

Sorry to burden this board with another post, but I was coming back from a meeting today in my hometown of Atlanta and heard an ad which I would have ignored two weeks ago.  “Real credit hours,” which will apply “toward a real University degree.”  The degree is in Sports Management.  The University is UGA.  I note the previous post about a Stanford course given to 120,000 people!  What is going on here?

I admit I am not up to speed on the issue.  But we need to be very careful about what we do with the UVA brand.  In Atlanta, we all remember the “New Coke” fiasco—hatched by several brilliant MBA-types.

Roy W. Cohn on 06/22/2012

Dear Rector and Board Members,

My perception is that the actions of the Board were heavy-handed and secretive. Beyond that, the difficulty I have is that the explanation of events by Rector Dragas reveals that the Board clearly burdened President Sullivan with unreasonable expectations. Any large organization, public or private, is governed by a board. It is the duty of the board to establish policy and the duty of the president to implement the policy. Frankly, the Board has turned President Sullivan into a scapegoat in troubled times. 

The Rector correctly states that navigating the current rough waters will take the concerted efforts of the University community as a whole, not just the efforts of the University president, regardless of how talented she might be.

Going forward, the first step is to reinstate President Sullivan. Let us begin to heal the breach in trust.

It cannot be gainsaid that finding and implementing solutions to the Rector’s list of issues is beyond the scope of the duties of the president, acting alone. For each of the hugely important and difficult issues that the Rector has enumerated, a committee should be formed to assist the Board in establishing appropriate policy and to assist the president in implementing the policy.

We need for President Sullivan to be a great leader; but for goodness sake, we must be fair, give her a chance and give her help.

Thank you

Roy W. Cohn (College ‘71)

Martin, College '75 on 06/22/2012

This Board, and Dragas in particular, has no clue as to how to properly manage the President and senior staff it oversees.  A letter from the Rector…Friday afternoon detailing a basis for the firing of the President…really…almost two weeks after firing her and sneaking off with our university’s honor and reputation in the process.  The sheer incompetence is overwhelming.

The good news, if any, is that it provides a clear basis for McDonnell firing the entire Board.

We need a clean slate and a new Board configuration that includes faculty and student representatives and a new process for governance.

Bryan Wright, GSAS '90 on 06/22/2012

For entertainment, I created “word clouds” from Helen Dragas’ recent message and also from the memo that Teresa Sullivan presented to the Board on May 3 (regarding strategic challenges faced by the University).  I don’t know that these tell us anything, but what the heck, here they are:

Sullivan memo:
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/5456835/President_Sullivan_memo_to_BOV,_5-3-12

Dragas message:
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/5456831/Rector_Dragas_message,_6-21-12

Michael Habib on 06/22/2012

Like dozens of others that have commented here, I was gravely disappointed in the letter that was distributed from the Rector.  Despite promising transparency, the letter provided no meaningful information regarding the decision to force the resignation of President Sullivan, and seems to take great pains to hide behind a wall of rhetoric.  The Rector seems greatly troubled by the concept of “incremental” change (a term used repeatedly in her account), but she never does us the service of actually indicating what this is meant to indicate.

The ten-point list is largely smoke and mirrors; it describes a list of financial concerns that affect all universities and have for well over a decade.  The only specific item of interest I was able to take away from the letter was that the BOV seems to be quite enamored of online class options (specifically, corporate-backed massively open online courses), and I suspect President Sullivan was not.  On this point, perhaps the BOV should be reminded that 1) It might be advisable to make your own decisions rather than attempt to copy MIT or Stanford and 2) that it has yet to be determined if the MOOC model is actually that successful.  Yes, Stanford ran a course with 120,000+ students enrolled (by a professor who I have worked with, in fact) - but only 10,000 of them even passed the midterm.  Do not be surprised if students become jaded towards the MOOC model in the near future.

Regardless, please discontinue the current pattern of insulting the intelligence of your alumni by promising transparency and then providing only additional barriers to discourse, especially in the very same letter.  We are not impressed by being patronized.

KMB on 06/22/2012

The notice of the Special Meeting next Tuesday is posted on BOV website, but the agenda has not been posted.  Has anyone seen it yet? It’s important to see WHAT ITEMS ARE ON IT .... BOV cannot take up any other business other than what’s itemized.  Usually, there’s only one item on any ‘special meeting’ agenda.

Samantha Wong, CLAS '08 on 06/22/2012

I was frankly astonished this morning when, having read through Ms. Dragas’s email, I still failed to understand the BOV’s decision to remove President Sullivan. Ms. Dragas’s detailed description of issues our University and others face in this new century did little to instill confidence in the BOV’s ability and willingness to operate openly and confidently. Throughout this debacle, there has been a strange lack of transparency and even defensive hostility regarding this decision.
While I agree with many of her points, she at no point in her response has explained how, or even whether, Sullivan has failed to act or acted inappropriately to solve these problems. Regardless of drive, change takes time and premature action such as this can create more problems rather than solve problems. I agree that the landscape of education has changed dramatically in the last decade, and that the University must evolve to thrive in that new landscape. Yet I still cannot see how President Sullivan has caused or worsened the future of the University. If and when that is illuminated remains to be seen. If the BOV has this much conviction, why shroud themselves in secrecy?

Craig Mutter on 06/22/2012

Rector Dragas,

Conveniently, this letter arrives after a long series of embarrassing and damaging events that many of us have been following to our dismay.
In your note you have provided a compelling list of very serious challenges facing the University in the coming years.
Unfortunately, these challenges will be faced by every university across the Country and are not unique to UVA.
Furthermore, your list, compelling as it is, still fails to explain in any way why you felt it necessary to orchestrate a secretive, ambush-style coup, in the form of an emergency meeting in order to sack President Sullivan.
What we were first made to believe was a unanimous decision by the BOV, actually seems to have been a secretive ‘emergency meeting’ orchestrated by you personally, attended only by a few Board members,  hand picked by you.
What was the emergency?
Did you have a quorum?
I wonder if you already have some friends in mind who might hold that bold vision and decisive action that you are looking for.
I am sure that you have been very careful to check, and that you believe that your actions are strictly legal - a very high bar to have set for yourself and the Board, and a stellar example of upholding the values of the University to the rest of the community.
Let me respond simply to your ‘explanation’: Jeffersonianism is not an aesthetic - it is not a facade - to be propped up with red brick and white paint. It is an ideal, a vision of the world, that you, through your actions, have diminished. As long as you are associated with the University in any official capacity, I feel I must withold future support for the University and, depending on how this all plays out, will seriously consider whether it is the right place for my kids. Perhaps we will go for an on-line degree at Stanford. I hear anyone can get one.

Craig Mutter, Architecture, 1988.

Susan B. Educ '61 on 06/22/2012

It seems to me that the BOV, made up of wealthy alumni of the graduate schools, is mistakenly thinking that a university should operate like a business. This is as ludicrous as thinking a country or state can be run on a business plan.
How about a nurse, or an educator on the BOV?  Might give better balance and more practical leadership moving into the future of our beloved university.
Those, like Helen Dragas, who look for distance learning/on-line courses can look to such revered venues as Florida State or Phoenix!
The latest email from Rector Dragas is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Martha Moore, Ed.D. Higher Ed Leadership and Polic on 06/22/2012

Please reinstate Dr. Sullivan. Ms. Dragas’s reasons emailed to us last evening were insufficient and provide even more reasons for the entire Univeristy Community to stand with Dr. Sullivan as she helps to initiate positive change, giving her the time and support she needs to do so.
The inappropriate phrasing of Dragas’s “existential threat” in an early statement was melodramatic and insulting to any reasoning reader. As individuals, if you cannot support Dr. Sullivan, then please resign.

K. A. Barb on 06/22/2012

I find the most recent email from Helen Dragas to the University community completely abhorrent. While she states that she owes us all a “fuller explanation of the Board’s thinking for collectively taking the action that we did,” the email does nothing to actually explain the removal of Ms. Sullivan. It lists a litany of all of the challenges facing UVA (and most university communities by the way), but it does NOTHING to explain why Ms. Sullivan was removed from her position. As I have tried to come to grips with what has happened at UVA, it appears that a handful of very rich people with enormous egos thought that they had a better understanding of UVA than the president and the entire community of faculty, staff, students and alumni. While I fully believe that Ms. Sullivan should be reinstated, I understand that the reality of that happening is slim. Helen Dragas and anyone else involved in the planning of this repugnant activity should resign immediately. Until they do, the confidence in the Board and the running of the University will be overshadowed by the largest, ugliest cloud ever.

KMBounds on 06/22/2012

Other relevant sections: 2.35 A quorum is defined as FIVE of the 16 Visitors (except where statute trumps).  They (the 5) must be PHYSICALLY present at the meeting site; others may call in, but are not considered in the calculation of the quorum.
Section 2.38 Cites Roberts’ Rules of Order as the parliamentary authority.
Section 2.33 - A special meeting may be called by either the Rector OR any 3 members of BOV. 
Section 5.7- The Manual constitutes the By-Laws.

Section 2.38 is particularly important b/c it provides specificity as to when/if/how any motion to RECONSIDER may be proposed.  A motion to reconsider has unique limitations. To whit: ONLY a person who voted on the prevailing side may propose a motion to reconsider. AND a motion to reconsider MUST be made ON THE SAME DAY as the vote to be reconsidered was taken.  It requires a second, is debatable, but NOT amendable and requires a majority to pass.  So, because the time limit has passed, that particular point is moot; it would be out of order to consider such a motion.

BUT, a motion to RESCIND is a different animal.  It requires a second, is debatable AND amendable; it requires a majority (WITH proper notice) to pass.  However, WITHOUT proper notice, it requires a 2/3 vote to pass, which in this case is 11 - assuming everybody participates in the meeting either physically or by phone. Anyone can make such a motion.  Again, some unique characteristics: a motion to rescind is NOT in order when some action has occurred as the result of the original motion OR in the case of a contract, the other party has been informed of the vote.

I think the latter pertains here, since BOV has accepted Ms. Sullivan’s resignation PLUS has taken further action to hire an interim. BOV is hamstrung - they cannot un-do what they have done. BUT IF Ms. Sullivan withdraws her resignation, the Board could simply vote to re-hire her (assuming Dean Z submits his resignation as Interim); easy solution.  Only requires a majority to do that.

That said, I’m still not clear on whether she actually resigned (effective August I think I read?) or whether BOV voted to actually fire her ... can somebody answer that?

Hopefully, the BOV is aware of these finer points of procedure.  But recent events don’t give me much optimism. They need to get it right this time in a big way.

Bryan Wright, GSAS '90 on 06/22/2012

Thanks to Ben Terry for the link to the BOV Manual.  Here’s what it says about electing a president:

“SECTION 4.21 ELECTION—The President shall be elected by the Board of Visitors and may be removed only by assent of two-thirds of the whole number of Visitors. The President shall attend all meetings of the Board and shall have notice of and the privilege of attending all meetings of its committees.”

So, again, a 2/3 majority is only required for removing the president.

Ben Terry, CLAS, '78 on 06/22/2012

For some reason, my browser does not pick up the entire link.  You may need to cut and paste it into your browser.

Ben Terry, CLAS, '78 on 06/22/2012

These appear to be the By-Laws.  Can anyone confirm that?  Page 6 refers to a two-thirds vote and Roberts Rules of Order.  I would appreciate anyone giving their evaluation.  My first (and very quick) glance leaves it unclear.

http://www.virginia.edu/bov/meetings/BOV Manual/BOV MANUAL REVISED 2012.pdf

Lots of interesting historical matter at the end of this document.

Bryan Wright, GSAS '90 on 06/22/2012

Regarding Bob Webb’s comments, above, about the requirements for reinstating Teresa Sullivan:  Taking a quick look at the Code of Virginia, it appears that a 2/3 majority is only required to remove a president.  With regard to appointing a president, the Code only says of the Board “They shall appoint a president”.  (Code of Virginia, § 23-76: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+23-76 )

Do the Board’s own by-laws require a 2/3 majority?

Natalie J. Smith on 06/22/2012

Don’t let Helen “drag us” down!

Sarah Lyman Kravits on 06/22/2012

Thomas Jefferson on the purpose of higher education:

“To form the statesmen, legislators and judges, on whom public prosperity and individual happiness are so much to depend;

To expound the principles and structure of government, the laws which regulate the intercourse of nations, those formed municipally for our own government, and a sound spirit of legislation, which, banishing all arbitrary and unnecessary restraint on individual action, shall leave us free to do whatever does not violate the equal rights of another;

To harmonize and promote the interests of agriculture, manufactures and commerce, and by well informed views of political economy to give a free scope to the public industry;

To develop the reasoning faculties of our youth, enlarge their minds, cultivate their morals, and instill into them the precepts of virtue and order;

To enlighten them with mathematical and physical sciences, which advance the arts, and administer to the health, the subsistence, and comforts of human life;

And, generally, to form them to habits of reflection and correct action, rendering them examples of virtue to others, and of happiness within themselves.

These are the objects of that higher grade of education, the benefits and blessings of which…provide for the good and ornament of their country [and] the gratification and happiness of their fellow-citizens…”

Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia
[“Rockfish Gap Report”]
by Thomas Jefferson et al.
August 4, 1818

Several of these purposes have been marred by the actions of the Board of Visitors.  Not knowing the justification for their action, I cannot even begin to use my powers of reasoning to assess it. The lack of virtue, morals, and order, along with the concealment of their reflection and the incorrectness of the action, is so egregious that it has rendered the justification meaningless. Even if their explanation would have made sense to me, any power it might have had has been sapped by the process.

Thomas Jefferson’s traditions have given rise to generations of thinking and moral graduates who have gone on to “provide for the good and ornament of their country [and] the gratification and happiness of their fellow-citizens.”  Such people are not to be “protected” from the truth like ignorant children.  But that’s how we have been treated by the BOV.

I earnestly hope that President Sullivan is offered an opportunity to take her position again.  Whether she would accept it is another question entirely.  But getting to the point where it is offered is, in my opinion, essential in order to restore the virtue and dignity of my alma mater.

Regards,
Sarah Lyman Kravits
CLAS 1988

Ben Terry, CLAS, '78 on 06/21/2012

To expand on my post of 5 minutes ago:

In 30-60 days we may find out that Dragas was correct in her assessment of Sullivan, or, as I personally suspect, that she was wrong. But the dishonor of the process will remain forever unless we reject it now, without hesitation or equivocation.

Ben Terry, CLAS, '78 on 06/21/2012

Mr. Webb:

I cannot support your proposal.  It keeps President Sullivan in a state of prolonged limbo.  As it stands, I wonder if she would come back even if the BOV begged her to on Tuesday.  I hope and expect that she has the grace and selflessness to say yes.  But no one can expect her to sit by and bide her time for months while a long process plays out.  So your suggestion has the practical effect of ratifying the Dragas coup.  Dragas and Kington might be gone, but Sullivan would be gone too.

Sullivan is not to blame for this corrupt process.  The greatest evil we face is the smoke-filled room brand of governance we have seen this week.  The issues raised by both Sullivan and Dragas are very important, but pale in comparison.  Bringing back President Sullivan right away is the only way to save our corporate souls and salvage our reputation.

Bryan Wright, GSAS '90 on 06/21/2012

Bob Webb, above, raises good questions about the proper procedure for reinstalling President Sullivan.  I don’t know the answers to these, but regarding his point number 3:  I believe that if there were sufficient reasons for dismissing Sullivan, we would have heard them by now.  So far, the Board has only made vague noises about general dissatisfaction with the rate of change.  This does not merit the Board’s dramatic action, taken without a vote, and without consultation with faculty, students or staff.

If the reinstatement of Teresa Sullivan by a simple majority would be illegitimate, how much more illegitimate is her dismissal without any vote at all?

Kathryn Ferguson Gorry on 06/21/2012

In response to Helen Dragas’ comments from 6/21:

“...we concluded that their structural and long-term nature demanded a deliberate and strategic approach, not an
incremental one.”

Dear Ms. Dragas, ‘deliberate and strategic’ and ‘incremental’ are not mutually exclusive. Teresa Sullivan’s statement to the Board revealed a most deliberate and strategic approach, even as it is incremental. Given the fragile economy and the need for the University to fine-tune its operations, it would be reckless to act in any other way. Fortunately, reckless is not Teresa Sullivan’s leadership style. Unfortunately, it appears to be yours.

Bob Webb CLAS '77, Law '81, Darden '81 on 06/21/2012

Several points merit consideration as this saga wears on:

1) The technical question of what vote is required to “bring Sullivan back” - The bylaws of the BOV stipulate that it takes 2/3 of the whole number of members - that would be 11 of 16 by anyone’s math.  Sullivan has resigned, an interim president appointed - its hard to see an argument that a mere majority could rescind the prior resignation and acceptance.  UVA is constantly signing significant long-term contracts, leases, issuing bonds - all of which actions require a legal opinion that the signer (the president) is duly elected and authorized.  Absent a declaratory judgment or an advisory Opinion of the Attorney General (now wouldn’t that be the irony in light of the recent climate investigation dispute) that a mere majority, not 2/3 can take such an action, a serious cloud would be placed over actions taken by Sullivan unless and until a 2/3 vote were secured.  UVA might have difficulty issuing bonds or entering into long term contracts otherwise.

2) The composition of the board will change as of July 1 based upon who Gov. McDonnell appoints, reappoints, or replaces (and this may be further compounded by further resignations).  How would Sullivan feel working with a board that reinstated her by 1 vote, particularly if her supporters do not remain on the board. Depending upon the composition, she could be faced with dealing with a board of which a clear majority do not want her to remain.  That would be untenable for just about any CEO or similar official, and would guarantee a continuation of the turmoil at UVA.

3) What about the merits of the reasons for removing Sullivan - to date the debate is focused on the process and manner, something that just about everybody agrees was mishandled.  But if there were valid justifications, how does a post July 1 board address those?  Is it in UVA’s best interest to encumber a revamped board with this problem? 

Putting aside the current controversy over the process of removal, decisions must be made based not on where UVA was 30 days ago or what might have been, but based upon where the situation is today, and what is in the best interest of UVA and the Commonwealth of Virginia.  My suggestions would be either:

1) Take no action until the new (post July 1) Board is in place (with all McDonnell new and reappointed members, including after any additional resignations).  An interim president is in place and a delay of 30-60 days does less harm than the alternatives.  Then the new Board quickly does a full and open investigation and evaluation of Sullivan and the rational of the old board for terminating her, and after both of those, either (i) gives her unequivocal support, or (ii) declines to reverse the resignation/termination but after having pursued a more open process.

2) No action is taken and the Sullivan resignation/termination is allowed to stand, but between new McDonald appointees to fill scheduled vacancies, and resignations by most if not all of the old BOV, an essentially new Board is put in place and UVA moves on with a totally clean slate. 

Anything else seems likely to keep the issues and controversy simmering for some time – and the current board would do UVA a disservice to do so.

Bryan Wright, GSAS '90 on 06/21/2012

In a recent statement, Rector Dragas says that “the UVA family must be clear-eyed about the shoals and dangers that exist below the surface, and the hard work and strategic planning it will take for this community to navigate them together.”

I couldn’t agree more. We need the steady hand and keen judgement of an experienced sea-captain.  Someone like Teresa Sullivan, for example.  Unfortunately, the Board is playing the part of the terrified sailor who, during a storm at sea, shoots the captain and takes the wheel.

In a memo to the Board of Visitors early in her tenure, President Sullivan described each of the dangerous shoals noted by Rector Dragas and advised strategies for navigating them.  In that same memo, President Sullivan mentions that the board had specifically instructed her not to develop a formal strategic plan.  Why does Rector Dragas now complain about the lack of such a plan?  Its absence is purely the Board’s fault, not President Sullivan’s.

The members of the Board, or at least its leadership, seem unfamiliar with the ship of academia.  They should relinquish the wheel before our University is broken on the rocks.

C. R. Lewis, '67 on 06/21/2012

Maybe, some glimmer or hope is emerging based on the BOV meeting scheduled for this coming Tuesday.

I notice that Rector Dragas has at least put out a statement justifying her position, using a comment to the affect ” we did the right thing in a wrong way”.    I am sure this is not an easy time for her and the Board of Visitors, or others in the community who have dedicated themselves to this place. 

Earlier today I observed: “there is not a right way to do a wrong thing”.  I think what I learned at the University of Virginia 45 years ago allows me to say this, again, with total conviction. I believe strongly that observation applies to this current tragedy of poor judgement, lack consideration and fairness, and honor.

