NEPOTISM (n): favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power(as by giving them jobs).
Whether you call it nepotism, patronage or simply to the victor goes the spoils, our nation's political system is fraught with examples of all three. One might idealistically expect that our leaders in government at the University level might rise above the temptation for personal gain and choose a course of action most beneficial to the student body. That myth was shattered last week with the announcement of Student Council President-elect Noah Sullivan's nominees for the 2004-2005 presidential cabinet. Several of Sullivan's nominations demonstrate his lack of interest in what's best for Council and the thousands of students it represents. As such, the Student Council representative body should strongly consider exercising their power to reject some of Sullivan's nominees.
The nomination of current Student Council President Daisy Lundy as chief of staff drew a collective double-take from many in the University community. The role reversal (Sullivan currently serves as Lundy's chief of staff) unfortunately was not a belated April Fool's joke. Aside from Lundy's less-than-stellar performance this past year as president, the chief of staff position requires an entirely different mindset. A chief of staff must unite support for presidential initiatives among the representatives, a tall task for Lundy given past events. Her inter-Council spat with the executive board and the representative body in a failed attempt to install David Wasserman as deputy chief of staff last fall is just one example of her inability to achieve cohesion among Council members.
In announcing his nominees last week, Sullivan told The Cavalier Daily that he sought people who would bring new things to the table. The selection of Lundy as chief of staff, however, seems to counter this argument. How Lundy, Council president for the past year, represents something new to council is puzzling. Sullivan, in an e-mail, defended his reasoning noting, "In saying new things to the table, I meant in reference to what we had on the exec board this coming year." Regardless, if back in 2000, Al Gore stood up and said he wanted to bring new things to the table and then unveiled Bill Clinton as a running-mate, he'd be laughed all the way back to Tennessee.
Two other Sullivan nominees, Peter Farrell for director of University relations and Adam Sanders for chief technology administrator, also raise an eyebrow. While both individuals might very well be beneficial to Council in the upcoming year, the circumstances surrounding their appointments are questionable. It should be noted that Sullivan did not unilaterally appoint anyone; the appointment process involved an application, interview and consultation with the executive board. The bottom line, however, is that Sullivan had final say on all cabinet nominations.
Farrell, with little Council experience, could be considered an "outsider." While normally the appointment of a Council outsider is cheered by skeptics of Council, the director of University relations must have an intimate knowledge of Council in order to establish connections and communicate with the University bigwigs. As Council representative Nathan Vassar noted, "Picking someone outside of the Council community to serve as a liason to the higher-ups is ignorant and short-sighted." Sullivan should have taken a page out of Lundy's playbook, who appointed presidential candidate and Council veteran Ed Hallen for the director of University relations position for her cabinet.
The suspect nature of the director of University relations nomination is only compounded by the fact that Sanders, the chief technology administrator nominee, is Sullivan's roommate. Sanders may be well-qualified for the position but nominating your roommate, the person who paved your way to presidential office (Lundy), and the son of a BOV member (Farrell) is highly questionable. Sullivan defended Farrell as having "incredible enthusiasm, passion, and ability." Great. So do many of the other applicants, and they had experience too.
The 2004-2005 Student Council officers aren't even in office yet and things are already off to a bad start. Sullivan should reconsider some of his nominations, and the representative body should strongly consider sending a message that they will not tolerate attempts at personal gain or disdain for the integrity of Council in the upcoming school year.
Joe Schilling's column usually appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached a jschilling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
