JHS…I could be mistaken, but I believe Lentil’s comment was directed more toward Michigan than UT. UT’s faculty is, like most every secular college in the US, almost exclusively liberal. The student body at UT is slightly more conservative than UVA, IMO; the student body at UVA is almost evenly split. Your comment “both reflect the political diversity of their states” made me chuckle. With the exception of a few tiny pockets (ex: Austin and parts of the Valley), Texas is about as red as red can be. I, nor most any other Texan I know, would ever classify our state as “politically diverse”. I agree with your comment on funding. The state of Texas does accrue educational dollars through lotto sales, taxes, and other mediums; however, the demographics of the two states are considerably different – the population of TX is much larger, and there are considerably more people using educational resources who aren’t paying into the system. As a result, funding is very tight.</p>
<p>^^^ When is this line of thinking going to become extinct? I’m no Dragas fan but I don’t think the UVA controversy is some kind of Mean Girls power play. It’s especially annoying that a (female) columnist dredges up a catfight scenario and then concludes with
</p>
<p>Who says it wasn’t “two leaders clashing” all along? Not me.</p>
<p>Lentil said “her career has been spent at institutions that are far more liberal than the University of Virginia,” while acknowledging (in the second post) that most of her career had been spent at Texas. So clearly Lentil believes that the University of Texas is “far more liberal” than the University of Virginia, something that I think would be a surprise to many people in Austin, Charlottesville, and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Of course, maybe the answer lies in Lentil’s sideswipe at Sullivan’s Catholicism (at least according to Lentil). I doubt Texas is appreciably more Catholic than Virginia, either. But the University of Virginia may be – or may see itself as being – more patrician than Texas or Michigan. </p>
<p>I suspect for a number of people, Sullivan’s failures begin with being a middle-class midwesterner who is overweight and more matronly than elegant. As if you can’t be a leader if you don’t look like Bob McDowell, or John Warner (or, if you are a woman, Helen Dragas). [NOTE: I wrote this without having read the prior post, or the Washington Post article it links. But I have been wondering for a while whether any of this was really a fight between women of different age cohorts about body mass and fashion.]</p>
<p>President Sullivan reminds me of a much more academic version of my mother. That is a very positive comparison. Not every university needs a virile manly president with a year-round tan.</p>
<p>Dragas is trying to convince the other boardmembers that they need to stand tough against “mob rule” or they will never have any power in the future. That is why it is extremely important that everyone be respectful before the vote today. A silent rally is planned, starting at 2:30. </p>
<p>Who knows where the friction between Dragas and Sullivan comes from. But one of the layers of this lousy governance onion is that Sullivan and Dragas weren’t expecting to be working with each other. </p>
<p>Abramson was the vice rector during the presidential search. Presumably he was pretty involved in hiring Sullivan and expected to be rector during Sullivan’s first two years. McDonnell apparently booted him from the BOV for not being a Republic campaign contributor.</p>
<p>So Dragas is kind of like a new athletic director who has to work with a head football coach that her predecessor hired. I doubt any of this happens (regardless of Sullivan’s performance) if Abramson had continued on the BOV in the expected established pattern of succession.</p>
<p>Helen Dragas was on the Board of Visitors when President Sullivan was hired, so I think you can assume that the two expected to work together. Kaine appointed Dragas in 2008.</p>
<p>Dean J – as you’ve seen in recent weeks, the leaders of the BOV are the rector and vice rector and they are the ones that work most directly with the president. The vice rector automatically succeeds the rector so long as he/she stays on the BOV. So when Sullivan was hired, Dragas was just one of 16 visitors and Abramson was vice rector.</p>
<p>If BOV seats were not determined by gubernatorial campaign contributions, Sullivan would have expected her initial BOV leadership to be Wynne and Abramson, followed by Abramson and a player to be named later. Dragas becoming Rector when she did was somewhat out of left field. Kington too – he wasn’t on the BOV when Sullivan was hired and jumped up to VR after only one year of service.</p>
<p>And to be politically even handed in the criticism, look at Kington’s career path on the BOV. Appointed by his BFF Warner, then booted by Caine after one term, then reappointed after he started giving money to McDonnell’s campaign. </p>
<p>Pathetic and embarassing way to run a university.</p>
<p>^ Wasn’t that scene unreal? Some of them acted as if it was the first time they were voting her in! This story has seriously been one of the most fascinating things to follow, don’t you think?</p>
<p>Did anyone think that, after the first motion was seconded, HD appeared to take some shots at the very stakeholders/critics to whom her preliminary remarks had expressed an apology?</p>