I leave it to others to debate all this, in the open.  To me it is the rub of the issue. I pray that our betters Angels will prevail and all will be well.

GR Fletcher on 06/21/2012

As a University graduate and 27 year California resident, I have to point out that Bob Webb’s comments promoting increased undergrad enrollment as one solution to pressing fiscal and educational demands don’t square with reality; at least here in the golden state.  The CA state university system - of which Berkeley and UCLA are the crown jewels - gives fair warning to parents and applicants that 4 year graduation is increasingly less likely given cutbacks in course offerings; and, as in VA, thousands of qualified California high school seniors each year are denied admission as applications to UCLA hit an astounding 91,500 in 2012 followed by Cal at 61,500. Acceptance rates are now in the 15-20% range.  So “sustaining high quality and larger student bodies without dilution” has not been the result here - quite the contrary.
As is the case with many fellow Wahoos, the BOV’s action is damaging not only for its destructive impact and inexcusable execution; but equally as disturbing is the lack of an articulated vision as an alternative to what appeared to be collaborative and respected leadership within the University community.

Logan Anderson on 06/21/2012

BREAKING NEWS: BofV will meet Tuesday to reconsider Sullivan’s firing.

Former Rector Heywood Fralin has the votes.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/state-news/2012/jun/21/8/uvas-deans-urge-sullivans-reinstatement-ar-2004889/

Deborah Roberts Horst on 06/21/2012

Anyone else notice the irony here:

“The Honor Men” by James Hay Jr.

The University of Virginia writes her highest degree on the souls of her sons. The parchment page of scholarship-the colored ribbon of a society-the jeweled emblem of a fraternity-the orange symbol of athletic prowess-all these, a year hence, will be at the best mementos of happy hours-like the withered flower a woman presses between the pages of a book for sentiment’s sake.

But…

If you live a long, long time, and hold honesty of conscience above honesty of purse:

And turn aside without ostentation to aid the weak;

And treasure ideals more than raw ambition;

And track no man to his undeserved hurt;

And pursue no woman to her tears;

And love the beauty of noble music and mist-veiled mountains and blossoming valleys and great monuments-

If you live a long time and, keeping the faith in all these things hour by hour, still see that the sun gilds your path with real gold and that the moon floats in dream silver;

Then…

Remembering the purple shadows of the lawn, the majesty of the colonnades, and the dream of your youth, you may say in reverence and thankfulness:

“I have worn the honors of Honor, I graduated from Virginia”

What a shame the BoV didn’t treasure ideals more than raw ambition, and honesty of conscience over honesty of purse!

Deborah Roberts Horst
CLAS 1979 (typo before - not ‘77!)

Megan Davis on 06/21/2012

Emailing the BoV: If you include the first email address their admin assistant) and only include “Board of Visitors” in the email subject, and address it to them, their assistant apparently will ensure that is properly forwarded.

Here are all of their email addresses as well:
sgh4c@virginia.edu, dr6n@virginia.edu, tbr4cg@virginia.edu, nau@sedbud.com, vjmastracco@kaufcan.com, gmartin@mcguirewoods.com, splpaindoc@aol.com, rj.kirk333@gmail.com, glynn.key@ge.com, rhardie@riverg.com, marvin78@bellavistava.com, fralinh@mfa.net, cryordinardo@gmail.com, adiamonstein@pwhd.com, huntercraig@earthlink.net, mac.caputo@morganstanley.com

below is the email I sent them today.
——————————-

Dear Board of Visitors,

As a former undergraduate student (CLAS ‘94), graduate student (MPH from GSAS ‘06, PhD from Curry ‘07), administrative faculty member, member of the General Faculty Council, and Director of Programs at UVA’s Center for Politics (‘06-08), not to mention a member of the Charlottesville community for almost 20 years, I join others in being absolutely appalled by the inconsideration shown by the BoV for a beloved University and its past, current, and future faculty, staff and students. I wish I could be there to protest in person (I now work at a national public policy research firm in Princeton, NJ). And this is regardless of whether or not President Sullivan should have been asked to step down (although I have not read or heard of anything to indicate that such was warranted, especially in the closed-door, secretive manner such business was conducted).

This is not the way things are done at UVA, nor the way things should ever be done in higher education. Specific to UVA, any behaviors and decisions made by the BoV and other University leadership MUST take into account the ideals and traditions of the historic institution that Mr. Jefferson built. MUST. And although in the past, I have borne witness to some missteps among leadership at UVA, I have never witnessed or heard of such an abuse of power and disrespect for Mr. Jefferson, our Honor Code, and the transparency due to the University, the state as one of the public body, and the wider University community that spans the globe. The actions of Ms. Dragas and others on the Board have become an example of what NOT to do; how not to handle matters of governance and leadership. As a graduate of the Ed Leadership and Foundations department at the Curry School of Education, I see this debacle becoming a case study used for years to exemplify a perverse approach to organizational change and poor educational leadership (e.g., not obtaining adequate buy-in, not operating with transparency), as well as dangerous and destructive governance by a board.

All of the above applies also to any examination of how UVA may incorporate more distance learning and online education into its offerings. I could see such being very useful for many programs and departments that serve non-traditional students (such as K-12 admin pursuing their EdDs or PhDs). However, it must be done with great care and respect for the University’s traditions and underlying ideals regarding educational models and methods. It cannot be based upon a handful of op-eds, cronyism, and politics. It cannot be simply viewed as instantly implementable across the University and the golden bullet for budget shortfalls. A University of Phoenix model of education is antithetical to the very physical design of the Academical Village.

DO THE RIGHT THING. MEET TODAY. DRAGAS MUST RESIGN. SULLIVAN MUST BE REINSTATED. And then work together with leadership from across the University to create future rules as to how such matters must be handled.

Thank you in advance for showing the care and respect for Mr. Jefferson’s University that it so rightfully deserves, as well as for all of us who love it so and have supported it in a myriad of ways. 

Sincerely,

Megan Davis, PhD, MPH

CLAS ‘94, GSAS ‘06, EDUC ‘07

Logan Anderson on 06/21/2012

Here is my letter I’ve sent to Gov. McDonnell, and here is a link where you can send one, too.

**************
Every minute that goes by without a resolution to the Sullivan matter at the University of Virginia is another minute of damage done to the University.

I know you have said you do not want to “meddle” in the business of the Board of Visitors, but the actions of Rector Helen Dragas have destroyed any sense of cohesion and trust among the board members. Because of her, they can not function as a true oversight board because of her.

She lined up votes against the president in a series of one-on-one meetings with Visitors she thought would be favorable to her viewpoint, only telling the three Sullivan backers just days before she asked for the president’s resignation.

Symptomatic of the Nixonian way of governing and leadership she has brought to the Board of Visitors, none of the Visitors she went to had enough sense of honor and ethics to say “Stop. This is a matter the full board should discuss.”

She is a cancer that is growing in the heart of the Grounds of the University, Gov. McDonnell.

Don’t just refuse to reappoint her to the board ... TELL HER NOW THAT SHE NEEDS TO RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.

This situation demands leadership, Gov. McDonnell.

Show some.

Logan Anderson
College 1983, GSAS 1985

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/AboutTheGovernor/contactGovernor.cfm

C.R.Lewis'67 on 06/21/2012

Kudos to all that have responded about this “man made tragedy” we are now enduring, particularly Frank Dukes, Ben Terry and Chad Bell—well done. 

For those wishing to to turn the page to the future, that’s fine, though I would suggest that the dishonor, dishonesty, arrogance, and out right carelessness of those that have created our current state of affairs must be dealt with first by their resignations and by reinstating Dr. Sullivan. That’s for starters.

Above all there is never a right way to do a wrong thing.  Let’s hope that we can get about doing right things in a right way,  In that spirit we can thankful for so many who have stood up courageously and honorably.  We can all be proud of how Terry Sullivan and her family have shown such grace and honor.  I want her back, now!!

Patricia Turney Garris Arch 1970 on 06/21/2012

I live in Norfolk, where yesterday’s Virginian-Pilot had a full-page spread about the new Dragas center at ODU. While the structure may be newsworthy, it seemed to me that in light of Helen Dragas’ recent actions the spread was in poor taste.  As Hook would say, “Bad form.”

With regard to the BOV’s dismissal of President Sullivan, I keep checking the news, hoping to read that Dragas has resigned and President Sullivan has been reinstated.

Pamela F. Sprouse, CLAS 1978 on 06/21/2012

I attend a book club in which we read books on leadership,  and countless times I am reminded of Teresa Sullivan as an example of the great, inclusive leadership that is described in these books.  Now, thanks to the Board of Visitors, I also have a very clear picture of the contrasting bad, destructive leadership styles that these books describe.  ‘Hoo would have ever guessed it?

Geoffrey Hammett, ENGR '77 on 06/21/2012

Since receiving the notice of the University of Virginia Board of Visitors actions on Sunday June 17, 2012 I have spent a significant amount of time trying to understand the basis for the Board’s actions and the implications they have on the University’s present and future.

Initially my assessment was the actions resulted from an attempt by a small number of individuals to remake Mr. Jefferson’s University in their own image.  A plan architected by those that don’t know history, don’t understand history, or refuse to believe history, and are doomed to repeat it.

Subsequently I felt perhaps the actions were part of a grand experiment with the purpose to test those that believe in the University, its core values and true missions. The “You don’t truly appreciate something until it is gone” experiment for the University would optimally end with all the BOV members announcing that it was just a test followed by a joyous gathering with Ms Sullivan, the Faculty, Student body and Alumni. (Whew, you guys really had us there for a minute!)

I am sincerely hopeful that learning, improvement and some good will result from this affair. In the mean time, I’m just embarrassed about the thing and will attempt to avoid discussing it with professional and business associates until some clarity emerges. Although I am deeply grateful for what I learned and experienced at the University, my UVa degree, which was previously an honored, valued and proud asset, is now a source of embarrassment and fodder for unnecessary uncomfortable conversations.

Sarah Hudspeth CLAS/EDUC '08 on 06/21/2012

I’ll admit that I didn’t pay much attention to Teresa Sullivan’s inauguration as president or her first two years in office, but I never once questioned her leadership or abilities. The process in which she was chosen to me seemed thorough and well done and brought in all the communities of the university so that everyone had a say. If the professors and staff and people I highly respect and love chose her, I was sure she would be a great president, even if I was more concerned with my life out of college than what was happening at UVA. 

Through this crisis, though, I have been so impressed by the way President Sullivan has proved herself as a person of strong character and integrity. Her actions throughout this debacle have shined as a person who we want leading Uva.  We cannot lose her! She seems more than capable of leading UVa to greater eminence and prosperity, especially in contrast to the actions of the BOV.  I am heartbroken at the loss UVa is suffering through her resignation.

I am very concerned and worried about the future of UVA. The BOV has lost my trust and respect as an entity. They have lost trust and esteem from faculty, staff, students and alumni. Their authority is no longer credible and they must realize how foolish they look to everyone else. Their reputation and ability to make decisions on behalf of the UVa community has been significantly damaged. So much so that, especially on twitter and facebook, people say they will no longer give to UVA because of it! That too breaks my heart to think that the quality education I received might not be available to current and future students because of a lack of generous gifts that are important to university life- all because of the BOV’s dishonorable actions.

I am hoping that someone (the Alumni Assoc?) sets up a Teresa Sullivan Honor Fund that will be held in escrow until Teresa Sullivan is reinstated so that people who would give, but do not want to give because of the BOV’s actions, will still give and continue support our great university. It would let the BOV know how their actions have monetarily affected UVa. For me, I want to show my support for President Sullivan, faculty, staff, students and greater UVa community by putting my money where my mouth is- but I don’t want to give directly because I fear it would still somehow support the BOV.

Please let me know when such a fund in available! Thank you.

Melody and Lane Kramer on 06/21/2012

We are out of state parents of a rising fourth year student.

We are puzzled and dismayed that the board of a major research university could conduct themselves in such a bumbling, unprofessional manner.  Any perceived leap forward for the University by removing President Sullivan for dubious reasons that we still do not know has been more than negated by the harm to the standing of the school, its core values and its community of trust.

Honor, trust and integrity will not return to Grounds until Rector Dragas resigns and President Sullivan is reinstated.

Melody and Lane Kramer on 06/21/2012

We are out of state parents of a rising fourth year student.

We are puzzled and dismayed that the board of a major research university could conduct themselves in such a bumbling, unprofessional manner.  Any perceived leap forward for the University by removing President Sullivan for dubious reasons that we still do not know has been more than negated by the harm to the standing of the school, its core values and its community of trust.

Honor, trust and integrity cannot return to Grounds until Rector Dragas resigns and President Sullivan is reinstated.

JoAnn Edmunds on 06/21/2012

I am a parent of a rising Second Year at UVA.

Not withstanding the apologies of the Rector for the incredibly secretive and insensitive manner in which the resignation of President Sullivan…

I continue to be dismayed that we STILL haven’t heard why President Sullivan was asked to resign.

What exactly did she not do that was expected of her?

It makes me wonder what the Rector has planned for the University.  It obviously is something which President Sullivan did not agree with.  My suspicion is that the Rector knows that what she has in mind will be very unpopular with the University Community.

I add my voice to the call for the Rector to reassign and ask the Board of Visitors to reinstate President Sullivan.

Stan - Coll 71 and Darden '74 on 06/21/2012

Dean Zeithaml’s comments during his first press conference show the strength of his convictions and the communications skills and professionalism he brings to the job of rebuilding the image of the University.

“Whether the rector resigns or not is up to the rector,” Zeithaml said.

Zeithaml said Dragas contacted him a week ago to ask if he was interested in becoming the next president, and he told her no.

When asked how long he expected to serve as interim president, Zeithaml joked that he hoped it would only be a matter of weeks.

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2012/jun/20/uva-interim-president-denounces-sullivans-ouster-f-ar-2002376/
Link to report on the first press conference of the new interim president of The University.

Joe Ripley on 06/20/2012

The individual members of the Board of Visitors must accept responsibility for what they have wrought.  They must resign before destroying more value.  The only way to restore legitimacy is ask these Visitors to leave and reinstate Sullivan.

The school did not ask to have political patronizers as Visitors, but the entire academical village is united in asking them to leave.  This runaway Board of Visitors should finish what it started, i.e., to run away, emulating the Board’s bleached tooth pseudo leader, the coward Kiernan.

A new board should be appointed that reflects the broader society, and not just the business school.

Welcome to Mr. Jefferson’s democracy!

Joseph W. Teague Jr on 06/20/2012

Stunning failure of leadership by select members of the BOV. The “spin doctors” working for the anti-Sullivan forces have created a stench that reaches Bloomington, Illinois.
This is a shameful time in the history of The University.

JWTeague Jr
CLAS 84

Joe Ripley on 06/20/2012

Having read the e-mails and seen via youtube strategic transparency in action at 2:30 am, I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at the shallowness and unidimensional nature of the board.  They are all business jocks and political donors enamored by their imagined self-importance and knowledge of academia.  What a dangerous mix! 

On-line education, really!  My God.  A couple of newspaper articles and these guys are making unwarranted but oh so bold decisions.

This cancer has metastasized and must be removed.  The probability of patient survival improves greatly if the good Dr. Sullivan returns.

Marcus Tonti on 06/20/2012

Nobody likes to admit they’re wrong, but this action by the BOV simply cannot stand. The only way to eliminate the cloud over the University is to restore President Sullivan to office.

Pamela F. Sprouse, CLAS 1978 on 06/20/2012

Our book club reads books about effective and ineffective leadership.  Time after time, I find myself thinking about President Sullivan as we discuss the actions of great, effective leaders.  Now, thanks to the actions of our own Board of Visitors, I have an excellent example of bad, destruction leadership as well.  ‘Hoo knew?

Robert A. Greenberg (Col '77) on 06/20/2012

The Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia should be dismissed and barred from selection of the future President due to:

▪ Mismanagement in the removal of President Sullivan without demonstration of adequate cause.
▪ Infliction of harm to the reputation and operation of the University.
▪ Repeated and ongoing inability to communicate a vision for the University.
▪ Unwillingness to collaborate with key constituencies.
▪ Condemnation by Students, Faculty, Administration, Schools and Colleges, and Alumni including the Student Council,  the Faculty Senate, the Provost, the College of Arts and Science, and the School of Law.
▪ Violation of the letter and spirit of the Honor Code. (Misrepresenting unanimity when there was none).
▪ Acknowledgement of Board misconduct by the current and previous appointing Governors of Virginia.
▪ Admission of wrongdoing by the Board itself.

The University has been unnecessarily derailed by the removal of an esteemed and effective President.  The bungling Board must be expelled so that the future leader - whoever that may be - can halt the damage, regain the confidence of the academic community, and guide the University back to the positive path it so recently occupied.

Robert A. Greenberg (Col ‘77)
20 June 2012

J. Knox Morrison III - 1952 on 06/20/2012

Please keep us closely informed.

Mark Jantzen on 06/20/2012

Sir:

The public statements, or lack thereof, regarding the dismissal of Ms Sullivan have obviously been mishandled and leave the semi-informed audience to wonder: (a) did Ms Sullivan commit some undisclosed act that required her immediate dismissal, or (b) was there some fundamental disagreement between the Board, or a member of the Board, and Ms Sullivan that escalated too rapidly to allow the Board to identify a successor and effect an orderly transition.  Assuming that (a) above is not applicable, one is left to wonder how the Board, or a member thereof, could have decided that a midstream change was in such dire order as to dismiss its chief executive without either a cogent story or replacement in mind.  Is this leadership team acting in the best interest of the institution?

Curiously this has provided for a teaching moment in the areas of leadership and public relations for my son who is class of ‘14 and who cares most deeply about the institution.  While he assumes that a Board, by its nature, should be more stable in its decision making than an individual, he is truly disturbed by the lack of communication and the lack of planning by the Board with whom the future of his school is entrusted.  The Board’s lack of transparency appears to be causing more damage than the actual event.

Best regards,
Mark

Mark Jantzen
Parent of 2014 Engineering Student
Managing Director
JWI Capital, LLC
mjantzen@jwicaptal.com

Mark Jantzen on 06/20/2012

Sir:

The public statements, or lack thereof, regarding the dismissal of Ms Sullivan have obviously been mishandled and leave the semi-informed audience to wonder: (a) did Ms Sullivan commit some undisclosed act that required her immediate dismissal, or (b) was there some fundamental disagreement between the Board, or a member of the Board, and Ms Sullivan that escalated too rapidly to allow the Board to identify a successor and effect an orderly transition.  Assuming that (a) above is not applicable, one is left to wonder how the Board, or a member thereof, could have decided that a midstream change was in such dire order as to dismiss its chief executive without either a cogent story or replacement in mind.  Is this leadership team acting in the best interest of the institution?

Curiously this has provided for a teaching moment in the areas of leadership and public relations for my son who is class of ‘14 and who cares most deeply about the institution.  While he assumes that a Board, by its nature, should be more stable in its decision making than an individual, he is truly disturbed by the lack of communication and the lack of planning by the Board with whom the future of his school is entrusted.  The Board’s lack of transparency appears to be causing more damage than the actual event.

Very respectfully,
Mark

Mark Jantzen
(Parent of 2014 Engineering Student)
Managing Director
JWI Capital, LLC
mjantzen@jwicaptal.com

Michael E. Summers on 06/20/2012

Dear Dean Zeithaml;

Our daughter is a third year student in the Nursing Program at UVA.  She is heartbroken at your betrayal of her and her fellow students.

My wife and I are disappointed beyond words at how you sold out to the BoV.

You had a decision to make, and you made it. You betrayed all of us in academia to those with power, money, and narcissistic egos.

What happened at UVa will now play out at numerous other universities around the country.  This was a tipping point and you made it possible.

That is your legacy.  That is how you will be remembered.

Ben Terry, CLAS, '78 on 06/20/2012

Mr. Webb’s post is interesting and the product of a good bit of work, but misses the point.

He agrees that President Sullivan successfully identified the problems we face.  But then he simply says we must all assume that the BOV made the right choice when they concluded that she could not solve them.  Again, we come up short.  We have no facts about the actual points of disagreement.  We cannot make a judgment without knowing the facts.  This brings us back to the process, or complete lack thereof.

My guess is that we are going to find some big donor or group of donors had a particular plan to address the problem, and President Sullivan thought is was either deficient or harmful to the University, and declined to adopt it.  Then, a problem that was 20 years in the making—and which would clearly take many years to correct—was suddenly transformed into an “existential threat,” which required invocation of the BOV’s emergency meeting powers, so that these people could get their way immediately.  Rich people, I suppose, are used to getting what they want right away.

