RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Academic leaders at the University of Virginia are calling for the Board of Visitors to reconsider its dismissal of President Teresa Sullivan.
The 33 faculty department heads and program directors of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences sent a letter and joined the Faculty Senate’s request for more information regarding Sullivan’s ouster.
Rector Helen Dragas announced Sunday that by mutual agreement, Sullivan would step down Aug. 15, a little more than two years after she started. Dragas said the university faces many challenges posed by the economic downturn, the loss of state funding and other issues. Sullivan, she said, wasn’t moving quickly enough to enact changes “in administrative structure, in governance, in financial resource development and in resource prioritization and allocation.”
The letter emailed to Dragas and board members on Wednesday said, “Our surprise and concern arise directly from the fact that we have been very pleased with the direction in which President Sullivan and her administrative team have been leading U.Va. and with her accomplishments thus far. She is an extraordinary academic leader, with superb administrative abilities, the heart of a faculty member, and evident strength of character.”
The letter said that Sullivan’s hiring of executive vice president and provost John Simon and chief operating officer Michael Strine, her plans to recruit and retain faculty and her spearheading a new financial model for the university were signs of good leadership.
“We believe that this abrupt and, from our point of view, opaque decision will deeply threaten the way U.Va. is perceived by prospective as well as current faculty, students, and donors,” the letter said. “We strongly urge the Board of Visitors to reopen discussion with President Sullivan and the faculty.”
Dragas responded with a lengthy statement to faculty later Wednesday. The statement said that the board’s policy is to keep confidential “matters of disagreement” and those relating to progress evaluations.
“Nevertheless, the board can assure you that there was ongoing dialogue with the president over an extended period of time, regarding matters for which we are responsible,” Dragas said. “These include ensuring the long-term health and well-being of the university through development of a credible statement of strategic direction and a long-term resource plan.”
Sullivan cited “a philosophical difference of opinion” with the board in the announcement on her departure.
The Board of Visitors plans to hold a special closed session on Monday to discuss candidates for interim president, said school spokeswoman Carol Wood.
Faculty Senate leaders issued a statement Monday criticizing the board for failing to fully explain its decision and are seeking a meeting to discuss it.
Siva Vaidhyanathan, chairman of the media studies department and a faculty member who helped write the letter, said that faculty so far have been met with “silence and secrecy, which is deeply irresponsible and reckless on the part of the board.”
He said professors want board members to clearly specify what differences they had with Sullivan and to articulate what attributes the next president should have.
Dragas has agreed to the meeting, but no date has been set, he said.
“We expect it to be frank, we expect it to be long, we expect it to be revealing,” Vaidhyanathan said. “We expect to press the rector on specifics — no weasel words, jargon, or Jefferson quotes — to get to the clear articulation of what she wants out of the university.”
He said that the secretive nature of the proceedings and Sullivan’s removal before she had a chance to succeed or fail injure the university’s reputation.
But, he said, looking to the future, “our biggest concern is that the interim president that has faith of faculty and public, and the process for selecting the new president goes on openly, with deliberation and full consideration of the sort of qualities that make an outstanding academic leader.”
