PRIOR TO crying havoc and reacting to a supposed crisis, it is generally a good idea to take a step back and make sure you have fully considered the issue at hand. Unfortunately, this is what many Lawn residents and other University students failed to do last week after it was announced that the Board of Visitors is considering the possibility of appointing Bob Sweeney to one of the pavilions. The purpose of granting Lawn residence via the pavilions is to recognize commitment to the University, to the continuance of higher education, and to the student community. It is important to remember that such commitment exists in a variety of forms.
In trying to get one's head around this issue, it is first of all important to separate the man from the office and the office from the basic principle. The objection has been made that Sweeney is not worthy of a pavilion because he serves as vice president for development and public affairs and has played a key role in the ongoing Capital Campaign. His potential candidacy has also been portrayed as a conniving plot to overthrow the academical village by filling it with men resembling the Monopoly guy. Sweeney should not be victimized merely for doing his job well, however, especially when those critiquing Sweeney know little about him except what office he holds.
Likewise, Sweeney's office should not be discounted simply because itsholder receiving a pavilion is untraditional. In fact, the Board of Visitors policy change that started this debate was a good one, as according to the public minutes it altered the Pavilion Assignment Policy so that "any vice president nominated by the President and agreed to by the Board" would be eligible to live in a pavilion. This change allows the Board of Visitors and President Casteen to consider any employee they may deem worthy, who can then be weighed based on his or her merits and accomplishments. How egalitarian is it, after all, to judge a person based solely on the position he or she holds?
As to whether a person should get a pavilion, the Board of Visitors has to consider several important factors: First, whether or not the person is committed to improving the student community and in general life at the University. By rashly placing "For Sale" signs on their doors, a number of Lawn residents clearly voiced their opinions and yet also showed their failure to fully consider the issue. Sweeney did not make a huge donation to the University in return for a pavilion, nor did any alumni make a donation asking that Sweeney be given the pavilion. Clearly if that were to happen, and no matter what the position held by the nominee, granting Lawn residence would be inappropriate.
What Sweeney has done is to help raise a huge sum of money for the University. This money is to be used for a variety of projects including the South Lawn project, renovating and constructing new residence halls, and in general expanding the space available to students and faculty alike. His success seems a fairly good indication that Sweeney is committed to improving student life and to the University. Most importantly, this is a function that can only be improved by granting him a pavilion on the Lawn. From there he could easily entertain alumni and other potential donors, and in general can help reconnect this process with the students it ultimately benefits.
The second key factor the Board of Visitors must consider, and admittedly where Sweeney seems somewhat weak at a cursory glance, is whether he will improve the academic quality and education mission of the University. Perhaps the strongest argument against Sweeney or a similar candidate is that he is not a professor or dean. However, the Jeffersonian tradition is that pavilion residences be primarily for these candidates, not exclusively. This is also misleading as it by no means indicates a non-professor or dean will not connect with students and cannot enhance the Lawn and University communities. Assuming that Sweeney will not connect well simply because his primary function is fundraising is ludicrously unfair to him as a person, and does not bode well for a supposedly educated and non-biased academic community.
The pavilion residences were designed to enhance the pursuit of learning at the University, yet learning does not occur solely through professors. In addition to better connecting students with an area they do not normally see, such as fundraising or enhanced alumni-student participation, the occasional non-traditional Lawn resident will offer a unique real-world perspective that is easily overlooked. Ultimately, however, whether or not a person is qualified to receive a pavilion should be determined based on his or her individual qualities and accomplishments rather than the position he or she happens to hold.
Allan Cruickshanks' column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at acruickshanks@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 | 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.