If UVA faces such systemic challenges, the response must be a rational, thoughtful, and political process whereby all stakeholders contribute, concede, negotiate, and finally endorse.  Then UVA moves forward as a strong group to correct the problems.

Mr. Webb’s post does not address the horrifically bad governance demonstrated by the BOV here.  On the separate issue of President Sullivan, my first thought is that the person who can identify and articulate the problems (as Mr. Webb concedes she has done) might be a person to whom you give some deference—and maybe a couple of years to formulate an effective strategy—in the process of fixing those problems.  Why would you try to solve those problem in one weekend?  That’s just a formula for disaster.

I suspect that when the strategies for UVA’s future supported by those who wanted Sullivan gone become known, there will be some posts here along the lines of “you have got to be kidding.”  Basketball arenas and yoga centers—or anything like that—are not going to fix the problems which Mr. Webb says were correctly identified by President Sullivan.

CD Moore JR on 06/20/2012

Disgraceful: shameful. Why do you expect the students to follow the Honor Code when the leaders act in an element of deceit, failure to keep things above board,
and keep the truth under the table. All three including, Dragas in particular, need to resign immediately.

Bob Webb - CLAS '77, LAW '81, Darden '81 on 06/20/2012

The world has changed since 1819, and since 1973 when I first entered The University, and although a few schools and programs of the University (most notably Darden, and the undergraduate Commerce school, in my opinion) have successfully responded to global trends and changes, many other schools and departments have not.  Virginia has changed, growing from a population of 4.6 million in 1970 to an estimated 8.1 million today, a growth of approximately 76%, while the university’s first year undergraduate enrollment has increased only 31%.

We live in a world where business and institutions of all types and sizes are consolidating to operate on a global scale and achieve the economies of scale needed to keep cost low and compete.  UVA and public universities are not exceptions to these pressures.  UVA has historically been and remains the premier public institution in Virginia.  UVA is not a Williams or a Middlebury, nor a Harvard or a Stanford, and frankly I believe that there is zero probability that UVA could attain their relative financial resources in the foreseeable future.  As an alumnus I believe that if UVA desires to remain a premier “research University” and offer the broad based education envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, UVA’s leaders need to take swift and dramatic actions to lower the operating cost per student (not tuition), and yet sustain a large and preeminent faculty. This requires both increased revenue and the economies of scale needed to remain competitive, and the present status quo does not seem like a course that can achieve this. 

In the recently publicized strategic memo from T. Sullivan to the Board of Visitors dated May, 2012, Sullivan herself noted, in pertinent part that:

“First, the University of Virginia suffers from a budgetary model that does not promote academic excellence in the current competitive world of higher education. The current model has allowed the University to achieve a great deal, but the University has now outgrown the model.”

“Our competitor public institutions are typically much larger, and we have foregone the economies of scale they can achieve in favor of an emphasis on smaller courses and closer interaction.”

“One result of our scale is that our departments are typically smaller than those at most research universities (including privates).  Rankings are known to correlate with size.”

“The University’s choice to remain relatively small constrains some of the choices that we can make”

“Even simple metrics (number of National Academy Members, members of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, International Award Winners) show that we are not as excellent as our rankings imply.”

I agree with Sullivan’s observations, however, it appears that the Board of Visitors concluded, after approximately two years working with her, that she was either not the right person to lead UVA or that she was unwilling to lead the necessary efforts, and that change was needed.  While neither I nor most others who comment are privy to the observations, discussions and process that led to this conclusion, the Board of Visitors, which includes many successful and respected business leaders, both male and female, and of diverse age, race, political affiliation and other characteristics, did reach this conclusion and functioned as a board should do in that case.  While the handling of the change was not managed well, I suspect their ultimate business judgment was the right one for UVA, even though T Sullivan is and remains a respected scholar and administrator. 

In any event, the challenge of the future for UVA remains, and UVA needs to move beyond this episode and purse a strategy and actions that will permit it to maintain, if not enhance, its place in the global world of education.

I would urge that UVA specifically pursue several specific strategies to maintain and enhance its position and future.

1. It is my opinion (apparently shared by Sullivan) that UVA’s small undergraduate population is not capable of generating the revenue needed to support a large and well qualified faculty without untenable tuition increases.  Many other peer universities (Cal Berkley - 25,540 enrollment, UCLA - 26, 162 enrollment, Michigan - 27,027 enrollment, Texas - 38,420 enrollment) have managed to sustain both high quality and larger student bodies without dilution.  I believe that UVA needs to grow, and in a dramatic manner.  I would urge that the Board of Visitors move UVA towards and expanded student base - increase undergraduate enrollment to 20,000 or more, and pursue increased graduate program enrollment as well (which would greatly aid in achieving my first two suggestions) which would dramatically increase overall tuition revenues and support the attraction and retention of highly qualified faculty in a broad spectrum of disciplines.  The Darden School has successfully pursued these policies since my graduation, yet managed to maintain its high standing among peer programs - other schools of the University need to do likewise.  With the aid of modern technologies, UVA should be able to choose such a course of action without losing its quality. 

UVA’s physical plant and capacity has expanded dramatically over the past 20-30 years, now
the student body needs to do likewise; Increasing undergraduate enrollment by at least 5,000 in-state students (1,250/class) adds $100 Million a year to the top line revenue (at $20K/year tuition, a more reasonable level than the current low rates)(and presume that room, board, books, etc.  will always be billed as extra at costs).  Raising instate tuition on the current size student body from the current $12,000/year to $20,000/year (quite reasonable in my opinion in light of market rates - taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize those members of society who will go on to society’s above average incomes - adds another $62 million a year in revenue. Use technology (such as making course lectures available online, store and archive lectures for replay for students who cannot make class or who miss a class, use online dialogue technologies such as those afforded by “Blackboard” style services to enhance faculty/student discourse, and all of a sudden UVA’s fiscal picture and ability to sustain broad based excellence is greatly enhanced.

2. UVA is denying admission to thousands of highly qualified Virginia’s each year, many of whom have stellar academic and other qualifications achieved at Virginia public schools ranked in the top public schools of the nation. As a resident of the growing northern Virginia region of the state, I can tell you that taxpayer support (and hence legislative representative support)  for public funding for UVA is rapidly declining due in large part to these policies (and shifting to a bias towards schools such as GMU and VCU).  It is my opinion that UVA will not be able to secure meaningful additional taxpayer support unless it dramatically increases its admissions of highly qualified Virginians.  UVA defends these policies with arguments such as a need for diversity, yet the populace of northern Virginia and much of the rest of Virginia’s urban areas has become as, if not more, diverse than the population of states such as Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York (the top home states for UVA’s “out-of-state” students according to UVA’s Institutional Studies and Assessments website).  As an institution founded as a public institution by Thomas Jefferson, UVA, as a public institution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, is an asset of the Commonwealth, not merely its faculty, students and alumni, and thus has a primary obligation to serve the citizens and future voters/taxpayers of Virginia, a duty it has neglected in recent years.

3. Fiscal Restraint - The most recent online budget document I could find indicates that UVA’s Academic Division (not the medical center) has almost 9,000 FTE employees - for a student population of about 15,000 that is not even 2:1 - few if any businesses could sustain such a staffing ratio.  The University of Michigan has a ratio that approaches 3:1, yet it maintains its high stature and ranking.  UVA needs to either severely cut staffing, an action I would not suggest, or better leverage and perhaps supplement staff by increased economies of scale.

Delegate David Toscano on 06/20/2012

I have spent significant time over the last week attempting to discover as many facts as I can involving the forced resignation of President Teresa Sullivan from the University of Virginia. My discussions have been with faculty members; members of the University community, including former administrators and Visitors; alumni; donors; students; members of the General Assembly; and current members of the Board of Visitors, including Rector Helen E. Dragas, who graciously agreed to meet with me and Senator Creigh Deeds, in my office last week. I have not spoken with Teresa Sullivan.

The more information I have gathered, the more troubling the action has become. Among my concerns are:

•The forced resignation seems to have been engineered by a small number of people who arguably love the University, but who so misunderstand how change occurs within large complex institutions of higher education that their leadership is now questionable.
•The so-called “urgency” and “existential threats” to the University that have served as justification by Rector Dragas and Vice Rector Mark J. Kington for their action is simply not borne out by the facts. Admittedly, the University has challenges, and they have clearly been identified by President Sullivan in her May 3, 2012 memo to the Rector and Vice Rector (a memo that was not shared with all Board members). But these challenges were known at the time of her appointment, and President Sullivan had been implementing changes to address them.
•The expression of “no confidence” in the Board of Visitors passed by the Faculty Senate and statements expressing concern issued by numerous schools within the University.

My conclusion is simple and straight-forward — the process by which President Sullivan was forced to resign was fundamentally flawed, dramatically at odds with our history as the flagship University in the Commonwealth, and inconsistent with a transparent decision-making process required of a public University.

The action places the University at substantial peril, in the short and long term. It should be reversed; I call on the Board of Visitors to do so. If they will not, I encourage Governor McDonnell to do all in his power to assist the process.

If the decision is not reversed, the Governor should act appropriately to encourage the rejection of the forced resignation, and send a clear message of his displeasure by stating that he does not intend on reappointing Ms. Dragas and by calling on the Rector and Vice Rector to resign.

Jefferson once said that we should follow truth wherever it may lead and should not “tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” The facts show that the forced resignation of President Sullivan is an error; it should be reversed.

The Honorable David J. Toscano LAW ‘86
Virginia House of Delegates, 57th District

Richard Cheatham on 06/20/2012

My initial reaction to the Dragas outrage was disgust and revulsion.  Her and the Board of Visitors’ collective incompetence and arrogance are incomprehensible.  Merely serving the time requisite to attaining the capacity to contract should teach you more about to treat other people than exhibited by Helen and her cabal.  Upon reflection, however, I realize that all this is all just part of the death rattle of a terminal institution, not a reason to get upset.

I attended the University in the early 60s.  Clichéd as it may sound, I found myself there.  Those years, initially the most frightening, were ultimately the most enlightening and enjoyable of my life.  I sincerely love the place, the people I associate with it, and what they stood for.
 
I have been relatively successful and have tried to pay back the gifts I received there.  I have given generously (for me).  I am a proud member of the Lawn Society.  I think I have done my share to preserve and, indeed, improve what I had the good fortune to experience 50 years ago.

Three years ago I gave up and stopped giving.  For a number of years I had been concerned about diminishing state support for the University.  Finally, I decided that the trend would not be reversed.  For the 2012-2013 academic year the state (it doesn’t earn the title “commonwealth”) is expected to contribute $8,310 per Virginia student.  The spread between in-state and out-of-state tuition will be about $23,300.  Assuming that out-of-state tuition represents a “fair” price, an endowment of over $4,000,000,000 earning and spending 7% would be necessary just to support the state shortfall.  Virginia’s per student state contribution to research institutions is by far the lowest in the Southeast.  Yet, none of us would want to believe that Virginia’s name should be spoken in the same breath as those other states’ flagship universities, with the possible exception of UNC (which receives over $20,000 per in-state student in state funds).
   
Donors give to the University to provide an edge, to enhance its ability to achieve its mission.  However, the University is now forced to play its donors for suckers, willing to subsidize in-state “welfare queens”  seeking to obtain a world class education on the cheap by abusing the reputation and goodwill of an institution they inherited but don’t deserve.  In that context it is hard to criticize the Board of Visitors for seeking an on-line con game to perpetuate the political fiction that something can be had for nothing once it becomes apparent that the old con game is losing its luster.

It’s sad.  So much ado about what in the long-term will make no difference.  But, keep on talking about Mr. Jefferson, honor, openness, process and even strategic dynamism.  Beats fiddling.       
   

Fred Swartzendruber on 06/20/2012

As the proud parent of a UVA student who has taken (and benefited from) “obscure” courses such as German and History, I feel completely blindsided and mystified by the Board’s actions. The strong response from the faculty and student body is one positive element, though I wish Dean Zeithaml had declined the position of Interim President—under the circumstances, it looks opportunistic and adds to the impression of a putsch.

As more detail emerges about the   role played by Rector Dragas, I am amazed to see one of America’s top public universities being guided in such an amateurish manner. As Casey Stengel asked about the 1962 Mets, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

Henry Ruempler on 06/20/2012

The ouster of Teresa Sullivan shows a complete failure of leadership by the Board of Visitors.  Two conspirators shouldn’t be able to hijack a full discussion of the most important issue the Board faces…. the selection of a University President.  The Board still hasn’t been able to articulate a valid complaint against President Sullivan.  Gov. McDonnell can avoid this issue as interfering with the University operations, but he won’t be able to avoid a decision on reappointment of Helen Dragas as of 7/1/12.  Do the right thing.

Glenn R. Showalter, M.Ed. on 06/20/2012

Outstanding Sharon Ann Murphy!

While you are in Richmond, we need a system of “shared governance” with Board members at least half professional academics in higher education who have held at least Lecturer rank and have not given more than $100 to the Governor.

Sharon Ann Murphy on 06/20/2012

For Immediate Release:

Sullivan Supporters to Hold “Rally for Honor”

On Sunday, June 24th, at 2pm UVA Students, Faculty, Staff, Alumni, Friends, and Family will gather on The Lawn to protest the lack of transparency within the governing structure of UVA.  We are specifically protesting in response to the evidence of backdoor dealings in the emails recently obtained by the Cavalier Daily. 

We call upon Governor McDonnell and the Virginia General Assembly to convene a Session to launch a formal investigation into the UVA Board of Visitors.  Time is of the essence. We are losing valuable faculty members every day. Alumni donations are already drying up. The University of Virginia is in a time of crisis and we cannot wait until the Assembly reconvenes in the winter.

In addition to launching a formal investigation, we call upon the Governor and General Assembly to act on demands made by the University of Virginia’s Faculty Senate on June 18, 2012. Namely:

1. The formal reinstatement of President Sullivan
2. Representation by UVA faculty as voting members on the Board of Visitors
3. The resignation of Rector Dragas

These actions will go far to restore stability and trust in the UVA community which is an essential step to prevent further resignations by faculty members.

For further inquires contact:
Suzie McCarthy
Suzie.mcc@gmail.com
818-631-5745

    ###

Logan Anderson on 06/20/2012

The University needs leaders like Provost John Simon, fighting in the trenches and on the front lines, for the true mission of this school. UVa is not about basketball arenas, glorified yoga studios or the power of the almighty dollar; we are about educating people to be citizens in this nation. And for that mission to remain strong and viable, we need him, as much as we’ve ever needed any one individual. And even though he’s from Duke—at least it’s not UNC—I want him to know we alumni are behind him 100 percent.

I hope he will be staying in Charlottesville for many, many years.

And if you feel as strongly about this as I, please let the provost know: jds2ts@Virginia.EDU

Amy A on 06/20/2012

I received a cordial ‘Dear McIntire Alum’ email from Dean Z this morning.  In my reply, I respectfully suggested that his first official act as Interim President be to allow Teresa Sullivan as much time as she needs to move out of Carr’s Hill - both as a gracious gesture and also as a courtesy to her.  (And preferably without a lot of grandstanding.)  We shall see.  This of course assumes nothing else dramatic happens, but at this point I think, sadly, that her reinstatement is a long shot.

Jamie Ross on 06/20/2012

These actions by the BOV are so bizarre that it does seem as though the Ministry of Magic has been doing some meddling.

cat on 06/20/2012

Is it only me, or does anyone else think “Rector Dragas” sounds like a villain’s name in The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter or Game of Thrones?

cat on 06/20/2012

Unless there is some unreleased finding of misconduct by President
Sullivan, this scandal has left many of us alumni with the impression
that the Board of Visitors is a bumbling, power-hungry group leading
the University in the wrong direction. At a minimum, the board of
visitors appears to have behaved with dishonor. The most honorable
move now would be for the board members who have besmirched the
University’s name to make a quiet exit. At a minimum, the only way the
University can reclaim a modicum of its lost honor is for Rector
Dragas to resign without further delay. Sadly, her name is now forever
tainted with scandal. She is poison fruit the University no longer
needs.

Adam Renn Olenn on 06/20/2012

In the United States of America, we are blessed to have a strong supply of great universities.  Yes, the academics, athletics, and cultural traditions of the University of Virginia are of the highest caliber, but they are by no means unique.  Fact is, you can get much the same at several hundred other institutions around the country.
What makes us unique is that here, the transparent search for truth (or Truth, if you’re in the humanities) must be conducted with honor.  If you cannot abide that condition, you must leave.  This uncompromising ethical stance is what drew me to UVA as a student, and what continues to inspire pride in my alma mater to this day.  To lose honor would reduce UVA to just another fancy college.
I would like to think, as the Honor Committee does, that the firing of President Sullivan was appropriate and honorable, but poorly-communicated.  And yet I do not.  I do not believe that the Board of Visitors’ intentions and methods are honorable.  I do not believe their decision is justified.  I do not believe they have the best interests of the University at heart.  Put plainly, I smell a rat.
Fortunately, one of UVA’s most ingrained traditions is to follow the well-turned phrases of our founder, Thomas Jefferson.  In this time, as in so many others, let his words be our guide: “For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”  A terrible error has been committed, one which may well violate the stout and simple principles of our honor code.  We must correct this error, no matter how powerful or dramatic that corrective action may be.  We fail to do so at the peril of our institutional character.


–Adam Renn Olenn, College ’95

Russ Antonille on 06/20/2012

BA ‘60

Few of the comments are being made by older graduates. Perhaps that is because the University has changed so much since our day that we no longer identify with it as we once did.  I wonder if that fact entered into the decision and actions of the BOV?  A comment by Mr Sabato said ‘traditions can be restored’.  Really?  There would be no need to do so if greater respect had been paid to those extant prior to the ‘modernization’ of the University. No doubt even this moderate comment will prompt outrage…

Morrie Piersol on 06/20/2012

As a parent of three children who have attended UVA (two graduates and one a rising fourth year), I am extremely disappointed in the BOV and its leadership. Not for the “what” that they felt needs to implement (who am I to judge that?), but for the “how” that they chose to go about doing it. The BOV has the sovereign right to make decisions they think is in the best interests of the University - that much is clear. However, a university of the stature of UVA should expect its governing body exhibit MUCH better judgement that exhibited by the Board in the recent 10 days. The very standards of excellence that the BOV purports to aspire to through replacing President Sullivan, should be the standard by which thee BOV is also judged. The actions of the Board in recent days fails miserably in this regard. The BOV felt that “swift and unwavering” action should be taken to remove President Sullivan because she did not measure up to the expectations of the Board visa vie what they felt is needed to propel the University to the next level. By the same token then every member of the BOV who supported the Board’s recent actions should be removed swiftly for not measuring up to those very same expectations. The way in which the BOV went about executing the change they seek was incompetent and amateurish at best and should NOT be tolerated by anyone who expects excellence from members of the university’s leadership. If the way the BOV handled this is indicative of what the best and brightest business minds have to offer, than we stakeholders need to seriously re-think the kind of people we want on the Board. Either B schools do not teach HOW to execute a visionary strategic plan, or our leadership flunked that unit. Either way the all BOV members who supported the recent inept action steps MUST resign or be removed.

Ben Terry, CLAS, 1978 on 06/19/2012

Kington says he has resigned on Tuesday, “so the healing can begin.”  What?  He was OK with staying on the Board earlier in the day to cast his vote in support of this backroom coup.  So he is twisting the knife at 2am, and then he suddenly wants “the healing to begin” at 4pm???  I would love to hear an explanation of that.

By the way, this entire embarrassing episode was on NPR Radio this afternoon.  I can’t recall my alma mater being featured on NPR before.  How nice.

UVA Parent '14 on 06/19/2012

The Student rep to the Board got it right:  “...the most common element of ... concern is simply a desire for a better explanation. What is the reason for the actions take by the Board? What is the reason for the actions taken last week? What is the reason for the actions that will be taken moving forward?”  It is hard to conceive that the Board can find a quality President to succeed Pres. Sullivan after sandbagging her as it did, whether or not it feels justified to the Board.  Good to see Kington resign; Ms. Dragas MUST be next.  This taking of draconian action in virtually total secrecy is not the way that ANY organization should be run, let alone a top quality PUBLIC university.  Everyone who cares about the University—and those whom we want to care about it in the future—now has new concerns that did not exist two weeks ago.  You don’t treat good people the way Pres. Sullivan was treated, and if you do, you can anticipate major fallout among constituents and among those whom you want to recruit, for faculty and for administrators.  Bad job, Visitors!

