Last summer, the University Unity Project went through a major restructuring process. Starting last fall, the Project committee began to operate as an autonomous body of student representatives from across the University. Student Council, which launched the Unity Project during Matt Schrimper's term as president, dispensed with the previous project model that gave Council oversight of the committee and ultimate accountability for the initiative. Council President John Nelson said last September that the motive behind this move was to give student groups more ownership in the Unity Project and its mission.
When Schrimper pitched the idea for a Unity Project nearly two years ago, his goal for the initiative was simple - to rally the student body behind a single cause and to encourage each community on Grounds to contribute to the project's mission in a unique way. This year, even with the popular theme of environmental sustainability, it appears the Unity Project's separation from Council has sealed its fate. Though University community members are a thoughtful and capable bunch, without any enduring organizational affiliation or a clear institutional framework, the Unity Project will have an extremely difficult time surviving beyond this year.
In fact, the project's committee seems to have limped through most of this term. The committee has released little information, and it appears that most student groups have gone about their business without so much as acknowledging the Unity Project or its mission. Council's Sustainability Committee, for example, implemented a free coffee mug initiative last semester to cut down on non-biodegradable waste on Grounds, and that undertaking came with no visible support from or affiliation with the Unity Project. In the few instances this year that the project's name has been invoked for a cause, the level of interaction between the Unity Project's committee and the sponsoring student group has been altogether unclear.
This outcome does not indicate poor leadership from the committee so much as it demonstrates the impossibility of the task at hand. Unity Project chairs Sheffield Hale and Garrett Trent, neither of whom could be reached yesterday for comment, appear to be plenty competent and dedicated to the responsibility handed to them. No matter who chairs the committee, however, the project's institutional constraints make its decline inevitable. The best strategy going forward is to conclude the initiative gracefully and to learn as much as possible from the experience. Some of these lessons are readily apparent - initiatives like the Unity Project need concrete goals, measurable benchmarks and a realistic assessment of the incentives needed to spur activism. Less obvious lessons can also be gleaned from the project's trajectory.
First, divestiture of the Unity Project does not absolve Council of responsibility for the end result. Spinning off this project clearly gave it little chance for survival. If Council's leaders did predict this outcome, then the move was markedly irresponsible; if they did not anticipate this fate, it demonstrates an utter lack of foresight. The lesson here is simply that Council must show discretion when choosing which initiatives to sponsor and see them through for better or for worse.
As Council is taking these steps to become more fully cognizant about how to plan and orchestra large-scale projects in the future, the current University Unity Project committee should recognize that the Unity Project is now tying up more energy and resources than it is worth. The talents and time of those involved could be directed toward far better uses, and these individuals could better contribute to the University community in a number of other ways.
The most appropriate method to wind down the Unity Project is simply not to elect leadership for the next academic year. Such a recommendation may sound defeatist, but in reality the Unity Project never materialized as was originally hoped. The end result is unfortunate, but there is something to be said for cutting losses and moving forward with a renewed understanding of the challenges and risks that accompany ambitious undertakings. With every setback comes great opportunity.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 hours agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 23 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
