For all the pretense of “student self-governance” at the University, transparency continues to be unfulfilled by both administrators and students. First, we covered a tenure process that took place behind closed doors. Then, we responded to the issue of spending as well as the appropriate role of past and present Honor Committee members in the campaign that defeated the Hoos Against Single Sanction referendum. Now, the lack of significant student input in the selection of a controversial Class of 2009 graduation speaker poses additional challenges to transparency at the University.
The selection of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who will speak during Final Exercises as the commencement speaker for the Class of 2009, was a result of more questionable practices. Wilkinson was among the list of possible speakers given to the President by the Commencement and Convocation Committee. More specifically, the recommendations were given by the processions subcommittee, which is charged with planning and coordinating logistics for Final Exercises. Graduating students do sit on the processions subcommittee, but the extent to which their input influenced the final makeup of the list of 10 recommended speakers is not known. Regardless, the final decision is ultimately in the hands of President John T. Casteen III. It is easy to deride the lack of student input in both the recommendation of potential commencement speakers and where the final decision falls — indeed, several articles on these pages have done so. Another important question to ask though, is which students serve on the Committee and how are they chosen? The answer should not surprise you. The sole prerogative of appointment to many of the presidential committees is given to the current President of Student Council. Instead of a meritocratic process of application, the Council President appoints students to serve on the committees. The nepotistic system favors, unsurprisingly, the heads of mainstream organizations and the close friends of the Council President.
Although former Student Council Presidents have in the past consulted with the Executive Committee on his or her appointees, we continue to see the same people serving on presidential committees. In some cases, students are appointed to serve on more than one committee, further decreasing a diversity of perspectives on key University issues. Many of the student appointees are student leaders who have benefited from privileges afforded by attending Leadership 2000 or L2K, a week-long meeting of student leaders over a series of workshops and networking events during the summer. This method of appointing student members perpetuates the elitism of the University’s politico class. Albeit both of us have served on a presidential committee we still call on a change in the nomination process.
This is not a problem unique to the Commencement Committee. The appointment process for a total of nineteen committees under the Office of the President needs to be re-examined. Each committee is charged with making recommendations to the president on a number of issues. These committees advise the president on matters ranging from admissions to the names of major programs and buildings. Although the decisions to which committees arrive are recommendations, they can carry considerable influence over University policy depending on the issue. For example, the Committee on Financial Aid makes recommendations on financial services. The committee regularly reviews the University’s AccessUVa program and makes recommendations on the cost of attendance, potentially affecting who can afford to attend the University.
In order to improve the process and not simply make an appointment to a presidential committee an added perk of student leadership and L2K attendance, Council should implement a more formal process for appointing student representatives. We recommend a comprehensive application that is widely advertised to the student body. The selection of a candidate could be done through a vote of the Council Executive Committee or representative body. Although these possibilities may appear more cumbersome, the added benefit of having a process more accessible to students and less confined to the upper rungs of student leadership will make the student member a better contributor to the discussions of each presidential committee.
Despite the importance of these committees, it is clear that “student self-governance” is a principle bankrupt of true meaning at the University. Transparency is necessary but not sufficient for a more democratic University. Increasing transparency, especially in the selection of the presidential committees, will take us one step closer to a university that invites the perspective of every student, not just the ones that happen to hold more prominent leadership positions on Grounds.
Bernice Ramirez and Carlos Oronce are co-chairs of the Minority Rights Coalition.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 5 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