Jim Daugherty on 06/19/2012

Rational people of good will would consider without bias ANY reasoned justification presented by the BOV for its behavior.  That such has not been forthcoming speaks volumes.  I held out hope that legitimate requests for transparency from faculty, students, and alumni/ae would be honored.  No more.

Given events subsequent to my post of June 15, I hereby (a) withdraw all future financial support to UVa and (b) cease to recommend the University to prospective students. 

Vice Rector Klington, thank you for your resignation, but it came a day too late.  Interim President Zeithaml, there is no “moving forward” given a corrupt foundation; I cannot in good conscience support your administration or any future administration appointed by the present BOV.  Rector Dragas, newspaper reports are not the source of your difficulties; I respectfully suggest your own written communications and actions consistently evidence hubris and utter disregard for the principles of Thomas Jefferson.

President Sullivan, thank you for your service, your grace, and your integrity. You deserve and shall receive better. Any other university in the world would consider itself fortunate to have you as its president. I am so very sorry you and your family had to endure these events. But endure you did. The the way you comported yourself shines as a sorely-needed beacon of inspiration, reason,  and steadfast courage in these dark days.

Until the Rector and the present BOV have tendered resignations, I consider myself an alum in exile. The full BOV had ample opportunity to redeem itself and re-establish trust.  It defiantly refused to seize this opportunity.

Michelle, Comm '90 on 06/19/2012

On Wednesday, Dean Zeithamel sent an email to the McIntire School alumni stating that although President Sullivan had been a supporter of the Comm School he was supportive of the decision made by the BOV.  Today it was announced that Zeithamel has been named interim president.  Very interesting.  Watch out UVA faculty…I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.  What a complete embarrassment!

Frank Goodpasture III on 06/19/2012

The hysteria of the perceived firing of President Sullivan amongst ostensibly educated Wahoos is embarrassing.

Didn’t Sullivan resign under the Rector’s threat of firing?

If she wants to keep the job and is comfortable with the apparent broad support of the faculty and community and the squeamishness of some board members, then why doesn’t she rescind her resignation and force a vote?

Megan C Davis on 06/19/2012

Tyranny of the nonrepresentative minority. Things must change. Or UVA will suffer symbolically and philosophically, as well as possibly in real terms (donations, faculty recruitment and retention, student enrollment). We must remember the founder of this University, who also helped found this country - with all its glorious achievements and its shameful failings, when we tire of writing, calling, emailing. UVA, past and present, may not be perfect, but it is worth fighting for. We cannot let Jefferson down and we cannot fail current and future students, staff, and faculty. This is OUR University. The BOV needs to learn this lesson - loud and clear.
Megan Davis
CLAS ‘94
GSAS ‘06
Curry ‘07

Kathryn Thornton on 06/19/2012

“We recognize that, while genuinely well-intended to protect the dignity of all parties, our actions too readily lent themselves to perceptions of being opaque and not in keeping with the honored traditions of this University. For that reason, let me state clearly and unequivocally: you – our U.Va. family – deserved better from this Board, and we have heard your concerns loud and clear.”

Rector Dragas’ comments immediately before convening a 12-hour closed meeting to select an interim president. 

One thing we can all agree on: We deserve better!

Denise UVA Parent on 06/19/2012

My daughter is a rising senior. I am saddened and embarrassed by the ouster of President Sullivan. I have many of the same sentiments as stated in the comments above. Rector Dragas should resign immediately and put the best interests of UVA ahead of her ego. Those BOV members who “went along” should follow suit. Whatever “business” sense the BOV purport to have, they lack common sense and integrity. As a parent, I tell my daughter that we can learn from mistakes. How these individuals could unilaterally make this destructive decision and inflict such harm on the UVA community must be investigated and prevented from happening in the future.

Susan Edu. '61 on 06/19/2012

As an insignificant alumna, my opinion of Ms. Sullivan is based on attending the Thomas Jefferson Society meeting in 2011, along with what I have read in newspapers and on-line. From that limited base, I do not feel she was an asset to The University and will be glad to see her go. It would be a service to The University if she would take all of her Michigan friends with her as she leaves.
However, I am ashamed of the way this was handled by the BOV and its Rector. I still take the honor code seriously as a guide of how we should live and conduct ourselves in Life. The method of firing Ms. Sullivan was done with neither integrity nor honor.
It would be a grand step to replace all of the wealthy members the BOV with some honest regular folks who understand that politics have no place in academia and who appreciate that The University of Virginia stands for quality of education not the numbers of admissions.

R Richard Schweitzer on 06/19/2012

The educational facilities of this nation,from primary to secondary to post-secondary and on to advanced learning came into being as instrumentalities to attain objectives determined by those who created and funded them; beginning as simply as one-room school houses.

It was the objectives determined by Mr. Jefferson and those of like mind that established and set the means of operations for attaining those objectives for the University. The determination of those objectives and those means have remianed external and separated from those charged with executing them.

Elsewhere the educational facilities in this nation have become “institutionalized” into education “systems,” with specific effects in the primary and secondary levels, as those formerly charged to attain objectives determined by those to be served, using means determined by those to be served, now set the objectives and determine the means to be used.

Many of the “great” universities, politically or endowment controlled, have passed into “institutionalization.”
The University has not yet reached that end-stage, as these actions indicate.

The determinations of objectives and means for their attainment rest where they began.

Other “Institutions” should be so fortunate.

Julia on 06/19/2012

We should add Prof. Wulf’s resignation letter to the time line as well:
https://gist.github.com/2955870

BY on June 19, 2012

Below is a resignation letter submitted [to the Cavalier Daily] this morning by Computer Science Prof. William Wulf:

Dean and Interim President Zeithaml,

By this email I am submitting my resignation, effective immediately. I do not wish to be associated with an institution being as badly run as the current UVa. A BOV that so poorly understands UVa, and academic culture more generally, is going to make a lot more dumb decisions, so the University is headed for disaster, and I don’t want to be any part of that. And, frankly, I think you should be ashamed to be party to this debacle!

Needless to say, I will not be teaching the course that I was scheduled to teach this Fall.

I urge my fellow faculty to join me. The BOV needs to understand that there are real and immediate consequences to their actions.

Since you probably don’t know me from Adam, I’ve included below a very quick synopsis of my bio and that of my wife (included here since our experiences are shared ones).

My wife (Anita Jones) and I are in Computer Science and we both hold the title University Professor — the highest rank at UVa. Of the 3300 faculty at UVa, roughly 13 hold that title.

Between us we have had quite a varied career. We were both academics at Carnegie Mellon and Uva. We jointly founded and I was CEO of a high tech startup. My wife was a Presidential Appointee as an Asst, Sec. of Defense in the 1st Clinton Admin. and oversaw science and technology in DoD. I was an Asst. Director of NSF, and oversaw the transition of the Internet from a government-only network to today’s public one. I was President of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) for 11 years. The NAE is a private 501(c)(3), but was chartered by Congress to advise the government on issues of science and engineering. Being President was a full time job in DC and placed me at the nexus of science, engineering and public policy. I am a member of the Academies of 8 foreign countries, and hold 5 honorary doctorates. We both have extensive board experience in both the non-profit and for-profit worlds; three examples of the two dozen I could give: (1) my wife in currently on the Board of a $11+ billion dollar/yr enterprise, (2) I chair a non-profit Board focused on promoting international understanding , and (3) Anita served on MIT’s Executive Committee (their version of the BOV).

In short we have extensive experience that spans academia, executive positions in the private sector, government, and board memberships. So we deeply understand the proper conduct of academic administration and the proper oversight of that administration by a board, In my opinion the BOV has perpetrated are the worst example of corporate governance I have ever seen.

To repeat_- I resign. I want no part of this ongoing fiasco.

Bill Wulf

Wm. A. Wulf University Professor, Dept. of Computer Science University of Virginia, and President Emeritus, National Academy of Engineering

Ron Glbert Com '70 on 06/19/2012

Too Catholic?
Actually being observed attending Catholic church services certainly
didn’t help Terese Sullivan’s case. It must have been more than a little
embarrassing to the BOV that President Sullivan actually PRACTICES her
faith, in light of the U.S.Catholic Bishops’ VERY public defense of religious
freedom. Perhaps they worried that her faith might inform her decisions.
The BOV should read the plaque on the Albemarle County Courthouse explaining
that Col John Harvie introduced Mr. Jefferson’s Statute for Religious
Freedom in that building. Better yet, read the Statute!

Brian Carr on 06/19/2012

The Board’s secrecy continues. Rector Dragas gave a well-crafted public address before Monday’s meeting where she apologized and told us that we deserve better and more open information. She gave us everything except ... MORE INFORMATION! It was an unbelievable statement that actually gave us zero new information about what the huge differences in strategic view are that have caused the Board to force out President Sullivan.
It is clear that Rector Dragas has lost the confidence of the entire UVA community. She must resign immediately, or at the very least, publicly announce her refusal to accept appointment to a second term on the Board. If she does neither, then we will know that Rector Dragas’ Number One goal is the advancement of her own power and career.

Blaire Ruch on 06/19/2012

Here’s a possible solution to move forward:

If the reason the BOV says that it is choosing not to share details is due to confidentiality, Dr. Sullivan could communicate in a statement that she is comfortable with waiving the need to keep the information hidden. If Dr. Sullivan stands confident behind her efforts on the job, and is not concerned about what the revealed information would mean for her future employment, then the BOV would have no logical reason to withhold the information from the public.

If the BOV still refuses to communicate the details after this step, one would assume that something unethical has occurred.

If instead, the BOV responds by clearly articulating the specific reasons for Dr. Sullivan’s resignation, and nothing unethical has occurred, the BOV will have cleared suspicions, and true dialogue and understanding could be achieved.

Julie UVa Parent on 06/19/2012

As someone who encouraged my son to take a look at the University in addition to the Ivies that he was being courted by—and to which he was universally invited to join—I feel embarrassed and dismayed by the actions of the BOV.  It is mind-boggling to think that we out-of-staters were so in love with Mr. Jefferson’s school, its atmosphere, its honor, its culture and mostly its stellar academic offerings.  Apparently we were blinded to the political processes tied up in the University’s administration.  Had we known such a useless cabal with little knowledge of how to run a school was to call the shots, there is no way we would have turned down offers from your prestigious rivals.

UVA has been a wonderful example of how to run a public university without settling for mediocrity.  And now I can only imagine the troubled minds of those students and parents readying for their first year on grounds.  How many faculty members will have left?  What is the likelihood that the school will lose grant money, prestige and top-flight faculty because of the vacuous BOV and their obtuse pronouncements?  Will the school retain its place in the higher echelon of Universities, both public and private?

I hope that Dragas has—as I suspect she does—the smallest possible concept of what she has done and does what she must do:  renounce this entire ordeal and resign.  The remainder of the BOV must follow suit.  President Sullivan should be begged to return to her post with the promise of protection from over-arching imbeciles.

Deborah Roberts Horst on 06/19/2012

I find it absurd that Rector Dragas would offer the phrase “we share your love of this institution and its core values of honor, integrity, and trust.”  She may love the institution, but she certainly does not appear to understand or respect the core values of honor, integrity and trust.

Great men and women know how to admit when they have made a mistake.  Let’s have some greatness here.

Deborah Roberts Horst
CLAS ‘77

Jeff - College 1981 on 06/19/2012

I fear that the furor surrounding President Sullivan’s resignation may not die and may continue to fester as long as the current leadership of the BoV remains.  While future students will eventually forget what happened, the same cannot be said for UVa faculty, administrators, alumni, donors, and the UVa community at large.  A change in the Board’s leadership is needed to restore confidence, to end feelings of recrimination and calls for justice, and to help everyone move on to healing, acceptance, and focusing once again on what all of us who love UVa can do to restore its lustre and unique reputation among the country’s educational institutions.

Patricia Brownell Sterner on 06/19/2012

Our University has been grossly harmed by the actions of the Board of Visitors.  Based on the recent ‘secret’ firing of President Sullivan, it seems clear that honor and integrity are not standards by which they live nor through which they uphold their supposed duty to the University of Virginia.  Their actions are deeply impacting the well-being of our beloved institution.  As President Sullivan noted in her departing comments, “Sweeping action may be gratifying and may create the aura of strong leadership, but its unintended consequences may lead to costs that are too high to bear.”  $100 million and the power of one donor to rock the University is too high a price to pay.  I, too, call for the resignations of the Rector and Vice Rector.

P Brownell Sterner
CLAS ‘77

Adam Sachs (Class of 1986) on 06/19/2012

As a proud UVA graduate and now the father of an incoming Third Year student at the school, I am surprised by the seeming inteptitude of the Board of Visitors and the apparently audacious behind-the-scenes activities of Rector Helen Dragus.  Here’s to hoping the Governor elects not to renew the Rector’s appointment to the Board of Visitors, and that a new Board prevails upon President Sullivan to withdraw her letter of resignation.

Kathleen Bounds on 06/19/2012

As an alumna (College 74), I am aghast at the BOV’s actions to sabotage The University’s integrity.  Those actions and subsequent comments (I won’t dignify them as ‘explanations’)have produced a firestorm of anger - about their recent actions to bully a resignation from President Sullivan; frustration - from their ‘non-response’ responses; and anxiety - about UVA’s future.  Not to mention the damage done to public perception of an institution whose reputation has always been above reproach, one to which others have aspired.
I remain proud of my alma mater.  I am disgusted with her BOV.

Doug Welty, Law '82 on 06/19/2012

In evaluating the decision of the Board of Visitors to dismiss President Sullivan, it is worthwhile to remember why the Board of Visitors, each of whose members is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, exists.

The Board was not created just to serve the students of the University, or its faculty, or its administrative staff.

Or parents, or alumni, or student-athletes, or UVA hospital administrators.

Or scheduled employees, the Honor System, the library, or “Mr. Jefferson’s Ideals.”

And certainly not “money,” or “the corporate elite,” or the “powers that be.”

And not even the Governor, or the General Assembly.

No, the Board of Visitors exists to serve the Commonwealth of Virginia. The whole darned multidimensional, multitemporal thing.

And to do so, it has to balance the long-term and short-term needs and wants of every University interest group mentioned above. This is not an easy job. And it would be a whole lot harder if Visitors had to go around asking permission from every interest group - or any interest group - before taking any soberly considered action to provide strategic direction to the University.

A college or university is most likely to succeed when its board of trustees is independent of all special-interest groups within the institution. Sure, if a Board of Visitors needs advice, it should ask for it. But when it doesn’t - or already has gathered all the information and advice it needs - everyone is best served if the Board moves forward without equivocating, shilly-shallying, testing the waters, and seeing which way the wind is blowing.

I for one congratulate the Board on gathering up its courage and doing what it believed, in good faith, needed to be done by firing an underperforming administrator.

Remember, the University did just fine without having a president at all right up until 1904. It’s a relatively new tradition, and there’s no reason to get all het up just because one is fired and a new one is hired. It just might all wind up being a passing fad.

arnie on 06/19/2012

Presidents are hired and fired all the time. Perhaps this was done clumsily, but i have have faith in a highly qualified board. Sullivan is not coming back, perhaps for the best. Let’s move on!

Kyle on 06/19/2012

The Board of Visitors has not displayed the leadership required of them in the recent decision to forcibly remove President Sullivan, unless the BOV incorrectly contends that an autocratic leadership style was warranted in this situation.

A few hallmarks of true leadership are effective communication and a capacity to care for others.  However, it my perception (and that of many others in our community) that the BOV did not communicate well with the vast majority of their constituents, instead resorting to secretive and opaque processes that have been shrouded by rhetoric in public.  Further, the BOV’s actions have demonstrated that they did not clearly lay out an effective plan that would ensure the dignity of President Sullivan.  I would expect more from an executive team such as the BOV.  Nor did the BOV even come close to correctly foreseeing how their actions would be perceived locally and nationally.  Rather, they have subjected President Sullivan and the entire UVA community to an embarrassing situation.  President Sullivan, with her abundant skills and leadership, will move on from this.  However, the real damage for years to come will be in terms of faculty recruiting, alumni donation, and the perception of UVA in general.  If the BOV felt they were truly acting in the best interest of the University, they were clearly wrong.  The tremendous backlash from their most important resource (the faculty) and their most important stakeholders (students and the Commonwealth) have demonstrated how truly wrong they were.

I don’t think anyone is naive enough to ignore that an institution of higher learning has fiduciary responsibilities in order to remain viable and productive.  However, the BOV forgot that this is the flagship university of the Commonwealth of Virginia where education of future leaders and citizens is what truly matters.  Universities, public and private, are facing difficult times across the nation, but if the BOV thought this action would “help” improve UVA’s position by any standard of measure, they were mistaken.  Further, the rash and opaque decision to remove President Sullivan may have been within the authority of the BOV, but the manner in which it was conducted and communicated has been anything but honorable.

Ben Gaston on 06/19/2012

Some thoughts from an alumnus and ex-faculty member regarding the Rector’s recent experiment

Thankfully, the University of Virginia is not a venture capital startup company.  The prototype venture capital-academic partnership is the biotechnology startup company.  The vast majority of biotechnology startups underperform or fail.  The reasons are varied, but they almost all go back to the Board of Directors.

Biotechnology startup Boards commonly misunderstand the innovation, the real value and the appropriate market involved in the intellectual property they license.  Based on these misunderstandings, they hire consultants or appoint other Board members who also fail to understand the product.  They then take the company in the wrong direction; and they blame the product when things go badly.  I have seen this scenario play out more than once. Everyone loses.

Here is the crux of the problem.  The Board says, “We have the power to do whatever we want.”  Correct.  But then comes the disconnect that causes most biotechnology companies to fail: they think, “Therefore, we know what is best to do.  We understand best how to turn this idea into money.”  They go off in the wrong direction with an element of hubris; they stop paying attention to the academic inventors.

This same paradigm is causing our medical school to underperform. The CEO is a good financial manager. But it is not his job - or his training - to understand the innovation, the product or the real market created by the faculty. Though he does not understand these issues well, the problem is that he thinks he does.  Here is the disconnect: because he has unbalanced executive authority given him by the Board of Visitors, he thinks, “I know how best to manage these faculty members as commodities.” 

This lack of balance at the medical center, instituted by the Board of Visitors, has led to the loss of many great scientists, inventors and entrepreneurs.  We have become the farm team for institutions that pay attention to faculty and understand their innovation, products and real markets. We appreciate the nice buildings - significant parts of which now stand empty - and the idea of increased salaries recently mentioned by Rector.  But what we actually needed most of all at the medical school was a real voice. 

The principle that the faculty is not worth consulting - that it should be managed as a commodity by an over-confident Board - has now become a University-wide embarrassment for all the world to see.  This arrogance is folly.

Scientifically, however, it is an interesting experiment that the Rector has begun.  She will test the hypotheses that 1) people with experience in capital management are the best qualified to establish the course for an academic institution; and 2) this course is best charted without any input or wisdom from the scholars who are being managed. 

The problems with the experiment are as follows.  First, the Rector did not get any of the participants’ consent to enroll the institution in this experiment. This would not pass a hospital ethics review.  Second, the pilot study at the medical center is beginning to fail badly.  Third, the model in which venture capitalists tell academics what is best for them - with only a token, patronizing dialogue - almost always fails.  Biotechnology startups provide a clear example.  So, I would give her research proposal a pretty bad score.  I certainly would not invest in it. Thus far, the only measurable outcome of the experiment has been uncontrolled bleeding.

It is essential for the institution that the Rector and Vice Rector stop the bleeding immediately.  They need to re-instate the President, resign, and then let the rest of the Board have an above-Board dialogue with the faculty and alumni.

Ben Gaston

CLAS ‘79
SOM ‘83

UVA Parent on 06/19/2012

This is a tragedy which will not be erased as easily as the graffiti. Watch the faculty and dollars flow away from UVA. Jefferson would be ashamed.

