There’s not a single observer of the whole Sweet Briar College debacle that doesn’t think there’s something rotten about the whole debacle.
Financially, the school appears to be challenged but sound. The alumni certainly have stepped up and seen past the board’s myopia, while the political opportunism swirling around the school itself are enough to raise eyebrows. It just doesn’t add up.
The good news for SBC alumni and students? The Virginia Supreme Court in oral arguments yesterday appeared to agree. From the Washington Post:
Sweet Briar’s attorney, Calvin W. “Woody” Fowler, argued that the delay from an injunction would only make matters worse for what he portrayed as a doomed college trying to wrap up its affairs.
“You’re being asked to allow for an orderly wind-down or allow a crash-and-burn,” Fowler said.
Then from the bench came a query from Justice William C. Mims, stirring the activists: Wasn’t Fowler failing to consider a third possibility, that the delay would allow time to find a way to keep the place open?
Zing!
School leaders announced in March that Sweet Briar would close permanently at the end of this summer, citing “insurmountable financial challenges.” Alumnae, faculty, students, parents and others shocked by the sudden announcement have been fighting the decision ever since, with fundraising, protests, and multiple lawsuits.
One effort, led by Amherst County Attorney Ellen Bowyer, has sought a temporary injunction, arguing that charitable funds have been misused in violation of state law and that a closure would violate the terms of the will upon which the 114-year-old school was founded.
“We need immediate action if we are going to save this college,” said William Hurd, who is serving as special counsel to Bowyer. He said the school’s financial problems were self-inflicted.
“The problem is, they haven’t run it right,” Hurd said.
Bill Hurd nails it with that one line right there. Why certain folks at Sweet Briar have caged the argument — not even as an either/or — but simply as a one-option defeat is either thinking in the fishbowl at best, or an odd set of circumstances where the data simply doesn’t support the conclusions at worst. In fact, one might even go so far as to argue the conclusions are forced, contrived, and not to abuse the word: conspiratorial.
The justices reminded both parties that they will rule not on the school’s financial health or other facts of the case, but on more arcane points of law. Chief among them: whether the school should be treated as a financial trust set up to operate in perpetuity or a corporation that can be more easily dissolved.
…and that is really the crux of the question; the legal “out” that can save Sweet Briar College.
Let’s give credit where credit is due here. The Roanoke Times has done an exemplary job of watching this story and dredging up just about every angle to get a full picture. Their thoughts are worth reading in full, but this snip is illustrative:
Fowler contended that a temporary injunction wouldn’t really stop the college from closing because Sweet Briar would soon run out of money. “The choice before the court is whether we have an orderly wind-down or a crash-and-burn.”
At that point, Justice LeRoy Millette interrupted: “There’s a third option and that’s a cy-près hearing.” That’s a legal proceeding to determine what to do if the original instructions of a will can’t be carried out.
That’s not what alumnae have asked for, but an order from the Supreme Court for Updike to hold one would still constitute a victory because it would put a judge, not the board, in charge of deciding whether the school can close.
Sweet Briar’s board has contended such a hearing is unnecessary – that even though it’s closing the school, it intends to preserve the assets in a scholarship fund and that’s close enough to Williams’ intent. Besides, the board contends her will doesn’t apply anymore anyway.
Of the other five justices, only Donald Lemons and Cleo Powell had anything to say, and those were to ask technical questions – although at one point when Fowler answered Lemons’ inquiry with a rhetorical question of his own, the chief justice cut him off: “Let’s get this straight: I ask the questions.”
One really hates to take such large blocks of text (apologies to Laura Vozella and the editors of the RTimes, respectively), but it would appear as if the obtuse nature of SBC’s shutdown combined with the brute force argument of SBC’s lawyers demonstrate that outside minds simply don’t see the same math. Hurd’s response is the key to the whole argument:
William Hurd, the Richmond lawyer arguing for the alumnae, asked the court to issue a temporary injunction to keep the college from closing – to preserve the status quo while the main part of the lawsuit goes forward back in Updike’s courtroom. Otherwise, he said, there would be “irreparable harm” done – i.e., no college left to save.
The bottom line is this: if Sweet Briar College’s existing board has given up, then their first duty should have been to vacate the board, not to simply bolt the doors and throw their hands in the air.
Perhaps if all of this had been a very calculated PR stunt to get SBC alumni interested in the financial peril involved in the school, that too might have been excused. But given the condition of the alumni and the questionable health of SBC as a whole (as in, the patient might not be as sick after all), it stands to reason that other, wiser, and more financially prudent minds should be given the opportunity to save Sweet Briar.
…and yes, the politicians should keep their noses out of it.
If yesterday’s Virginia Supreme Court hearing was any indication, the justices are none too pleased at the false choice presented by the current SBC board of visitors. They are right to think so, and they are equally right to explore other options. If those options are presented, those who have given up on Sweet Briar simply need to do one thing: resign, and open the process to those who will allow the college to breath again.
Sweet Briar College might not need a second chance after all, just a fighting one.
