This past summer, Governor Glenn Youngkin appointed five new members to the Board of Visitors, making a majority Youngkin-appointed board. On the surface, a Youngkin-appointed Board might not seem too alarming — though to some it is. However, a closer look at the two latest rounds of appointments produces a result which everyone should find concerning — more than half of these appointees have previously donated to Youngkin-affiliated campaigns. This alarming trend makes it hard to ignore the importance of resources and wealth in determining appointments and, subsequently, the future programs at the University. Such appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals. In short, this style of appointment is corrupt and can be extremely detrimental to the student experience.
The Board’s main objective is to drive long-term goals for the University. Budgeting and many committees that deal with specific matters like the health system, finance and academic and student life are all within their jurisdiction. The Board also has an extremely important role in major programming like deciding on institutional neutrality, sustainability goals and endorsements for programs on religious diversity. The governor generally appoints members to this Board which leads these initiatives, thus making appointments an extremely critical responsibility which dictates University programming drastically.
The last two cycles of appointments completed by Youngkin have shown alarming correlations between donations and access to appointments. Specifically, three-fifths of the appointees from this past cycle have donated $80,000 or more to Youngkin-affiliated campaigns, and three-fourths of the 2023 summer cycle of appointees donated similar amounts, with John Nau III donating the most at $300,000. This domination of big donors implies an absurd amount of corruption within the criteria for appointment, opening up questions about what qualifications Board members have outside of their monetary contributions to Youngkin’s political career.
These questions are especially salient given that there is already an alarming history of some Youngkin-appointed Board members at other universities in the state. Consistently, these appointees have failed to prioritize a diverse study body, something which is integral to an effective educational institution. For example, at George Mason, the Board has already struck down major plans to implement diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives for which students voiced support. Our University’s Youngkin-appointed Board member, Bert Ellis, is starkly against “wokeness” that would encourage DEI initiatives. His positions are quite antithetical to the aims of the Board of Visitors whose decisions inherently impact a diverse student body. Governing boards which shy away from programs and initiatives which would promote DEI aims shows how incompatible and out of touch Youngkin’s appointees can be.
Additionally, the correlation between political donations and appointments raises an important question — what does it say about the values of the University if we are basing extremely important decisions like Board appointments on who pays the governor the most? Part of the incompatibility between Youngkin’s Board and the experiences of students at our University is the homogenous socioeconomic status of Board members which is unreflective of the state at large. It is truly concerning that the current Board is made up of exclusively white-collar occupations. For instance, two of five latest appointments are in leadership positions at real estate companies, while another is the Chief of Staff for the Smithsonian Board of Regents. There are no public school teachers, police officers or other types of service work and blue-collar jobs on the Board.
This is truly concerning especially for an institution which is supposed to represent the breadth of Virginian stakeholders, few of whom have backgrounds similar to these exceptionally wealthy appointees. A limited array of perspectives on the Board leads to an incapability of members to guide programs benefiting all of the University or represent the state at large. This Board representation does a disservice to the backgrounds of Virginians.
If donations and proximity to Youngkin are the determining factors and qualifications in the majority of appointments, it seems nearly impossible for someone who is truly invested in students but lacks connections to ever get a foot in the door. This corruption can permeate other realms at the university if not checked. We can already see it in the exclusivity of some pre-professional clubs and DoorList. It is hard to check inequalities in access on the student level if arguably the highest institution at the University is modeling similar values.
Seeing this corruption from the Board of Visitors starting to permeate other areas of the University, it is hard to not think of the metaphor that a fish rots from the head. If having connections and resources dictates the Board of Visitors, there is no doubt these same values and criteria are slowly corrupting many other areas of the University. And if the University wants to maintain a fair and diverse student body which represents Virginia, appointments of the current nature are antithetical to that aim — a system of Board appointments based on wealth cannot sustain the interests and progression of all students.
Ryan Williams is a viewpoint writer who writes about politics for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone
Read More
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | YesterdayIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 4 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
EDITORIAL: Reckon consistently with our history
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoUntil these bureaucracies have proven willing to commit to change outright, it is up to us, students and Charlottesville residents, to continue pushing for that change.