Joanne Schneider, '74 on 06/19/2012

The Board of Visitors’ miscalculated action reflects very poorly on UVA but even more so on the Board and the existing governance system.  A system whereby political appointees with abundant financial resources and commercial savvy can dominate without a deep understanding of how higher education works must change.  I cannot determine whether any members are educators but there does not appear to be any or many.  Why are there no faculty appointees from other academic institutions on the Board who can serve to educate their colleagues in the “business” of higher education?  Yes, there is the conventional business side but what about the complex of services and service-based relationships that must be cultivated and nurtured in order to produce highly-educated students and sustain UVA’s reputation?  It seems to me that all boards of academic institutions need to include representatives from peer and aspirant institutions to serve as educators and also as checks and balances to prevent the business-types from applying a runaway, uncompromised business model to an educational institution.  Perhaps this unfortunate, signal event, combined with declining state financial support, will push UVA to become a private institution with a more enlightened trustee board that includes representatives from higher education.

Ben on 06/19/2012

While I have no opinion on Sullivan’s credentials as an administrator, I wish the situation had been handled differently. Let this be a lesson to us. We as a community are more powerful than one president, and even the board. We do not have to let them impact our quality of education.

Peter Pasley, MD, Class of 1980 on 06/19/2012

It is disgusting how people who make millions, and even billions, lose sight of just how ridiculous their self-serving power plays seem.  Money does not equal intelligence, nor does it equal good. All it really equals is greed.  And there is no limit to human greed. It’s too bad that the entire country now views the making of money as the most important virtue—nothing could be further from the truth.

College 14 on 06/19/2012

“A society that will lose trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Cheryll (Pratt) Brounstein 77 on 06/19/2012

Ms Dragas’ behavior is the antithesis of honor and Jeffersonian ideals.  Her arrogance and manipulative behavior do not represent the qualities that are necessary for rigorous scholarship and intellectual accomplishments.  Her actions have subjected the University to consequences that were unnecessary and costly.  The BoV needs to demand her resignation.

Jeff Dermer - Law '03 on 06/19/2012

It is difficult to discern anything at all from the statements from the Board.  That suggests to me that the reasons for jettisoning Ms. Sullivan are either personal, political, or shameful.  None of those conclusions are good.  Obviously, something significant must have happened to lead to a scheme to push her out.  That we cannot be told makes be skeptical of the Board’s wisdom.

All that said, at this point, there are no facts available relating to the substance of the disagreement.

What we do know is that Ms. Sullivan was hired by the same Board.  So which decision was grossly negligent?  The hiring or rapid firing without any explanation or even suggestion of some impropriety?

If the Board could not pick the right person a few years ago then what makes anyone think that the same people will do any better this time?  Everyone involved should resign on honor grounds.

Chad Bell on 06/19/2012

My comment to the Alumni Association:

I am, quite frankly, disgusted and appalled by the actions of our fine university’s Board of Visitors in dismissing Teresa Sullivan (and, in the process, also all but forcing her husband—a distinguished professor at the Law School—to leave as well).  As an alumni, I have no confidence in anyone left on our Board of Visitors, and therefore demand (and after this debacle, expect) the immediate resignation of all of our Board of Visitors members, and of Rector Helen Dragas in particular.  Ms. Dragas, throughout this whole process, has demonstrated herself incapable of the transparency, decency, and dare I say it, honor, that we as alumni expect not only of our leadership, but indeed of every student, faculty member, and alumnus of the University.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, only by pruning our University’s democratic leadership tree of the dead branches that led us to the embarassing episode can we hope to renew the vigor of the university (“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”)

That being said, if re-hiring Teresa Sullivan to continue her leadership has been made impossible by the current events, I do want to pledge my support towards Interim President Carl Zeithaml.  My only hope is that we replace this incompetent Board of Visitors leadership (and especially Rector Dragas), so that he can accomplish what President Sullivan had been seeking to do—make UVA into the world-class university it should be—without the Board of Visitors meddling and chicanery getting in the way.

I also want to say that in this whole episode, I have been particularly proud of the UVA Law School administration, faculty, staff, and students, for standing with President Sullivan.  In the Law School’s case, independence from the University and the incompetent Board of Visitors has been demonstrated to be a virtue, as the Law School clearly has comported itself with honor by standing with President Sullivan.

1977 & 1984 on 06/19/2012

Immeasurable damage has been done to our beloved University, which prides itself on honesty and ethical conduct.  I cannot imagine how our interim president can succeed in healing the University community’s wounds inflicted by the BOV, or expect cooperation in moving forward when we have been pulled so far backward by the conduct of our current “leadership”.

Kevin M. Esterling on 06/19/2012

I am alumnus of UVA, and now a full professor of political science at UC-Riverside, as well as the associate dean for graduate student affairs at UCR.  If Ms. Dragas indeed had a compelling reason to pressure Teresa Sullivan to resign, she most certainly could have articulated her rationale to the faculty senate.  That she felt the need to arrange for Dr. Sullivan’s ouster via back channels should have given her pause to consider whether her beliefs were misguided, but now it is too late.  Her actions have caused enormous harm to the university.  It may be that Ms. Dragas had a genuine desire to improve the university, but in addition to her poor judgment in this case, her inability to anticipate the consequences of her actions clearly demonstrates her incompetence as a rector of the university. 

The only way forward is for 1) all members of the BOV who were involved in this “project” to immediately resign, and publicly apologize for the consequences of their actions; 2) the BOV to reject Dr. Sullivan’s resignation and plead with her to reconsider; and 3) irrespective of who becomes the next president, that there be a massive overhaul of the rules and the methods of selection of the BOV, including giving the BOV influence over university matters only in proportion to the state’s actual contribution to the university, and ensuring that there be substantial representation on the board from the faculty senate and other academic leaders.  These are the only actions that can begin to reverse the damage that Ms. Dragas and her colleagues on the BOV have done.  Any set of actions short of these recommendations will be unacceptable.

Cheryll Brounstein on 06/19/2012

Helen Dragas needs to resign.  Her behavior conveys her lack of commitment to the core values that are central to the University of Virginia.  She violated the Honor Code.  It seems that Ms. Dragas believes that honor is for others and not a standard she must uphold.

Wade Hinkle, COLL 77, GSAS 80 on 06/19/2012

Helen Dragas and Mark Kington, and all other members of the Board of Visitors who have participated in this disgraceful chapter of the University’s history should resign in disgrace immediately. The damage they have done to the University we love is incalculable. And so-called Interim President Zeithaml: have you no shame? History will not treat you kindly for agreeing to play Quisling.

Ben Terry on 06/19/2012

Has Zeithaml officially accepted this offer?  Wouldn’t he beincredibly foolish to accept an offer from Dragas and Kington, when 98% of the faculty he will be governing has expressed no confidence in the two, in the strongest terms imaginable?  How is he going to do anything to move the ball down the field academically?  He may be able to get the dining halls to step up their performance, and get the hedges trimmed more neatly, but that’s about it. 

A twelve hour meeting?  Perhaps they spent that time calling 25 other candidates, who turned them down.  Zeithaml was number 26.

Bruce Matthews on 06/19/2012

Thomas Jefferson was a well-known critic of the monopolizing power of banks and corporations, since they set their faith in what he called “the selfish spirit of commerce (that) knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.” It is precisely this selfish spirit of commerce that has driven the hostile takeover of The University by the Darden and McIntire executives.
A window into the value system of the engineers of this coup is found in the email of June 10 sent to the Darden community by Peter D. Kiernan – yes, the famed graduate of Darden, Goldman Sachs man, leader of the Robin Hood Foundation, and author of “Becoming China’s Bitch” (Neil Cavuto and Don Imus loved it – must be wise).
[full text: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2012/06/14/peter-kiernan-offers-public-letter-resigns-from-darden-board-of-trustees/]
        First the cult-like mindset of uniform thinking and tribal loyalty, as he assures the recipients of his email that since “both the Rector and Vice Rector, Helen Dragas and Mark Kington are Darden alums,” the coup will be pulled off flawlessly. “Trust me’” he adds, “Helen has things well in hand.” 
Kiernan then lets on that he has known about and participated in the conspiracy (and I mean that in the technical sense of “A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful”) for quite some time, and he implies that the overall plot has been planned for even longer. He writes: “Several weeks ago I was contacted by two important Virginia alums about working with Helen Dragas on this project, particularly from the standpoint of the search process and the strategic dynamism effort. It pained me to keep this information from you and from Bob, but I was sworn top [sic] keep the process confidential.” So it was Kiernan who, probably weeks ago, lined up Zeithaml, who specializes in international competitive strategies for corporations (look for UVA opening a campus in Abu Dhabi soon), to become interim president. Although Ziethaml’s MBA is from U of Florida – in Hospital Management (a real golden calf profit maker – and excellent background for leading UVA), he is the longest serving Dean of McIntire, so his loyalty can be counted on. And speaking of loyalty, honor and integrity, consider what Kiernan writes about why he had to keep this plot secret from others – particularly Sullivan:
“Because Terry Sullivan has been such a supporter of Darden, I kept the confidence as Helen requested.”
Can someone please help me understand the moral reasoning involved in this sentence? He seems to be reasoning that ‘because this person was so good to me, I had to go behind her back’? All I can discern is that he is a coward, and because Sullivan had been so good to Darden, he just couldn’t face dealing honestly with her regarding the coup this clique was planning. Or is it that I just don’t understand the moral system of those invested in “the selfish spirit of commerce”?
But it gets worse: here is Kiernan’s esteemed judgment about how Dargas will treat Sullivan: “I can promise you after numerous discussions with Helen, that she has been extremely thoughtful and careful in this process, with an especial eye for treating Terry with the utmost respect.” Once again: there must be an alternative value system for those whose lives are dictated by the bottom line, a world evidently, where the ends always justify the means. His further wisdom: “Everyone involved has been a class act.” This is the judgment that is now dictating UVA. 
He proceeds to let on that the Governor knows and approves of the coup: “As many of you know no major decision of this kind can be made at Virginia without the support and assent of the Governor. I am not sure what my future role in this process will be. Those are the facts.”
Saving the most repulsive point for the end of this morally repugnant missive, Kiernan concludes with an invocation to God, exhorting his recipients to realize the holy nature of their endeavor: “We are blessed by sound leaders and compassionate ones.” Again, servants of the selfish spirit of commerce must serve a different God than the one I was raised to give thanks to. Perhaps the Golden Calf?
Although Kiernan has resigned, his value system of material self-interest and worldview of education as training is shared by all those now at the wheel of UVA. The damage this has done to our Alma Mater will take decades to overcome – if ever. I do hope better minds are developing a strategy for correcting this damage, and that, unlike the current Junta, they turn to the UVA community for support in their efforts.
Bruce Matthews
BA 86

Cathleen Donnelly on 06/19/2012

While the University will surely survive, the damage to its reputation for integrity, fairness, and pursuit of educational excellence cannot be calculated. If she were capable of it, Helen Dragas should be ashamed.

Cathleen Donnelly on 06/19/2012

While the University will surely survive, the cost of this disgraceful episode to our extended community’s pride, confidence, loyalty and goodwill cannot be calculated. If she were capable of it, Helen Dragas should be ashamed.

Britton Davis on 06/19/2012

Dragas offers members of the UVA family the ability to participate and be heard in replacing President Sullivan - yet she provides no explanation of why President Sullivan was removed in the first place.  She apologizes for the lack of transparency in the decision-making process that led to President Sullivan’s resignation, but provides no clarity on that process in her speech.  She essentially tells everyone that because she and her cabal of Visitors think what they did was right for the University, the tens of thousands of the rest of us who love the University need not concern ourselves. 

She’s an embarrassment to UVA.  Zeithaml lacks any honor.  If he had any, he’d have stood with the faculty, students, and alumni and demanded a real explanation before he accepted any position. 

I’m ashamed and embarrassed by UVA.  I’d imagine its founder would say the same.

Glenn Showalter on 06/19/2012

God Bless the Faculty Senate and all associated. Thank you.

College 1980 on 06/18/2012

Ditto to Patricia Turney Garris Arch 1970’s statement above.  I couldn’t believe the audacity of Dragas’ statement today.  It was a self-inflicted event caused by the BoV!

Ben Terry on 06/18/2012

Rector Dragas’ statement is not devoid of content.  Condensed to its bare essentials, it says:

1.  I am not going to explain anything.

2.  We will now elect a new president.

3.  Get over it.

Peter on 06/18/2012

Perhaps Dragas can DRAG her sorry ASs onto the Ted Mack Amateur Hour (remember that show?). Because that’s where Amateurish behavior belongs.

Graduate '05 on 06/18/2012

Peter Kiernan was wise—he recognized that the error he had made was past repairing, and that it was in his own best interests (as well as the university’s) if he stepped down without delay. As a result, the furor over this business has left him otherwise unscathed.

In contrast, Helen Dragas and Mark Kington have been very foolish—not only in their admittedly-ruinous handling of this affair, but in their reckless determination to remain on the Board. If they had followed Kiernan’s example, they would be happily doing whatever they wanted, and their reputations would—in the long run—suffer no lasting damage from this incident. More important: the college would have regretfully accepted the departure of President Sullivan, and life would be continuing at UVA peacefully.

Why did Dragas and Kington refuse to step down in the face of universal condemnation by the university community? It certainly can’t be for the good of the university—it is their continued presence on the Board more than anything else that is angering people and disrupting the stability and security of the university. Perhaps they feel they have a duty to remain on the Board, but that would merely be willful blindness to the damage that their continued presence is causing. Do they think they need to help select an interim president? This too would be foolish—their very participation in the selection of a new president will increase the resentment the community feels towards that unfortunate person. If Dragas and Kington stepped down, the new interim president might be accepted, but if the university community believes their new interim president is tainting by association with Dragas and Kington, that president will have the worst time trying to accomplish anything, and UVA’s reputation will continue to sink.

If they had stepped down when their poor management of the situation had become obvious, the university would not be receiving such negative press nation-wide, donors would not be retracting pledges and looking elsewhere for their charitable giving, prestigious and beloved UVA faculty would not be accepting posts elsewhere, and prospective students would not be removing UVA from their list of top choices.

Dragas and Kington are not even serving their self-interests by remaining on the Board. Dragas in particular has become an international symbol for the very worst that people imagine about the business world—immoral, unjust, power-hungry, and uncaring. Her name and poor management of this affair will become a standard talking-point in all future discussions about the management of universities, and she will become a cautionary tale in business schools and university administrations alike. Even worse—by remaining on the board she is making herself the most loathed individual at a university she claims to love, and it will not be long before reporters are asking Darden professors whether Dragas truly represents the best in ‘business management’ UVA has to offer. From a purely personal level, therefore, I would think she she and Kington would want to step down, save what they can of their reputations, and save the university further harm. So why aren’t they leaving?

While it may be sheer arrogance, it is probably another example of why they are not right as members of the Board—they don’t understand the fundamental differences between business management and university administration. Papers all over the country are already citing them as prime examples of how different these two endeavors are, and I suspect that Dragas and Kington believe the proper thing to do is ride out the storm, which is what one does in business. In academia, however, where honor, dignity, true, and principles are more important than the short-term memories that tend to prevail in the business world, the storm could last for years. This will not blow over as long as they’re on the Board.

Finally, Dragas may be praying for the end of her term on July 1st to get here so she can step down then, pretending she hasn’t been driven out by the hatred of her alma mater. That too is unwise—if she does that, the ire of the university community will continue to follow her, since the university community—which believes in justice—will continue to heap abuse on her until they believe the wrongs she committed have been righted. It would be far better for her, therefore, to take a few lumps now and step down rather than be resented by the university of years to come.

I truly wonder—knowing what they know now and the damage they are causing the university and their own long-term reputations, do they wish they had stepped down one week ago on the 11th?

Patricia Turney Garris Arch 1970 on 06/18/2012

Read Dragas statement today: not impressed. She needs to go.

David Juilfs DDS on 06/18/2012

I have no connection to UVA, Like many, I have been following the news and it makes very little sense. I does however stink to high heaven. I’m sure the public will never know the truth for it must be truly rotten.

Commerce '63/ Law '66 on 06/18/2012

This is STILL a very manageable situation. The University should convene a panel of its graduates who are public relations professionals, and ask them what actions are necessary to recapture the University’s high standing as a community of trust with its alumni and alumnae. And the panel’s advice, including necessary resignations, should be followed to the letter by June 30. Big, big leadership mistakes need to be acknowledged and apologies need to be made. Reputation restored, dark cloud passed, move forward with grace and transparency. Individual interesta must be set aside in favor of the University’s interests.

Gary Evans on 06/18/2012

(Engineering ‘77) I am very disturbed by the way this has been unfolding. I know men (generic) and I know corporations. This does not feel on the up-and-up. IMHO the BOV has a fiduciary responsibility to the Community, but they may regard they are only beholden’ to the Governor. I see nothing but damage to the University in this. Amazing that adults can be so blind, or perhaps just not caring, to the consequences of their actions. Are not secrecy and authoritarianism the very evils that Mr. Jefferson hated?

College '76 on 06/18/2012

My message sent to the Board:

Board:

I am an alumnus of UVA. 

While I agree with your decision regarding President Sullivan, I do NOT agree with your approach, which is causing serious collateral damage to our great university.

I strongly recommend that, after you appoint the interim President, you resign for the good of the University to help put this episode behind us and move forward.

Do the right thing…resign.

Thank you

Bruce Matthews on 06/18/2012

Goldman Sachs, Online Education, Selling off Public Institutions and Infrastructure: Read this post by UVA Alum (BA 01, history) Anne-Marie Angeloif you want substantive analysis of what and why UVA is in crisis.
http://www.annemarieangelo.com/?p=40
Substantive points – all sourced - listed below – please circulate on public media and to other Alums.
Bruce Matthews
BA 86, Philosophy & Religious Studies
1. On Sunday, the Richmond-Times Dispatch reported that Sullivan only learned that she was being forced to resign on Friday, and that the Chairman of the Darden School of Business’s Foundation knew of the “project” to oust her several weeks ago.
2. An examination of the minutes of the Board of Visitors meetings from 2011-12 reveals that Sullivan’s departure was discussed over several months and may have been related to fundraising:
• At the September meeting, Sullivan reported a 13% decrease from the previous fiscal year in giving to the University (p. 8534).
• In November, the BOV created and adopted a Presidential Performance Evaluation, with individual members of the Board writing reviews of Sullivan. Although this is a common professional practice and has obvious benefits for organizational health, it was an unprecedented action taken by the Board (p. 8615).
• In February, the BOV met in closed executive session with its General Counsel to discuss pending and threatened litigation and to discuss “personnel matters relating to the appointment and performance of University employees in connection with fundraising activities and potential gifts to the University related to the Capital Campaign” (p. 8656)
• The Board held a closed executive session at its May meeting in which it discussed personnel matters related to University officers, presumably Sullivan. In the executive session, they also consulted with the University’s General Counsel on a “privileged legal report” on “pending and anticipated litigation affecting the University.” (pgs. 8708-09)
3. Today, an article from Charlottesville’s The Hook raised questions about the potential role of Peter Kiernan, the chair of the Trustees at the Darden Foundation, the Board of UVA’s Graduate Business School, in the circumstances leading to Sullivan’s ouster.  The article noted in particular Kiernan’s role as a former partner at Goldman Sachs and that Goldman Sachs “recently took a major ownership position in a group of online universities.”
I learned that the group of online universities to which The Hook refers are known as the Education Management Corporation, profiled here by the Huffington Post.
A bit of searching revealed an announcement by news station NBC 29, Charlottesville’s NBC affiliate, about an EMC investor presentation in the area in February and March.
Conspicuously, the article has been taken down on NBC 29′s website, but the cached version on Google (from a search for the “Education Management Corporation and the University of Virginia”) mentions the University of Virginia:
http://www.nbc29.com/story/16935176/education-management-corporation-announces-february-and-march-investor-presentation-and-webcast-schedule
From the site’s cache: “/PRNewswire/ — Education Management Corporation … to take for granted just how beautiful and historic the University of Virginia is, …”
It also turns out that EMC’s General Counsel is a two-time University of Virginia alumnus:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-kelley/14/583/b82
So, the theory is that EMC approached the University with the potential of offering the “online education” component to which Dragas has referred, as a subsidiary of UVA’s educational offerings, one that would have healed a lot of fiscal woes for the University. As an independent entity who invested its profits back into the University, EMC’s involvement wouldn’t have made the University in and of itself private. Essentially it would have been selling the UVA ‘brand name’ for the opportunity to receive major gifts for the University. When Sullivan resisted this venture, the Board found fault with her performance as a fundraiser and made moves to oust her.
Given the heavy involvement of Darden in this scenario, I’d be curious to know more about the ways Darden has privatized over the years, and whether this model bears any resemblance to those processes.
4. Back to the Board of Visitors:  All members of the Board are appointed by the Governor of Virginia.  Virginia’s Governor, Bob McDonnell, has appointed 8 members of the current 16 on the Board since the time that Sullivan was selected as President.  McDonnell refused to reappoint the Rector-elect of the Board, Daniel Abramson, reportedly because he had donated to the campaigns of McDonnell’s predecessors Tim Kaine and Senator Mark Warner.  From the point of view of the Board who hired Sullivan, Dragas was not intended to be the Rector right now; Abramson was, and now he is no longer a Board member.
5. In January of this year, McDonnell announced a plan to sell off naming rights to public infrastructure, in this case transportation, indicating he was not opposed to the private branding of public goods and services.
I think it’s no huge jump to suggest that a Governor who was interested in privatizing state infrastructure, and who was making a bid for Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential nomination (and given that Goldman Sachs was Romney’s largest corporate contributor in the 2008 election) would have gone along with Goldman’s plan and turned a blind eye when they ousted Sullivan.
That’s my two cents.  As I mentioned, this is a theory-in-progress, so I look forward to people’s feedback, details, corrections, etc.  Thank you for reading.

