Yesterday,
I learned that our BOV (Board of Visitors) decided to unanimously reinstate our President, Teresa Sullivan. After just a short deliberation, around an hour or so, all members decided Sullivan should come back. I wasn't inside the board meeting, but more than one source cited that Helen Dragas, the leading member behind Sullivan's forced ousting, announced that she changed her mind before the Board voted. Amazingly, all members then followed in her footsteps. What really amazes me though, is the fact that the Board overwhelming voted 12-1 to place an interim president at the helm until the Board could decide on a new full time president to take Sullivan's place. Though, at least it was wise on the Board's part to allow the one dissenter the first go around, Heywood Fralin, to introduce the Board's final resolution this time. Why is the Board so flippant? One minute the Board follows Dragas to oust Sullivan and the next, it follows her right back into reinstating Sullivan. This is why, along with the majority opinion of the faculty, I believe we need a Board with a diverse group of people, along with faculty members. It sounds like the current Board doesn't know what is actually going on inside our school, though that's not really a huge surprise, and it needs people who can give it some insight into the goings on at UVA - especially the unforeseen or far reaching consequences of rash decisions that affect education.
Another thing I find annoying with Dragas is that she went on in her statement yesterday to assert: "I believe real progress is more possible than ever now, because there's absolutely no denying that all of the wonderful people who make up this community are as awake and egaged as ever," she said. "It is unfortunate that we had to have a near-death experience to get here, but the University should not waste the enormous opportunity at hand." (C-Ville)
Firstly, we people of the community "are awake and engaged as ever," true, but I doubt Dragas was counting on us to be so when she first tried to oust Sullivan. Dragas has to concede that we are those things because we forced the Board time and time again to come clean about its' beef with Sullivan but it continued to side skirt the issue, using formal statements crafted by PR firms instead. Now maybe Dragas has come to realize that she is dealing with an informed community of individuals who want answers. Bringing the irony home, the very people Dragas and the Board initially hired, such as say faculty members, are the ones who demanded clarity at the ousting of Sullivan. You should have realized Dragas, that when you hire exceptional faculty, they are probably going to be intelligent individuals who can tell when something underhanded is going down. You didn't think you could just make us accept the ousting of our President without any real explanation did you? Apparently, she couldn't.
Secondly, this idea that "we," the collective "we," "had to have a near-death experience to get here," is not quite putting the blame on oneself. Yes, we the community may have had something like a "near-death experience," but that was easily avoidable if Dragas had engaged Sullivan in an open dialogue in the first place. Nevertheless, Dragas did do what was right for our school. She swallowed her pride, or maybe fought her donor temptations, and reinstated Sullivan. We still don't know what made the Board change its' mind, the discretion continues, but the important thing is that it did.
During the last two weeks, I lost significant faith in higher education. I felt like "the man," was sticking it to me, my university community, and to education, entrusting the University's future to Board members who don't really even know the University, instead of a President whose passion is education and our University. In fact, Sullivan told sources that she would not return unless Dragas resigned. Yet, when Sullivan was reinstated yesterday, she said she would work with Dragas and the Board to work out the initial "philosophical differences" between the two, and those challenges the University faces in the 21st century. That there to me, is the mark of a passionate educator. One who returns regardless of the climate because he or she is so enthusiastic about his/her university and cares more about that than differences with some of the people.
I have more respect for the Board because it acted to do the right thing but I still have a bitter taste in my mouth about this whole affair and that the Board acted under Dragas' will without really expressing its' own member by member. Nevertheless, Sullivan is back because this time our community with its "mob mentality," in the words of the great Dragas herself, got to stick it to "the man," just a little bit.
No comments:
Post a Comment