IT IS hard to remember a recent University decision that has galvanized such widespread student opposition as the recent news that Vice President for Development and Public Affairs Robert Sweeney might be chosen for residence in Pavilion VI. Living on the Lawn, as all students heard in their first tour, is one of the University's unique traditions. It is a community to some extent all its own, designed for resident students and professors to not only live as neighbors, but to interact in meaningful ways. Over its two centuries of existence, the core vision of Lawn residence has remained intact, but it now comes under attack from our own leadership.
A-J Aronstein articulated in an interview the concerns he and other Lawn residents share about Bob Sweeney: "From our perspective," he said, the key to an ideal Lawn community is "the visibility of the Pavilion residents; they're always around." They open their houses to Lawn residents for the lighting of the Lawn and progressive dinners, in addition to everyday conversations. "For the broader student body, it's about how open the Pavilions are for groups and events and classes."
Those sorts of student-faculty interactions are what make the tradition of Lawn residence so special. The pavilions are no longer reserved exclusively for professors, as Jefferson originally planned, but have been open to deans and some administration officials for a while. Despite those changes, however, all the faculty currently on the Lawn hold positions that involve frequent interaction with students. They teach classes, run academic departments, or, like Gene Block (provost) and Patricia Lampkin (vice president of student affairs), are otherwise involved with students. It is not mere misty-eyed sentimentalism that motivates students opposed to Sweeney's potential residence -- it is an understanding of the meaning of the Lawn. Lawn residence offers an opportunity for students in their fourth year to live by, learn from, and form relationships with some of our University's most noteworthy faculty.
It is a shame, though, that Bob Sweeney is receiving so much negative attention. From all accounts, he is a fine person and an outstanding fundraiser -- a very valuable member of the University. The problem with assigning a Pavilion to him comes not from his character or personality, but his position as chief fundraiser.
His role in development and public affairs is important to the University, but it is still a complementary role. The University needs to keep in mind that the primary purpose of the University is to educate, and to that end, the primary factor in every decision should be its effect on education. Raising money and improving infrastructure and organization, as Sweeney does, enables the University to work towards its educational mission, but it does not directly accomplish that.
This touches on another objection to the Sweeney decision, an objection to the conduct of the University administration. The Board of Visitors last month changed the rules for assigning pavilion residence. It seems, as Aronstein believes, that the Board made this change specifically based on fundraising, both to reward Sweeney's excellent performance and augment future events. The Board made this decision unilaterally, without the input of students, alumni, or the faculty. As Aronstein said, "What's really at question here is the process and whether that's in line with the Jeffersonian vision. They went over students' heads and told us who's going to live here."
In an e-mail interview for a March 27 Cavalier Daily article, President Casteen confirmed those suspicions. In the e-mail, he defended a Sweeney-inhabited Pavilion VI by saying, essentially, that it would be a good location for fundraising events. In his interview he mentioned how "Carr's Hill is seriously overworked" and "we make regular use of central Grounds locations for functions related to fundraising, and we expect [Sweeney] to host or attend most of them." Statements like these validate the "For Sale" signs that the Lawn residents posted on their doors.
Traditions matter. At a university so proud of its history and customs as ours, we should be able to expect the president to understand and respect Jefferson's vision of the Lawn as an Academical Village, not, as Aronstein called it, an "Administrative Hamlet."Students and alumni are right to be outraged; it is clear that our president and the Board of Visitors see the Lawn as nothing more than a fundraising tool.
Stephen Parsley is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. He can be reached at sparsley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 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 | 5 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.