C. Green on 06/18/2012

I have no opinion regarding the performance of Dr. Sullivan as President of the University during her short tenure or her suitability to continue in the position.  Admittedly I have not kept abreast of the administrative issues or initiatives at the University in recent years.

I have, however, followed the recent announcements and subsequent media ‘revelations’ with growing dismay.  The manner in which this whole affair has been handled by the Board of Visitors, and in particular its Rector and Vice Rector is disgraceful.

The behind-the-scenes manipulation and private wheeling and dealing that apparently led to the request for Dr. Sullivan to resign may be standard practice on corporate boards, and indeed the halls of Congress, but it was wholly inappropriate for the govering board of a venerable public university that prides itself on its honor code.  It disturbs me not only that the leaders of the board would resort to such tactics, but that apparently none of the other members who received these overtures either recognized this fact or had the moral fiber to object.

As for the most recent events, the completely inept manner in which the affair has been handled is, again, truly disgraceful.  Statements filled with meaningless jargon have been followed by obstinate silence and topped off by arrogant and vaguely threatening pronouncements.  A lack of respect for the University community, including faculty, students, alumni and not least Dr. Sullivan herself, has been evident throughout.  It indicates nothing short of gross incompetence on the part of the Rector and those supporting her in this action.  Their actions have caused grievous harm to the University.

I conclude therefore, that the resignations that should be forthcoming with far more urgency than that of the Dr. Sullivan, are those of Ms. Dragas, Mr. Kington, and quite possibly the remainder of the board excepting those who were excluded from the shameful intrigue leading up to this fiasco.

I intend to send a version of this communication to Governor McDonnell, along with any other officials that might conceivably have influence over this situation.  I hope that others for whom the University holds a place of reverence and affection will express their opinions as well.

Cheryl D. Green
ENGR ‘87, ‘91

Ronald Plott on 06/18/2012

A very disappointing chain of events.   

Rector Dragas has created a situation which she obiviously does not have the skills to manage. Fire a well liked President of a Flagship University over the weekend and not realize what a fire storm you are creating, not good goverance.

Why blame Sullivan for the drop in fund raising when the decline started 4 years ago and she has only been at the University for slightly less than 2 years. The real question is whether the rate on decline has slowed or continues.  The country is in an extended recession with no Leadership from the top of the house and people are financially stretched.

The dollars associated with the potential Goldman Sachs online education proposal may be closer to the truth concerning this “a philosophical difference of opinion”.

Sounds like the Governor has some house cleaning to do in July on the BOV with the need to install a Recto with vision and Leadership qualities.

Ronald Plott
Engr. 75

Patrick on 06/18/2012

It should be noted that the BOV is playing with a public trust.
UVA is not actually an inherited business, or a private partnership.

Kiernan => Goldman => EDMC => UVA

http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/node/59329

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/edmcs-enrollment-at-low-water-mark-634349/

Susan H. Shapiro on 06/18/2012

I am deeply saddened by this turn of events.  As a long-term acquaintance of Terry and Doug Sullivan from UofChicago days, I have followed Terry’s career with great interest and respect.  She is a woman of extraordinary ability and integrity.  I believe she understands and reflects the best in the pursuit of the Jeffersonian educational principles, the essence of liberal education.  It appears to me that the BoV and the Rector, in particular, have lost sight of the meaning of those principles.  How tragic for the University.  Having participated in a no-confidence vote at my school, I know how little impact such declarations from the faculty have with the supervising Board.  Still, I hope the Governor recognizes that this Board has performed a dramatic disservice to the institution and the future of liberal education at UVa.

Eric H Schmitz on 06/18/2012

An opportunity to respond to Ms. Dragas and the BOV. Give them your yes/no vote of confidence.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KV668CT

This survey was created approximately 96 hours ago, and approximately 1,300 respondents have weighed in, as students, alum, family and friends, faculty, and staff.

It is fair to say that there is near consensus—some 94-95% do not support the action(s) of the BoV in removing President Teresa Sullivan, as well as have no confidence that the BoV represents the best interests of the University. 98% belive that the reputation of UVA has been compromised. Two-thirds say the actions will reduce their support (contributions) to UVA.

I concur with that consensus, with the exception that I am committed to supporting my Graduate Alma Mater in every way possible, within my means. I am neither ashamed, nor embarrassed, by the institution, the UVA Community, or our shared values.

Reasonable people disagree reasonably. And reasonable people find means of reconciliation. I call for Ms. Dragas and Mr. Kington to resign their positions effective July 1, as a first step toward a conciliation agreement between all stakeholders.

This is the failings of a few leaders to understand and manage the dynamics of UVA, the institution, alongside a changing environment, in the context of shared values including honor, integrity, lifelong learning. My personal belief is that President Sullivan was a capable leader for this institution and for these times, ready to build the kind of team needed to steer a course of action that does not sacrifice the institution’s soul. I could be wrong. But the Rector and Vice Rector contributed poorly and well below reasonable expectations, both in word and deed.

Stephanie Papp on 06/17/2012

This was truly disappointing and disheartening; I should expect better from the BOV, but then again, they have been nothing but a bloated group of windbags disconnected from the student body, and seemingly at odds with the spirit of Mr. Jefferson’s University.

I echo the sentiments of Gerald Cooper - can anyone explain how these individuals on the BOV represent the larger community?

Stephanie Papp
College ‘04

Frank Dukes '75 on 06/17/2012

As we await what will inevitably come out despite efforts to control
the message, I have been pondering lessons of leadership, particularly
around the call for a ‘bold leader’ ...

Old leadership = tell people what to do and they will do the right thing.
Bold leadership = inspire people and they will do the right thing.

Old leadership = my power gives me legitimacy.
Bold leadership = my actions earn me legitimacy.

Old leadership = secrecy and exclusion.
Bold leadership = transparency and inclusion.

Old leadership = we have the answers.
Bold leadership = the answers will be generated by the community that
becomes enrolled in understanding and confronting the problems.

Old leadership = conspire to defeat opposition.
Bold leadership = work to build lasting consensus.

Old leadership = top-down authority that suppresses other leadership.
Bold leadership = adaptable, networked, empowered, accountable that
grows other leadership.

Old leadership = act first, apologize later.
Bold leadership = consult first and avoid making the wrong mistakes.

Old leadership = surprised by unforeseen failures of leadership.
Bold leadership = delighted by unforeseen consequences of
collaborative leadership.

Old leadership fails to understand how its actions create a system
that guarantees eventual failure by promoting insular thinking,
demoralizing its members, driving out its most creative individuals,
and de-legitimizing authority.

Bold leadership understands that its actions create a system that
ensures success by promoting a community that is informed, inspired,
networked, and prepared to confront change because it unleashes the
resourcefulness of its members, attracts other creative members, and
has legitimized governance.

Logan Anderson on 06/17/2012

From the CD’s website, the text of Provost Simon’s remarks to the Faculty Senate:

John Simon, the University’s Provost and head academic officer, read this statement prior to this afternoon’s emergency meeting of the Faculty Senate. Jason Ally is a 2012 graduate of the College of Arts & Sciences and the 122nd Editor-in-Chief of The Cavalier Daily:

“Today is father’s day. This is for my sons, so that they have personal examples of courage during a crisis.

This morning, I got the following email:

Dear Provost Simon,

As someone who walked the Lawn and received a degree from the College four weeks ago, I’ve been closely following the news regarding President Sullivan’s resignation. I’ve seen how this situation has quickly escalated into one capable of inflicting great harm upon the University, perhaps even the most harm the University has seen in recent memory. I can also imagine how all of this has put you in a tough position both professionally and personally.

While I don’t know what the next couple of days will entail, I just wanted to send a quick message of appreciation. You’re an important figure on Grounds, someone who both faculty and the greater community is looking to for support in these uncertain circumstances. Don’t hesitate to do what you think is right, and don’t hesitate to be a leader, especially now when there’s quite the leadership vacuum at the University.

Finally, I hope our paths may cross sometime soon; I believe this is the first time I’ve tried to directly contact you.

Best,
Jason Ally

What struck me in this email was the phrase “Don’t hesitate to do what you think is right, and don’t hesitate to be a leader.” I have been trying to do this, with talking at the town hall meeting with the Darden community, meeting with the chairs of the College, and other faculty meetings. But you, the faculty, are the University, and as the Chief Academic Office, I would be running away from my responsibilities if I did not address you. So here it is.

In 2001, then President Casteen established a University-wide committee to explore the concept of honor at the University. The committee was chaired by Patricia Werhane, Ruffin Professor of Business Ethics. Their report entitled, “Envisioning Integrity at the University of Virginia: Invigorating a Community of Trust,” stated in the executive summary, “The revised aim of the Envisioning Integrity Team is to expose the entire University community to sets of experiences in which they confront, question, and reflect on honor, comprised of integrity and trust, as a core value underpinning all University life.”

I came to the University of Virginia because I was convinced this was the right time and the right opportunity to be part of a leadership team at one of America’s greatest universities. Economic and political challenges are placing higher education at risk at precisely the time when higher education is needed most to provide the ideas and people to guide our nation and world into the future. I saw the opportunity to work with outstanding faculty, staff and students and through partnership with the loyal alumni and other supporters of this great institution, the University of Virginia had the opportunity to be a beacon for the value of public education, especially given its legacy as Thomas Jefferson’s University. I am a firm believer that at the core of the University of Virginia is, and needs to be, a strong and broad liberal arts education. It is a liberal arts education that provides students with the tools to become the lifelong learners as they must be, and to develop the skills and self-confidence needed to take on the challenges that they will face in their lives.

I now find myself at a defining moment, confronting and questioning whether honor, integrity, and trust are truly the foundational pillars of life at the University of Virginia. I find myself at a moment when the future of the University is at risk and what our political leadership value in the University is no longer clear. Much has appeared in the press over the last week, and the reputational consequences will be with us for many years to come. But I am now wondering whether my own beliefs about the values of higher education are consistent with our Board.
The Board actions over the next few days will inform me as to whether the University of Virginia remains the type of institution I am willing to dedicate my efforts to help lead.”

Posted by eic on June 17, 2012.

Stan - Coll 71 and Darden '74 on 06/17/2012

See Logan ANderson’s links posted above. I don’t know John Simon, but I want my daugther and my son to read about him.

This is about academics, money, history, politics and many other issues. But it also about people, and Provost John Simon brought that home. From the article:

“Wearing shorts and running shoes and noting it was Father’s Day, Simon said he decided to speak out as “my gift to my sons” to set an example of courage for them.”

Steve Comm '83 on 06/17/2012

So, what have we learned so far? Too much ego, secrecy, and doubletalk - that is how you scuttle a flagship university.  “Point the cannon straight down and fire! Don’t give me any back-talk - I AM THE CAPTAIN!”

This debacle is what happens when you try to run a university like a business - profit and loss being the only consideration and measure of success. The only shareholders to be considered are the LARGE ones who feel entitled to insert themselves where and when they will.

What ever happened to working in partnership?  What about faculty, students, alumni, and staff working together to meet a common goal - maintaining a treasured insitution now and into the future. If we can do this, the funding will come.

I takes an entire crew to sail a ship…even a flagship.

Logan Anderson on 06/17/2012

From the Richmond Times-Dispstch: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/jun/17/uva-provost-endorses-no-confidence-vote-ar-1994561/

I am so proud of the faculty, recruited and installed by Presidents Hereford, O’Neil, CASTEEN and Sullivan.

Logan Anderson on 06/17/2012

This is from The Washington Post’s early coverage of the Faculty Senate meeting this evening in Charlottesville.

Provost John Simon, in addressing the faculty, has thrown the gauntlet to the Board of Visitors and Rector Helen Dragas: “I now find myself at a defining moment, confronting and questioning whether honor, integrity and trust are truly the foundational pillars of life at the University of Virginia. ... The board actions over the next few days will inform me as to whether the University of Virginia remains the type of institution I’m willing to dedicate my efforts to help lead.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/u-va-faculty-hold-raucous-meeting-over-ousted-president/2012/06/17/gJQAnLFtjV_blog.html?hpid=z2

What in the world is happening to my University???

Craig Mutter, Architecture 1988 on 06/17/2012

Everyone should read this very compelling analysis of these disgraceful events:
http://www.annemarieangelo.com/?p=40
It is especially sad that the one lasting embodiment of Mr. Jefferson’s brilliant vision will eventually succumb to those forces that he so despised.

DMB '62 on 06/17/2012

Nothing is lost save honor.

AW CLAS '07 on 06/17/2012

This is my question ... If Sullivan did seem aware of these problems AND was so well liked then why the condition that she have to leave in order to get Jones’ donation? It seems like there’s some unexplained animosity towards her from the BOV, PTJ II, and others. I’d really just like to know where it all went wrong.

Karen Green on 06/17/2012

In a letter embracing the need to keep pace with rapid technological changes, Darden’s Dean cited a British WW2 propaganda poster. A 70+ year old marketing slogan crafted before the Television age used as frank advice by the head of a Business school while he’s making a case for meeting 21st Century challenges.

Irony: you’re soaking in it!

This “Don’t worry your collective pretty little heads and let the grownups do the thinking for you” attitude is a terrible business, marketing, and organizational choice. The Digital Age is one of transparency and open dialog, neither of which are possible without a fundamental knowledge of human psychology. People don’t like hazy, unsatisfying explanations that don’t appear connected to rhyme or reason. We expect more in 2012, and we have more dialog spaces than at any other time in human existence.

UVa’s governance immediately lost control of the conversation with a patronizing message. They unequivocally demonstrated they don’t understand the challenges they’re facing or the world for which they’re supposed to prepare students.

They’re not alone. As a parent, I’ve seen this at every level of Education, public and private. This is one of many reasons we’re getting our butts kicked educationally on the international stage.

Karen Green, CLAS 92

Logan Anderson on 06/17/2012

EGO AND BIG MONEY ... that’s what this is all about.

People are looking at the University ... any “real” university ... as a business, in the 21st century, corporate sense of the word.

It is NOT. Institutions of higher education that have centuries of history at its core are NOT start-up ventures. They are NOT for-profit ventures. And most of all, the education they deliver is NOT something to be compared to UofPhoenix, DeVry or other institutions of a similar nature.

The full story simply is one of big-time money and egos of people who see themselves as “revolutionary” thinkers who can fully grasp “strategic dynamism,” whatever that means.

I think the full story—or at least, the fullest version today—has finally emerged with the following stories on various news websites.

1. The Hook, in Charlottesville, is reporting now that former President John Casteen has been leading the faculty’s fight against the Board of Visitors’ actions, “stiffening their spines” in advance of Monday’s BofV meeting:
http://www.readthehook.com/104256/spines-need-stiffening-casteen-leading-protest-charge

2. It’s now pretty much confirmed that Paul Tudor Jones, a billionaire hedge fund investor, UVa alum and name-designee contributor to the John Paul Jones Arena, is the “big alum” Peter Kiernan, late of the Darden Foundation, alluded to in his now-infamous email. Jones reported dangled a $100 million check to the University, setting as price the ouster of President Sullivan. Jones has authored an op/ed in today’s Daily Progress in which he comes out in support of her ouster, though the “facts” he cites are somewhat dubious and skewed to support his thesis.
http://www.readthehook.com/oped-paul-tudor-jones-endorsing-sullivans-ouster

3. And I include this link simply because, in my opinion, it puts to the lie the statements by Rector Helen Dragas and now Paul Tudor Jones that President Sullivan didn’t see problems at the University that needed to be addressed. This detailed memo she prepared for Dragas early last month identifies many of the same problems Dragas cited—on her own, as she would have us believe—that led her to the conclusion Sullivan had to go.
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/mgmedia/file/782/sullivan-strategy-memo/

I, at least, can now say that I think this is the story: A rich (and therefore powerful) donor and the rector think they know more about higher ed than the professionals hired to run the University. Couple that with a personality clash between the president and the rector, it’s fairly certain egos and big-time money did in President Sullivan.

And I’m disgusted by it all. I’ve said all along, I have no basis to judge President Sullivan’s effectiveness (or lack thereof), but am angry and outraged by the underhanded process by which Dragas and the Visitors engineered Sullivan’s ouster. The damage they are inflicting upon the University is incalculable.

M. A. White on 06/17/2012

I write as an alumnus of the University and as a former member of the University faculty. Dissection of the details that led to the the Board of Visitors’ request for President Sullivan’s resignation will likely continue for weeks, months, and even years to come. Whether or not further information is made public will not stifle ongoing discussion of this matter nor will it stem speculation regarding the motives and vision of Rector Dragas, Vice Rector Kington, and others on, or closely in touch with, the Board of Visitors. If their concern about the future of the University is genuine, Rector Dragas and Vice Rector Kington have no choice but to acknowledge the horrific public relations blunder they have made, regardless of their motives, and step down immediately.

Whether the future judges their actions as bold steps that saved the University or as unethical manipulations that brought the University to its knees, no one can disagree that the University of Virginia is facing a crisis. We risk the loss of current and future faculty, students, and alumni donations and many of us are mortified to see the University of Virginia’s integrity questioned as internecine details are expounded upon daily in the pages of the national newspapers. All of this can be squarely laid at the door of Rector Dragas and Vice Rector Kington. Whether the setting is corporate or academic, this is a publicity nightmare for the University and this level of damage to the reputation of the institution demands accountability. The unwillingness of Rector Dragas to publicly acknowledge and apologize for the firestorm of embarrassment that her approach to this process has brought upon the University suggests that she has no intention of going anywhere until she has seen this debacle through on her terms. More importantly it suggests that removing President Sullivan was only chapter one. At this point any candidate supported by Dragas and Kington for the interim or for the future will be considered suspect at best by many in the University community.

The honor and integrity of the University demand the immediate departure of the Rector and Vice Rector. Governor McDonnell, it is time to “meddle”, as you put it, if that means saving the Commonwealth’s flagship academic institution from a crisis of leadership, ironically created by its own leaders. Please find someone with vision, leadership, love of the University, and most importantly, someone who merits the trust of the entire University community including faculty, students, alumni, and all Virginians, to take the helm and see this thing through.

Th. Jefferson on 06/17/2012

If there is any credibility to the story that Mr. Jones was part of a conspiratorial group to replace the president, we should consider no longer referring to the JPJ arena as an honor to him and his family, but rather the Teresa Sullivan arena: http://www.readthehook.com/104256/spines-need-stiffening-casteen-leading-protest-charge

Sharon Bargle on 06/17/2012

Dear Rector Dragas,

As a staff member in a provost’s office at one of your peer institutions, please accept my humble thanks for screwing up the University of Virginia beyond recognition.

Your actions this month will make it substantially easier for us to cherry-pick the best of your younger and mid-career faculty, and we will have a little less competition this year for those who might otherwise entertain the University of Virginia as a place of employment.

American Association of University Professors on 06/17/2012

The Ninety-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Association of University Professors expresses its deep concern over the action of the University of Virginia’s Board of Visitors in seeking and obtaining the resignation of Dr. Teresa Sullivan from the presidency of the university, reportedly without previous or subsequent explanation to her, to the other chief administrative officers, and to the university’s faculty and student body, of the specific grounds for its displeasure with her performance. By all accounts, President Sullivan’s performance during her two years in office was strongly supported by the university’s academic community. Responding to the governing board’s action, the Faculty Senate Executive Council issued a statement declaring that it was shocked and dismayed by this news. We were blindsided by this decision, Thirty-three department chairs and program directors of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences have endorsed the senate’s statement of protest, as have numerous other groups and individual members of the UVA faculty.

