<p>good move..........</p>
<p>Yay!!! Excellent.</p>
<p>The Washington Post did a very good job covering this story. The Cavalier Daily filed the FOIA request that uncovered the Dragas and Kington e-mails. Both papers are to be commended for their work on this story.</p>
<p>what about the Board members who voted to fire her? Did they resign/fire themselves?</p>
<p>Nope. The vote to reinstate was unanimous. Sullivan and Dragas paraded publicly through the campus together on their way to the meeting. The meeting was open. Dragas acknowledged that it was a mistake to take important actions without holding an actual meeting. Sullivan expressed confidence in Dragas and their ability to work together, said that there shouldn’t be any recriminations. Prospective students should be awed by the energy, commitment, and high quality of civil debate that the university has shown. They hugged for the cameras.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Onward and upward.</p>
<p>This was the right decision, but a totally unnecessary bit of drama to get to this point. Dragas is up for reappointment by the governor in July. My guess is she’s not reappointed. And Kingdon, who helped Dragas engineer the coup, has already resigned. In a way this whole thing probably leaves Sullivan in a stronger position, almost-martyred hero to most of the UVA community, and with a strengthened hand against a board that is going to be much more cautious and careful and deferential toward a popular president whose popularity only increased through the crisis. But if I were UVA I wouldn’t go overboard with self-congratulation over this. It should never have happened in the first place, and that it did reflects poorly on the quality and judgment of the Board of Visitors which is, after all, the University’s highest governing body.</p>
<p>The whole thing made UVA look like a bunch of stumbling fools – except for Sullivan.</p>
<p>The debacle made half of the board look like bumbling fools. It made everyone else be reunited and organized to reclaim their University from confused coup-leaders. Sullivan’s new speech after reinstatement is on youtube look up President Sullivan Addresses Supporters on the Lawn</p>
<p>I’m relieved, my daughter is thrilled. I feel great respect and gratitude toward the UVA community - I was really afraid the “resignation” would stand.</p>
<p>Dragas and her buddies are reminding me of Emily Litella tonight. “Um … never mind.”</p>
<p>I’m with you frazzled, I really wondered if the BOV were going to dig in their heels, stay with the interim president and try to move on. And, I really wondered if, even though she was obviously moved by the support that was shown, TS would cut ties. I am so glad she stayed because I think she is deserving of more time and a better chance to do things her way. She is a real gem in my book and I hope they will let her do her job.</p>
<p>I know they need to show a unified front, but I don’t know if I could be showing so much “warm and fuzzy” right now if I were TS. From what HD, Kington and Craig said two weeks ago, they had a majority of Board members ready to show her the door. Does TS know who those members are? Now today they “unequivically” and “whole-heartedly” support her. If I were one of those folks I would have to resign because I would be too embarrassed to even talk to TS, much less try to work together with her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Emily Litella FTW:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Politics in academia is dirty & nasty business, fueled by outsize egos that make regular politicians seem humble. So the fact that the firing of a president was REVERSED is quite surprising. The fact that the firing of a president was reversed after continuing bad PR and some major donors leaving isn’t surprising. In the end, it’s always about money. Followed by ego, perception and once again money.</p>
<p>There was a legitimate danger of losing star faculty, if this coup had not been reversed. Many alumni were conditioning donation pledges upon her return. It appears every chair person of every department and every academic program called for her return - even the librarians rose up in anger.</p>
<p>The ONLY organized group at UVa that failed to rise to the occasion were the lapdogs on Student Council.</p>
<p>Still this can’t be good for UVA for the future in it’s attempts to grow and high star faculty.</p>
<p>If there is a silver lining to be found here, it must be one of the thinnest ever woven. </p>
<p>You still have a Prez who was shown the door for apparently sharing that lots needed to be done, but that more time to talk about was also needed. You still have a board that wanted a Prez who moved faster in correcting the downward spiral of the school. You still have a school with an admittedly aging and non-star like faculty that needs to be revamped just to stay up with the Academic Jones. You know have a splintered set of large donors, including some who supported the move by the BOV.</p>
<p>Seems that progress will once more be measured by the usual yardstick of higher education, namely sticking to the status quo that pleases the current powers and endangered species. As far as attracting a star-studded faculty, does anyone believe that stepping into this hornets’ nest is the best one can do? The stars and divas have options (as the departing scientist who took his marbles and wife to Vandy) and it is unclear why advantages will originate in Virginia. Stability? More money? Reputation? That’s a bunch of boxes to fill. </p>
<p>The firing might have been a joke, but the rehiring is tragicomical. Laughing or crying at the ineptitude of all parties involved is all one should do about this play.</p>
<p>And becoming the next Liberty U in online education would improve their rankings how? They do need a direction but online is hardly a slamdunk strategy either. Neither is cutting liberal arts. it is what they are actually good at. Not sciences and engineering.</p>
<p>Henry Kissinger used to reference Sayre’s corollary:</p>
<p>Sayre’s law states, in a formulation quoted by Charles Philip Issawi: “In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake.” By way of corollary, it adds: “That is why academic politics are so bitter.” </p>
<p>Sayre’s law is named after Wallace Stanley Sayre (1905-1972), U.S. political scientist and professor at Columbia University.</p>
<p>from our friends at Wiki.</p>
<p>The only remaining suspense of this drama is whether Dragas withdraws her from reappointment or she is not appointed. Hard to believe she remains as board leader.</p>
<p>Sent from my Desire HD using CC</p>
<p>What I find interesting is that they specifically said the they couldn’t afford to fall behind schools like Stanford and MIT. Meanwhile, those schools are not only NOT making any money from their online endeavors, but are losing money. Then of course there is the argument that 160,000 students sure doesn’t make you selective anymore. The stats ought to now be modified for those schools and their average SAT should change from 1400/1600 (or whatever), to 1000/1600 or whatever it is now.</p>