The Board of Visitors recently approved the addition of a non-voting faculty member to its body; the Board will appoint someone by next semester to serve a one-year term, though the selection process has not yet been finalized. This is a step in the right direction for a Board that is in dire need of better exposure to the concerns of its constituents.
To be fair, the Board has not been ignorant of faculty concerns in recent history: since 2007, the past chair of the Faculty Senate has served as a consulting member to two internal committees and to a special — now standing — committee on diversity. And, in 2012, the Board expanded this role so that the faculty consultant would consult on all nine of the Board’s standing committees.
But the presence of a faculty member as an official member of the Board will strengthen its response to and understanding of faculty concerns. Though one single faculty member cannot represent the concerns of all faculty members — much the same way as one non-voting student member cannot represent the concerns of all students — since faculty were unrepresented until now, this is certainly a positive step.
Additionally, the presence of someone with a background in higher education — even if that person does not have voting power — will be immensely valuable to the Board and to our school. Currently, the Code of Virginia requires the presence of a physician member, but has no requirement for members with experience in higher education — something a 2012 Faculty Senate Task Force report critiqued. The Board of Visitors governs, among other institutions, an educational institution; it needs members who have at least some understanding of this overall purpose. Many Board members have no experience at all in this field; their appointments often seem to be a form of patronage, as they are appointed by the governor. Many current Board members are attorneys and businessmen — and while their insights are valuable, such insights can in no way overcome the need for actual background in higher education policy or work.
The Board has included a non-voting student member for a long time prior to this recent inclusion of a non-voting faculty member; this speaks to the disconnect at our school between the various populations in need of representation. With our commitment to student self-governance, students have the privilege of independence, and therefore fewer interactions with faculty members outside their academics. Compared to other schools, there is likely increased interaction between students and administrators, without interim faculty involvement. Interestingly, faculty concerns can seem to fall by the wayside compared to student concerns, and students themselves may not know what faculty members’ concerns are. This, of course, should not be the case. The long delay in appointing a non-voting faculty member to the Board speaks to the University’s need to foster a stronger connection between these various branches of our school.
The presence of a faculty member will both improve the Board’s understanding of faculty concerns and its understanding of higher education. Faculty members should certainly have a seat at the table when important decisions are made.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: A defense of the Batten Curve
By Paul Kurtzweil | 25 minutes agoStandardization is an important idea in a school to make grading as fair as possible — all inconsistencies in teaching assistants or exam writing are ironed out.
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 3 days agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | December 20, 2024At the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