The AAUP’s position, calling for a significant faculty role in contributing to judgments and decisions regarding the evaluation and retention of a president, is set forth in its statement on Faculty Participation in the Selection, Evaluation, and Retention of Administrators. That document provides that

All decisions on retention and nonretention of administrators should be based on institutionalized and jointly determined procedures which include significant faculty involvement. With respect to the chief administrative officer, the Statement on Government [of Colleges and Universities specifies that the leadership role of the president is supported by delegated authority from the board and faculty. No decision on retention or nonretention should be made without an assessment of the level of confidence in which he or she is held by the faculty. . . . In no case should a judgment on retention or nonretention be made without consultation with all major constituencies, with the faculty involved to a degree at least co-extensive with its role in the original selection process.

The president and other academic administrators should in any event be protected from arbitrary removal by procedures through which both their rights and the interests of various constituencies are adequately safeguarded.

We join in the Senate Executive Council’s dismay that due process for President Sullivan and the legitimate interests of the UVA faculty have been ignored in the precipitate action taken by the Board of Visitors. We join in calling upon the board to reconsider its decision.

PH Sweet, MD CLAS 2001 on 06/17/2012

As can be seen in the following missive from Mr. Jefferson himself, it is posterity who will judge the value of an unpopular decision. Thankfully, our Founder was not deterred by the many popular elements that aligned against him in founding our University. I am of the belief that the BoV is acting on our behalf in the most courageous way—by making an unpopular, necessary decision. We ourselves may not know what is best for our own University, similar to the elements in our legislator in 1825 that believed the University would not be good for the Commonwealth.

Letter about his legacy from Jefferson to Joseph Cabell in 1825:

You say my “handwriting and my letters have great effect at Richmond.” I am sensible of the kindness with which this encouragement is held up to me. But my views of their effect are very different. When I retired from the administration of public affairs, I thought I saw some evidence that I retired with a good degree of public favor, and that my conduct in office had been considered by one party at least with approbation and with acquiescence by the other. But the attempt [University of Virginia], in which I have embarked so earnestly to procure an improvement in the moral condition of my native State, although, perhaps, in other States in may have strengthened good dispositions, it has assuredly weakened them within our own. The attempt ran foul of so many local interests, of so many personal views, and so much ignorance, and I have been considered as so particularly its promoter, that I see evidently a great change of sentiment towards myself. I cannot doubt its having dissatisfied with myself a respectable minority, if not a majority of the House of Delegates. I feel it deeply and very discouragingly. Yet I shall not give way. I have ever found in my progress through life that, acting for the public, if we do always what is right, the approbation denied in the beginning will surely follow us in the end. It is from posterity we are to expect remuneration for the sacrifices we are making for their service, of time, quiet and good will. And I fear not the appeal. The multitude of fine young men whom we shall redeem from ignorance, who will feel that they own to us the elevation of mind, of character and station they will be able to attain from the result of our efforts, will insure their remembering us with gratitude.

Darden Grad on 06/16/2012

It is interesting to see what the President of The University of Michigan had to say about Terry Sullivan when she left for the University….

“Terry Sullivan is both a distinguished academic and a stellar administrator, known for her sparkling intellect as well as her superb people skills. She has won the utmost respect of the faculty and the administration for her inclusive management style and her strong leadership. Working with her has been one of the highlights of my career, and although we will all miss her, we take pride in knowing that she will preside over one of the nation’s great public universities.”

Fred on 06/16/2012

Does the board realize how rare it is for a faculty to support a university president to the degree we’ve seen in this episode? In my experience (I am a college professor and a UVA graduate), faculty and administrations cannot stand one another, so the fact that President Sullivan has won the respect and support of the faculty (not to mention the staff, students, and alumni) is simply remarkable.

One of the greatest problems in making important reforms to institutes of higher education is the lack of cooperation and trust between faculty and administrations. President Sullivan has clearly positioned herself well to work with the faculty to effect positive change, and the board is tearing that very positive—and very rare—cooperative relationship apart.

Finally, how can the board really expect whomever they choose as interim president (and long-term president, for that matter) to acquire the respect of the college community? After having the faculty officially express a vote of no-confidence in the board, how can the board expect the faculty to respect any appointment they make. If the board had acted in a more open manner, perhaps this turn-over would have worked, but whomever is selected as interim president will have to do a tremendous amount of work just to get back to the current status quo.

I really don’t have enough information to know whether President Sullivan needed to be replaced, but I think the board has set college affairs back quite a long way with their handling of this situation.

James Anders on 06/16/2012

Shame, shame, shame on the Board of Visitors! My comments will be succinct and not nearly as articulate as my fellow alumni. Even if Ms. Sullivan was lacking in vision for the future of the University, as Rector Dragas claims—which I seriously doubt—the Board of Visitors has exhibited arrogance and extremely poor judgement, not to mention incredible ineptitude, in dealing with this matter. This Board of Visitors has failed to uphold the values and traditions of the University and should be replaced as soon as possible. Finally, I remain hopeful that President Sullivan’s resignation will be rescinded.

CLAS '89 on 06/16/2012

Well said Logan Anderson!

Celeste Flippen, Law 1989 on 06/16/2012

I’m extremely disappointed that the Board of Visitors has treated its issues with President Sullivan very much like one might find on a private corporate Board and not much like one should expect from a public University’s Board.  Rector Dragas, we’re happy to accept your resignation immediately.

Ellen bonaventura on 06/16/2012

Well said, Logan Anderson!!

Resolute and Authoritative on 06/16/2012

Let’s assume, for a moment, that the Board of Visitors—or at least some of its members—may have had serious questions about President Sullivan’s leadership.  We have no idea what the full story is now and perhaps we’ll never know.  However, the opaque process followed by the Board of Visitors stinks.  The Board’s own Manual requires a vote of 11 members out of 16 to remove the President.  Instead, three members of the Executive Committee in an “emergency” meeting did the dirty deed with the three other members of the Executive Committee not participating—even by phone. Then came the skillful PR by the Administration, trumpeting that the BOV decsion was “resolute and authoritative”—  a sure-fire way to inflame the University community at a sensitive time.

We should all listen to Thomas Jefferson.  He said 1820:  “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”  Apparently, the Board of Visitors is more determined to be “resolute and authoritative” than tolerating an open and informed dialogue which will follow the truth wherever it may lead.

Kendra on 06/16/2012

Certainly, leadership changes are sometimes necessary for a University to advance, but this symbolic, delicate transition process must be undertaken in a manner reflective of the spirit of the instution.  The secretive, unilateral coup taken by the BOV is far removed from the Jeffersonian ideals of openness, honesty and most importantly, honor.  For a University that prides itself on “honor,” it is ironic that the BOV would reveal through their recent actions that they believe themselves exempt from this supposed cornerstone of the University of Virginia.

Stan Maupin - Coll 71 and Darden 74 on 06/16/2012

Many comments suggest that the the Rector and other members of the BOV have business experience that allows them to have a better handle on the issues that threaten the University.

Some facts that help bring light to that argument include:

Recent Experience:
Rector Dragas is CEO of a business that has less than 70 employees. Mark Kington runs an investment company and serves on boards. Peter Kiernan is a venture capitalist.
Dr. Sullivan was in charge of a $1.5 billion budget as the number 2 person at Michigan. For the last two years, she has been in charge of 18,000 employees at UVA - with little if any complaints or issues.

Relevant Career Experience
The Rector inherited her business from her Dad. Mark Kington was a venture capitalist. Peter Kiernan worked for Goldman Sachs.
Dr. Sullivan has spent her career in education including 27 years at the University of Texas.

Contributions to Political Figures in Virgina Since 1996
Helen Dragas $19,500
Mark Kington $456,000
Dr. Teresa Sullivan $0

Logan Anderson on 06/16/2012

Dear Rector Dragas, Vice Rector Kington and Visitors:

First, I want to make clear to each of you I am writing as an alumnus of the University (College 1983 and GSAS 1985), not as a journalist and editor at a daily newspaper in Virginia.

Second, I have copied this letter to Taylor Thornley, deputy director of communications for Gov. McDonnell, with the request that she add it to the stack of letters relating to this matter I’m almost certain the governor has received.

Third, I am writing neither in support of President Sullivan nor against of the Board of Visitors as an institution.

I am, however, writing as an extremely concerned alumnus who, out here in the hinterland away from the insulated Grounds in Charlottesville, is worried about what is happening to the University and the perception being created in the general public and among the University community by the Board’s actions in the Sullivan matter.

By saying nothing, absolutely nothing, to the University community—students, faculty, staff and alumni—the Board, through you, Rector Dragas, is doing a great disservice to the school. By not answering questions, by not providing a full accounting of what precipitated Sullivan’s firing and by stonewalling the state’s news media you are harming the very institution each of you claims to want to protect.

Your handling of this matter from the very start has been amateurish, wanna-be Machiavellian and high-handed. And each day that this matter drags on is another day of damage done to the University.

The way in which the president was fired, in my opinion, is unethical and contemptible. It resembles the way in which a petty, little town council or backwoods board of supervisors would get rid of an unwanted town manager or county administrator. Not the way the University of Virginia should affect a change in executive leadership.

Anita Kumar, a reporter with The Washington Post and an alumna of the University, reported earlier this week that three members of the Board—three members seen by you and the vice rector—as in the Sullivan “camp” were not even informed of the effort to push her out until last week. It has also been reported that you and the vice rector met individually with fellow Visitors, starting with those seen as most likely to support her removal to build a warchest of votes for her firing.

In doing so, you have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The manner in which the “emergency” meeting was declared on June 10, I believe, is also a violation of the spirit of the FOIA. From what you have said publicly, there was nothing, absolutely nothing, to qualify as an “emergency” to justify the normal public notice of a Board meeting.

Your silence in the days following the president’s ouster served only to feed conspiracy theories in the greater community. Abortion politics. A cabal involving the Darden school. Speculation of nefarious dealings involving Goldman Sachs, the left’s tar-baby-of-the-day. Each hour seemed to involve some new conspiracist rant popping up online.

Then, to have the provost and chief operating office email the University staff with what, to many, came off as a threatening letter, telling them the Board was “resolute” and “authoritative” in its decision to fire the president? That served no purpose but to throw a gallon of gasoline on a smoldering fire and cause it erupt into a conflagration that threatens to engulf the University. A vote of no confidence in the Board, the rector and vice rector is unprecedented in the University’s history, yet that is exactly what you caused.

And all because of the manner in which you, as rector, acted in this matter.

Personally, I see no way in the world for you or the vice rector to continue as members of the Board. You especially, Ms. Dragas, have become a lightening rod for rightly deserved criticism and anger, and your continued presence on the Board will only be a distraction in the months ahead.

Therefore, I would urge you to inform Gov. McDonnell you do not wish to be reappointed to the Board this month. Ideally, I believe you simply should step down now and spare the governor and yourself the indignity of not being reappointed.

Should you not chose the honorable way out, I would urge Gov. McDonnell to take a page from the playbook of former Gov. Gerald Baliles. In the mid-1980s, Virginia Tech was faced with a crisis in its athletic department when administrators allowed an independent booster group to run roughshod over school rules and NCAA regulations. That school’s Board of Visitors did nothing to step in and correct the situation. Finally, Gov. Baliles demanded the resignation letters of all the Board members and cleaned house.

I believe Gov. McDonnell should follow this path and request letters of resignation from all Visitors and then chose whose to accept and whose to reject.

Yours and the vice rector’s should be the first two he should accept.

Stan Maupin on 06/16/2012

http://leadership.wharton.upenn.edu/digest/01-08.shtml

For a more clear understanding of what the BOV was apparently seeking, but did not find in Terry Sullivan,  please review the above article from a Wharton School publication referencing “strategic dynamism” - the trait that Peter Kiernan of the Darden School referenced in the email that led to his resignation. A relevant quote from the article:

“Narcissism in CEOs is positively related to strategic dynamism and grandiosity, as well as the number and size of acquisitions, and it engenders extreme and fluctuating organizational performance. The results suggest that narcissistic CEOs favor bold actions that attract attention, resulting in big wins or big losses, but that, in these industries, their firms’ performance is generally no better or worse than firms with non-narcissistic CEOs. “

Stephen Smith on 06/16/2012

“Existential threats” to the University encompass a plutocratic drive to destroy public education in the United States, through starvation of funding, stifling of free intellectual discourse and divisive extremism. The “philosophical difference of opinion” between the Board of Visitors and President Sullivan better not involve the University being bought and paid for by those who care nothing about the common good.

UVa is the finest public University in the world. Alumni deserve an explanation, in detail.

Stephen Earl Smith, AIA, BS Arch 1978

Marianne on 06/16/2012

The thing is…the BOV may be right that there is a very serious problem with funding and direction and drastic measures need to be taken to keep the University not only afloat, but as a continued flagship academic center in the country. We don’t know what the issues are that face them…and that’s the problem. Because they are being so secretive and opaque and “FU” about this it’s now impossible to trust that they have the University’s best interest in mind. They’ve alienated the faculty, students and alumni…not necessarily by what they’ve done but by how they have done it. It looks like the only way to move past this now is a massive house cleaning…which is maybe what UVa needed in the first place

Emilie on 06/16/2012

AS an institution that stressed being “honorable,” the BOV’s actions just make us look like hypocrites - plain and simple.

Beth '80 on 06/16/2012

Hard to spin this in a positive direction.  I am very sorry for the faculty and the current students whose experience will be clouded by this disgraceful situation.

Ann Sutphin Hafer on 06/16/2012

I hold an MA in physics 1973 from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.  I have no opinion regarding President Sullivan’s effectiveness as President of UVA.  I do have an opinion regarding the Board of Visitors’ actions in firing her.  Failure to meet the Board’s expectations during a tenure of less than two years requires closer collaboration, not firing.  Firing after less than two year’s tenure requires evidence of malfeasance.  Such evidence MUST be presented to the UVA community.  My donations will be withheld until such evidence is presented.

jane hardwicke seas '86 on 06/16/2012

I was only 1 of 30 females in a freshman class of 300 in 1979 who entered the tool school, i honestly wonder what kind of crap women seem to bring to positions of power. do women really bring something different to the table or do women just like to rock the boat, for the sake of it?

Peter Bregman on 06/15/2012

After reading a number of articles (in particular the enlightening interview in the CD with the Student Board member Hurd) I think I’m beginning to see the real picture here.

The BOV wanted to ‘compete’ with other institutions in the realm of online education. And, in fact, saw it as a possible way to give certain university finances a bit of an invigorating jumpstart. A rapid approach cooked up apparently by the Rector and The Darden School Foundation head (who unceremoniously resigned as a result of this mess) was to invite mercenary instructors from the likes of Goldman Sachs (among others I suppose) to come in and run the show rather than utilize UVA’s own considerable academic talent and resources. When President Sullivan ‘boldly’ protested any online program that would utilize non-UVA academics as not worthy of being true UVA education (similar to the wildly popular video lectures from MIT’s OCW and soon Harvard/MIT’s edX initiative among others that Stanford and Yale are now offering that feature their best and brightest available streaming their uberly engaging lectures to a laptop near you at the click of a mouse button), the Rector quickly formed a minority posse and in a move that would have impressed the Borgias, sacked the president.

If this is the how the university I was once so proud of and admired has sadly devolved, I guess I’ll send the check I planned to write for $100,000,000,000.00 (intoned as Mike Meyers’ brilliant Dr. Evil would say it)…elsewhere.

And until the BOV is sacked for the THEIR misguided handling of this, I suggest other alums do the same.

Hob Bryan on 06/15/2012

Murray Holland states: I have had to “accept resignations” from many executives in our portfolio companies . . .

That’s one of the problems in a nutshell.  The University of Virginia is not a company in someone’s portfolio, and the president of the university is far more than one of many executives.

I am terrified that the board views the university as a corporation rather than as an academic institution.

Patrick on 06/15/2012

No need to puzzle out the source of the deans’ messages. When the archives at the Kremlin were opened, letters from the Politburo during changes of General Secretary of the Central Committee became available.

Supriya Desai on 06/15/2012

I’ll just point out that any leader who has to publicly and explicitly remind followers that his or her decision is “authoritative,” probably doesn’t have sufficient credibility to make an authoritative decision. As a professional change and transformation leader, I am forever baffled how so many organizations and institutions remain in existence despite profoundly poor executive insight into how NOT to shoot themselves in the foot. Recovery of trust—a prerequisite to any accelerated and major change—will take far longer to achieve than it took to come to a decision that seems to have destroyed the trust of so many dedicated people. And without trust, what does a group of appointed ‘visitors’ have?

James Daugherty '73 on 06/15/2012

What a tragic turn of events: (a) A Rector and Vice Rector whose reckless mishandling of a crisis to which they contributed leaves me with no confidence in either their judgment or their skills; (b) the lockstep mentality evident in communications from most deans; and (c) what amounts to a politically-correct, “whatever” statement from the Student Council. Thank heaven for the Faculty Senate, alumni/ae, and the departmental leadership of Arts and Sciences for noting the absence of transparency and reasoned justification in Sunday morning’s events. These lacunae already have inflicted severe damage on the University’s reputation. If left unchallenged, I fear they signal the demise of UVa as a first tier institution of higher learning.

DSmith on 06/15/2012

I never fully supported the hiring of Pres. Sullivan because I did not sense that she could move the University forward.  That sense was backed-up in my limited dealings with her office following her appointment.  So I was fully supportive of the Board’s action.  That said, I believe the Board has not handled this matter well.

Murray Holland on 06/15/2012

Since no one but the Board of Visitors and Theresa Sullivan know the circumstances of the dispute, I am a little bewildered by the angry cries of those who are mad about the resignation. I have had to “accept resignations” from many executives in our portfolio companies and have always agreed no to disclose the circumstances of the resignation. This is done to protect their ability to get another job. I have no idea of the circumstances here, but my guess is that no one would want to hear the real reason behind the resignation.
One thing I can assure you of is that the reason had to be significant because no Board of Visitors or Directors wants to replace a President. The search and expense of replacement is a major undertaking. This is never done unless the underlying issue is so great that continued service by the President is extremely harmful.

This is the reason that we all do not know the circumstances. I doubt that you would really want to know.

MBA 1978

ELLEN FARRAYE BONAVENTURA on 06/15/2012

As an alumna who has remained closely involved with the University (recently attending my 30th reunion in May), and who has listened to and interacted with Theresa Sullivan a number of times during her brief tenure, I, too, was shocked by the news of her forced resignation.  I think the Board of Visitors owes it to the entire UVa community—alumni, faculty, and students—and to President Sullivan herself, to publicly address the basis for its decision.  I certainly cannot understand this ouster of a well-respected and much-adored President, whom I certainly felt to be extremely competent, knowledgable, attentive and well-meaning in every respect.  She continues to have my respect and support unless and until the Visitors identify some sort of malfeasance or legitimate basis for their actions.  Failing that, then I hope the Board is dealt with accordingly, now and in the future, and that President Sullivan is able to rescind her resignation so that she can continue to serve the University.

Ellen Farraye Bonaventura
College ‘82, Law ‘86

PH Sweet on 06/15/2012

I support the BoV. They are privy to matters and details beyond my cognizance and are appointed as such. I was never truly impressed with Pres. Sullivan. U.Va. may require someone greater than an effective manager of other public institutions. Michigan etc., are great places from which to have been a leader, but U.Va. is a unique institution with unique history, values and goals. I never completely understood how she contributed to these. We need a dynamic leader that can make difficult decisions and lead the way in the face of the changing environment - not just an affable leader that gets along well with the community she really has no direct ties to. Carry on Rector Dragas!

College `92 on 06/15/2012

I was puzzled by the Sunday announcement. If this is a mere “philosophical difference” concerning “incremental change” and “bold” mission statements, couldn’t it have waited until Monday? Where’s the emergency?  Follow the money…find out what lobbyists have met with the BOV members who orchestrated Ms. Sullivan’s departure. Or show us the bodies buried in her front yard. Something. The failure of the BOV to issue anything close to a meaningful statement suggests less than pure motives.

John Torrence on 06/15/2012

I wonder if someone with experience in these matters could explain how much of the lack of open communication after the fact is a result of labor legal constraints or rather a view of what decisive leadership is about?
And has there been much public discussion within the University community about the issue of moving more quickly to implement a strategic plan?

