Dragas Was Right
Last Friday marked the end of Helen Dragas’ tenure of the University of Virginia Board of Visitors, a tenure noted by her effort to have now-beleagured UVA president Teresa Sullivan removed and Dragas’ incessant challenge to the UVA community to reform and catch up with the changing times — including online courses and broadening UVA’s scope and application in the modern world.
From the Charlottesville Daily Progress:
“We do not believe we can even maintain our current standard under a model of incremental, marginal change. The world is simply moving too fast.”
The decision shocked students, alumni and faculty members — with whom Sullivan was immensely popular — and sparked protests. Outside observers were baffled by the move and criticized the way board members had made the decision behind closed doors.
. . .
Although she has not been vocal about her opinion of Sullivan, Dragas has opposed many major initiatives proposed by Sullivan’s administration since then, including a “strategic plan” laying out U.Va.’s broad goals through 2019 and a major change to the university’s tuition and financial aid model.
In short, Dragas issued a wake-up call at a time when time — not resources — was the most precious commodity.
Today, Sullivan is not precisely the most popular person on Grounds, and is rumored to be politely (and positively) shuffled off to another institution that perhaps still laments the absence of presidents such as John Casteen, Colgate Darden, and Edwin Alderman — all three institutions in their own right.
Dragas’ biggest gripe has been the university’s shift toward adopting higher tuition to fund increases in financial aid, which she sees as a tax on middle-class families. The position of the rest of the board, including Goodwin, is that increasing financial aid will reduce net costs for most families.
One really cannot say that Dragas lost the war. True, her resistance to the sclerosis that defines UVA earned her all the right opponents — but Dragas’ vision and urgency have either been born out through time or implemented in practice, even if Dragas herself was neither offered nor accepted the credit for ushering in the reforms.
Some of the faculty and administration may have resented Dragas’ efforts to shake loose the rust. That is more a reflection on the insularity and institutionalism that has comfortably enveloped UVA as human nature takes its grip — no blame assigned, it’s just what institutions do. Business leaders know this, and never ones to fear change, implement it quickly and radically in order to bring the best forth and clear the weeds.
That’s a good thing, unless one happens to be a weed.
Outside of Charlottesville, Dragas’ hard nose reforms and the shock therapy required to bring UVA into the 21st century — even reluctantly — demonstrated the very best of the Jeffersonian dictum that a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing, even if the sons and daughters of The University settle in for comfort over reform and position over product.
UVA’s students — as time wears on — know the difference.