John Torrence
College “77

Ben Terry on 06/15/2012

I am a little puzzled how anyone could support the Board’s decision, when there is no public information to explain the Board’s justification.  If you say you support the Board’s decision, I would welcome some analysis to explain that.

Warner Watkins on 06/15/2012

I’m sure in this culture of instant access to information and equally instant analysis of same, many want the instant gratification of a quick explanation of what has been already defined as a decision process whose conclusion was reached after deliberate care and consideration. I only hope that politics played no part in the decision, noting that the two most instrumental in the process could be off the BOV shortly if the Governor so desires.  I have great confidence that the University will once again prove its resilience and will quickly continue on in its quest for excellence.

Warner Watkins
College ‘73

Mark Rubinski on 06/15/2012

I fully support the Board’s decision in this matter.  I do not understand why the University community is rushing to condemn them.

Ben Terry on 06/15/2012

So a wall street banker and a real estate developer have taken over the University and are going to save it from mismanagement.  Just like they saved the economy from mismanagement leading up to 2008.

The disregard for state law on the way the “emergency” meeting was handled and the complete lack of due process makes it plain that this was a “palace coup.”  I pray that every member of the Board shows up on Monday, and that the entire matter is revisited.  Ms. Dragas needs to be closely cross-examined by other Board members about what has happened here.

UVA, my alma mater, does not measure up to Penn, or Duke, or Hopkins, or even Berkeley.  It could.  This really, really does not help.  To say that sacking a respected President after 14 months is somehow going to end up enhancing UVA’s reputation is hard to accept.  It just seems reckless and selfish. 

Patricia Turney Garris Arch 1970 on 06/15/2012

The University of Virginia rightly holds its Honor System to be of the highest caliber, yet the Board of Visitors has acted underhandedly and has refused to share the reasons behind its decision.  In short, the Board of Visitors has acted dishonorably and should be expelled.  It has made a sham of a fine institution: Jefferson would be aghast.

Barbara Kessler on 06/15/2012

As Chair of the General Faculty COuncil, I want to add to the timeline of events three emails sent to the General Faculty (full and part-time non-tenure track faculty and research scientists).  This group consists of 1700+ employees.

Sent 6/12 at 3:15 pm. (forwarded to BOV on 6/13 at 8:58 pm)
Dear General Faculty Colleagues,

The General Faculty Council strongly endorses the statement from the Faculty Senate Executive Council regarding the Board of Visitors decision concerning President Sullivan (see below). The General Faculty Council intends to collaborate with the Faculty Senate in ensuring that the voices of our constituents are heard.  We will keep you informed as we learn more.

Thank you for your commitment to the University,

June 14 at 2:02 p.m.
Dear General Faculty Colleagues,

Thank you for your support of the GFC’s communication with you earlier this week.  The GFC wants to make you aware of some recent developments.

First, in response to letters received, the Rector and BOV sent a letter to the faculty and it is in today’s UVA Daily http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=18818.  I forwarded our statement to the BOV late yesterday which is why (I assume) the GFC is not directly mentioned.

Second, In addition, the Board of Visitors will meet in closed session on Monday, June 18, 2012, at 3:00 p.m., in the Board Room of the Rotunda, to discuss specific candidates for interim president. Upon completion of the Executive Session, the meeting will continue in Open Session and adjourn by 5:00 p.m.  As you plan your schedule next week, please consider being present in person at the Rotunda at 3 pm on Monday.

Third, the General Faculty Council plans to meet next week to discuss the BOV’s actions and possible actions.  In preparation for this meeting, I encourage you to submit comments and concerns to me, Barbara Kessler at bkessler@virginia.edu. 

Lastly, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee notes that no date has been set for the faculty to meet with the Rector or the BOVs.

June 15 at 12:59 p.m.
Dear General Faculty Colleagues,

The General Faculty Council wishes to inform you of several important upcoming events focused on the BOV’s decision.  Updates from these events will be provided.

1. GFC Meeting Notice: The GFC will hold a special council meeting on Friday, June 22nd at 3:00 p.m. at Zehmer Hall Conference Center.  As practice with our monthly meetings held during the academic year, you are welcome to attend.  The agenda is as follows:
• Welcome and Purpose of the GFC and Meeting
• Recap BOV Decisions
• Discuss Faculty Senate actions/recommendations
• Discuss actions to take as General Faculty
• Thank You and Adjourn
2. The Faculty Senate is holding an open meeting for all interested faculty on Sunday, June 17th at 5:00 p.m. (see notice below).
3. The Board of Visitors is holding a special meeting on Monday, June 18th from 3-5 p.m. at the Rotunda.

Thank you to those who have submitted comments and concerns for the GFC to discuss at our meeting next Friday.  Due to the Faculty Senate open meeting on Sunday, I invite you to submit comments for the GFC to share with the Faculty Senate. You can send your comments to Sarah Stewart, Secretary of GFC, at ss4xd@virginia.edu.  For those of you have submitted comments to me, I have passed them on to Sarah, but we will not include them in a presentation to the Faculty Senate unless you confirm your wish to be included in this more public statement.  If you want your comments included and/or wish to amend your comments for inclusion, please email Sarah as well. 

Your continued support of a collective faculty voice is truly inspiring,

Amy A on 06/15/2012

One thing I found very curious is the reason given - that President Sullivan’s pace of change was considered too slow and incremental by the BOV.  I perceive Pres. Sullivan’s rate of change as being exceptionally respectful of the University and its rich traditions and history. As an alumna who graduated during the O’Neil administration, I was at first skeptical of the University hiring another president from the outside.  In a short time, Pres. Sullivan totally won me over with her very engaged and respectful approach, that took the University’s many constituencies into account.

In my opinion, she has displayed great wisdom and respect by not attempting to change too much too soon.  I do not understand why that is somehow a firing offense.  Had she taken the opposite approach and made major changes quickly, it seems to me that would have caused a far greater uproar - including among the BOV.

Looking to the future, none of this bodes well for recruitment of the next president - who will either feel required to make wholesale changes in very short order, or will be a puppet of the BOV.  Neither alternative feels very good.

Rowe Fesperman GSBA/Darden '62 on 06/15/2012

Ordinary citizens and educators, alike, should have long ago learned of the pitfalls of a “rush to judgment”.

I think it is unfortunate that several of the comments focus on Darden, when that part of the University has been a beacon of leadership, fiscal responsibility, and striving for unequivocal national and international excellence.

Unfortunately, some of the comments may be borne of excessive political correctness. I hope this will ultimately be trumped by patience and maturity.

Robert on 06/15/2012

I trust everyone who so desires will have an opportunity to be fully informed as to the circumstances leading up to the resignation of the President.  In times like this, we clearly get to see how are leaders really are, and based on the remarks by the Student Council, there is some serious problems with obtaining the truth that should not be occurring towards the UVA community.  Open and honest communication is important and I echo the sentiments of the Student Council’s remarks.  People are tired of the run around such as what occurs up on the “Hill”; we need facts.  I trust they will be forthcoming as quickly as is responsible under the circumstances.

Nancy Coffey Heffernan on 06/15/2012

The deans parrot the party line very well, Thank heavens the faculty Senate has more gumption.

Class of 2009 on 06/15/2012

I think it’s really sad that people are letting Peter Kiernan take the fall for this. His family has been a huge supporter of UVa and they have all made outstanding imprints on the school. I don’t understand why people coming to him for advice on a confidential matter is grounds to wring him out to dry. It’s not like his word carries any weight, he’s not even on the BOV. It seems like he wrote an email to inform his board of what was going on, as did all of the other people listed above. It’s a shame for someone so dedicated to the prosperity of UVa. A lot can be said of the way people or institutions handle difficult situations. I hope UVa can at least make me proud in how it moves forward because at the moment I just feel sad

Nick on 06/15/2012

A public institution, governed by a board appointed by a publicly elected official should welcome and relish each opportunity to publicly explain the logic of its actions.  Decision making processes should be available to the public for review so that they can form an opinion individually. This both publicly affirms the wisdom of the board and strengthen the public’s trust in the actions of the board.

This may be an idealistic viewpoint, but where do ideals flourish better?

Liz Hoffmann on 06/15/2012

The lack of transparency about what happened is what is most concerning.  We can all carry on, focus on the future strength of the University, and trust that the right decisions were made.  However, I feel that is a difficult charge when you are not exactly sure what damage does or does not lie behind you.  Institutions that keep conflicts under wraps often end up with far more problems as a result, as a well-known university in the NE would attest to.

Mary Anne Preston on 06/15/2012

So much rhetoric -so little truth!

William Battison on 06/15/2012

To be fair, as a rather distant alumni of both the University ’71 and the B-school ’76 and also a resident of California (how much farther away can you get?)  I know very little about the events that have occurred that caused the Board of Visitors to request or demand the resignation of President Teresa Sullivan.  I doubt seriously that anyone on this blog has a lot more information than I do.  In situations such as these the loudest voices always seem to come from the least well informed.

I do know that the world will judge our University by how we respond and react to this event. If we have a knee jerk reaction and condemn something for superficial reasons which we don’t fully respect or understand it will not reflect well on the University or its 193 years of academic excellence. 

I therefore urge my fellow alumni as well as concerned faculty and members of the University ‘family’  to be patient and allow the facts and issues to become more fully known.  The Board of Visitors, from my recollection, is not a group who is likely to make ‘shoot from the hip’ decisions about something as important as the President of the University and I suspect that mere politics can not explain this move.

If we respond with emotional threats, resolutions or demonstrations it can only serve to make an already awkward situation into a truly damaging one, something none of us desire, I hope.

We have a Board of Visitors and a governance process for a reason.  If they have chosen to make this significant and dramatic move I highly doubt that they lacked sufficient reason to have done so. 

For Ms. Sullivan’s sake, as well as that of the University I suggest caution, patience and a willingness to listen as details and facts become more well known.

Wm Battison
Pasadena, California
College ’71
Darden ’76

Rachel DeBacker on 06/15/2012

Where is the email from the dean of the School of Architecture, Kim Tanzer?

Earl Chappell on 06/15/2012

The BoV confirms and the BoV takes away. The unusually large number of those in positions of great responsibility who had no idea that such was about to happen has heightened the shock value of the resignation of the president. Until and unless the BoV can articulate a compelling reason for the departure of President Sullivan, the vaccuum created by such a lack of information will only be filled by conjecture and ill-formed conclusions. The University only stands to suffer as a consequence. I pray and trust that the eventual identification of the new president will not reveal either a political or other motive behind this event.

Dhruv on 06/15/2012

Teresa Sullivan is a really wonderful person and I am shocked as well about these events.  She came from UVAs sister school (U Mich) with a great background and track record and did pioneering research on bankrtupcy and indebtedness affecting the middle class in america and i really think she was a breathe of fresh air and voice for positive change for the university and especially she was the first woman president.  I am sad and feel about all this and i would imagine it must be hard on her as well.  I wish there is some way for her to go on in the role.

Shes just an amazing scholar and leader and person and I just dont know what to say about all this.  I wish this didnt happen and i hope she is ok.  I wish her the best and its a huge loss for the University.

thanks

Dhruv

Gerald Cooper, A&S '58, M.Ed '69 on 06/15/2012

http://www.annemarieangelo.com/?p=40
A remarkable, provokative piece of instant research.Amazingly researched and hugely provocative by Anne Marie! It’s beginning to dawn on some of us that “the University as we knew it” will never be the same again. As I’ve written elsewhere, is it really worthwhile to be among the “elites” of the next century? Frankly, being elite has never been a worthy accolade in my mind. How about “the honors of honor,” or other phrases in the UVa lexicon that most of us tried to emulate to some human degree, over the years? These days, elite has a large price tag and it requires knowledge of technology and “new clothes.” I’m wary of it.

Richard Brugh on 06/15/2012

While I am sure there are details we do not know which the BOV believes justify this decision, I find a number of reports very troublesome;
- The timing of the decision, how poorly it was originally communicated,and the lack of transparency around what the decisive issues were;
- The reports that Presdient Sullivan was not aware that this move was even a possibility
- The reports that three members of the BOV were not aware this was happening untill too late
- The reports that Rector Dragas did not share President Sullivan’s strategic analysis document with all members of the board
- The apparent heavy influence of the Darden school with its orientation toward corporate management and a mission of profit, rather than education
- The possibility that politics is also playing a role
- The obvious pressure on school deans to be good soldiers for the BOV, and the potential rift with the rest of the University community, especially the faculty. UVA is not UVA without its exceptional faculty. They deserve far more transparency than what has been offered.

I am an alumnus, Commerce, Class of 1976. I have been close to UVA for over 40 years due to family connections. This may be the most embarrasing moment for the University that I can recall.

Susan M. Schultz on 06/15/2012

Amen to Matthew and others who have written in opposition to the firing of President Sullivan.  That the memos by admin all sound alike speaks volumes about how universities now work. Public institutions (I teach at one) are now run by and for admin, which makes sure to keep up good athletic programs. One can only wonder what Goldman Sachs’s mascot will look like.

Matthew on 06/15/2012

The behavior of the BOV demonstrates a lack of respect for President Sullivan, the UVA faculty, alumni, and the student body.

It is time for a change in the BOV appointment process and the composition of the board as a whole.  Those well versed in education and management of institutions of higher learning rather than big campaign contributors should guide Jefferson’s University.

So Sad on 06/15/2012

This is all very sad.

Michael on 06/15/2012

See this link:  http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/11/The-Academic-Scandal-Elizabeth-Warren-and-Harvard-Dont-Want-You-to-Know-About

Frank Gutch Jr. on 06/15/2012

Welcome to the University of Oregon, where money now runs the entire supposed “state” educational system.  We knew something was up when Phil Knight and Nike “bought” the track team, forced the track coach out and hired a shill.  From that point on, whenever money was needed, the existing leaders looked to Knight and did his bidding.  No transparency necessary.  Both Knight and the company were happy to go public with their moves.  The result?  A winning football program, tons of money set aside for seed money while tuitions rise, and hiring and firing of presidents based upon fundraising.  I shake my head at the way big money has taken over education.  Thank God that what one learns has more to do with the individual student than the institution itself.

@Sean on 06/14/2012

@Sean: Bruner’s predated Aylor’s, and Aylor credits Bruner in his statement. Jane-Ashley’s observation about talking points seems plausible.

Penny on 06/14/2012

Did it occur to anyone that Helen Dragas’ term is up July 1, 2012? She is eligible for 1 more appointment apparently. Perhaps the Governor should not renew her “rectorship” unless we get a full airing of the truth. That’s what term limits are for. But remember, the Governor can reappoint her. Will he?

Kristin on 06/14/2012

I am glad this site is here to see some of the official remarks from across grounds.  As a female employee I am shocked and saddened by the decision.  I have heard nothing but positive feedback on Mrs. Sullivan and have been very encouraged to date on the communication coming from her office on the direction and priorities of the University.

This change will have a lasting impact on the University.  Unfortunately, firing the first female president who has had no negative reviews in the last two years in any public space will be a confounding challenge to try and overcome - from retaining employees, recruiting employees, and developing a collaborative, trusting team to lead the University. 

Will there be the lingering impression of waiting to get stabbed in the back?  Do you see that in the messages above from our Deans?

Here is the text from a message sent to the VP/CIO community from James Hilton:

“From:

Gerald Cooper on 06/14/2012

—the point is that we ordinary citizens and alumni will never know sufficiently what has happened, so long as the BOV withholds the truth. They are skilled in one thing: covering their backsides—it goes with most of their professions.

We should take this opportunity to demand a restructuring of UVa’s governance; look at who the board of visitors (BOV) are here: http://www.virginia.edu/bov/ and think, “Are these people I’d pick to guide the University?”

Meanwhile, we have been asked to “keep the faith” as supporters—in my case for over 50 years—and give as much $money$ as we can, and spread the word on the beauties and benefits of one of America’s top five public universities. Most of us have done our share in all of that; thus, I think we deserve clear, straight answers—we are intelligent people.

I dread visiting in the American west this July, where we encounter faculty and alumni from Stanford, Duke, Michigan, and other really top-level universities (along with some fine, non-elite colleges), and having to say, “I don’t know why my university fired the president.” People will be justified to ask, “What did your founder, Jefferson, say about how to handle such error?” We still have our REASON to combat any error.

Is it possibly true that UVa has lived in recent years on “pipe-dreams” about becoming a major private-public university?  No such model currently exists in the U.S., and no people of great means will give billions to an institution that is in fact run by a state governor and political appointees.

I was reminded by a good historian friend of Dr. Douglas Southall Freeman’s one-word statement of the cause of the Civil War: Politicians. How long will it take for them to destroy the University of Virginia? “As long as we do nothing”?

In forty years of fundraising as my career, I never found big-money people to be willing to make that leap of faith by giving top dollars to public causes. (Yes, Virginia had an exception in Norfolk: Frank Batten gave $100MM to start a new school of leadership; a truly exceptional man. If he were alive today, what would he say ... ?)

UVa will, in the future, be a leading school among its peers in the Atlantic Coast region. That’s all, as long as a governor and his political appointees rule the University. Again, We should take this opportunity to demand a restructuring of UVa’s governance. We also have before us political appointees by governors from both parties—thus, this is not a case of Dems vs. GOPs. Neither side has performed well.

We might well investigate alumni rebellions that occurred at Yale, Princeton and other top universities in the 1960s - ‘80s. That’s work for younger alumni ... Jefferson would trust you

Are we “the honor men” ... and women ... of old Virginia lore? Will we demonstrate unprecedented zeal to get the truth at our beloved university? It’s up to us.

Gerry Cooper
University of Virginia (BA 1958, MEd 1969)

Tom Romer on 06/13/2012

President Sullivan understood the complexities of running a university and sought buy-in by the members of its community. The Executive Committee of the BOV is acting as if the University can be run like a private company with top down decisions. The Rector apparently believes she has a “rock star” as the next President. Who would take the position knowing that the Committee acts as it sees fit? This is truly a loss for the University of Virginia.

Jane-Ashley Skinner on 06/13/2012

To Sean and Stephen, I am sure that the University, in damage control mode, has provided talking points to the University deans.  The deans have relied heavily on these notes in an effort to walk the tightrope between breaking rank and disclosing their true feelings (God forbid) and their own job security.  These are uncertain times for all employed by the University.  I can hardly blame them.  But, therein lies a big part of the problem at the University.  Employees can’t speak the truth without fear of repercussions.  The Grounds are rife with a climate of distrust and insecurity that appears only to have gotten worse.

Logan Anderson on 06/13/2012

Note to the University of Virginia Board of Visitors: This is the sort of crazy, paranoid ramblings that you foster when you keep the public in the dark as to why you fired the president. The comments are even loonier than the article itself.

http://www.readthehook.com/104213/cabal-hall-why-does-darden-trump-carrs-hill

Stephen Bach on 06/13/2012

I also noticed the similarities of the two responses.

I agree with the comment of J. Logan Anderson that this is “NOT good governance”.  This is the Board’s failure, not Terry Sullivan’s.

Sean McCord on 06/13/2012

Interesting that Dean Bruner’s is nearly a carbon-copy of Dean Aylor’s. Doesn’t UVA have a policy against plagiarism?

Logan Anderson on 06/13/2012

I, as I’m sure many alumni were, was shocked Sunday morning at 11:18 when my email dinged in with the rector’s announcement of the president’s firing.

First, I am deeply concerned by the Board of Visitors’ total lack of transparency in this matter. The rector’s news conference Sunday afternoon was a non-event as she provided no additional information about or insight to the events of the day.

Second, when the president cites “philosophical differences of opinion” with the BofV, I believe it is incumbent upon the Visitors to state EXACTLY what those “differences of opinion” are. If they are of sufficient gravity and seriousness as to force the president to resign/be fired barely 14 months after her inauguration, that alone says they go to the very core of what the University is about. And that is something the ENTIRE University community needs to be made aware of, not just the 18 Visitors.

Third, I am very concerned about who knew and who didn’t know what was going on in this affair. The Daily Progress printed a copy of an email from the president of the Darden board of trustees in which he gave the distinct impression he was in on the matter weeks ago. Why was he brought into the circle, while other leaders of the University seemingly were not? Does it have anything to do with the fact the rector and vice rector are also Darden alumni? And what does that say about the impression created of the tail (the Darden school) wagging the dog (the greater University)?

As an alumnus, I am very concerned how this entire affair went down behind closed doors, with only a select few brought into the loop. That is NOT good governance, and good governance—corporate or otherwise—is what the rector should have learned in her first year of classes at Darden.

J. Logan Anderson
Collete 1983, GSAS 1985