Letters
Dublin Core
Title
Letters
Subject
Student admittance on the Board of Visitors
Description
A letter to the editor in response to a previously written article regarding Mary Washington College students' struggles for more power. Specifically addressing the significance of students being members of the Board of Visitors.
Creator
Mello, Michael A.
Source
Mello, Michael A. "Letters". Mary Washington College Bullet, Tuesday, November 1, 1977, Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957 - 2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1977-11-01
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
2 JPG
300 dpi
Language
English
Coverage
Fredericksburg, VA
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Dear Editor:
Sue Peters made several astute observations in her editorial "The Hopeless Quest for Student Power" (October 18, 1977). She proved that "economic force will not be effective in our quest for authority"; her rejection of violence is equally valid. However, I must disagree with the basic these of her piece: that having a student on the Board of Visitors would not enhance our position vis-a-vis the administration.
Miss Peter's statement that "power is not totally in the hands of the administration" is incorrect. The deans of the college are the administrators that most directly affect our lives, but they are elected by the President: a B.O.V resolution of February 8, 1975 states that "the President shall be the chief executive, administrative, and academic officer of the College, and as such he hereby is authorized, directed and empowered to appoint and employ, upon such terms as he shall think best, such administrative and staff personnel as he shall deem proper- to fix their duties and functions, and to discharge and such appointee or employee."
So it would seem, at first glance, that the President is the real source of power here; this is not the case, however. He exercises his powers on "behalf of the Rector and Visitors of Mary Washington College." The President himself is thus only a conduit of power: it is the Board which, according to Section 23-91.40 of the Code of Virginia, has the power to "control and expend the funds of the College... make all needful rules and regulations... appoint the President... and all teachers, and fix their salaries." And yet even the Board is not the final reservoir of campus power. Section 23-91.34 of the Code of Virginia states that the B.O.V. is "under the control of the General Assembly." The General Assembly created the Board in 1972; it defined its role and powers; it can modify that role anytime it sees fit to do so. THAT is where the final source of power is, not in Fredericksburg at all, but rather, in Richmond.
There presently exists a student organization which has as its purpose the presentation of M.W.C. student views to the General Assembly: the Student Lobby. The Lobby has been extremely active since it was founded; moreover, it has met with much success in its efforts. Recall the HB547 was defeated last year. The specific concept of student representation of the B.O.V. has had its advocates some delegates in the Assembly Representative Ira Lechner introduced a Bill (HB2044) on January 24 of this year, which would have put a student on the Board of all state-supported colleges and universities. The bill provided that "the student member shall have the same powers and duties and shall be subject to the same liabilities as any other member of the Board." The bill was defeated, but perhaps if the entire network of state student lobbies concerted their efforts (as they successfully did with HB547), a similar proposal might fare better in the future. Certainly it seems incorrect to say that "there is no reason to bring up the possibilities of student representation," as Miss Peters did.
She further states that "power is never given, it must be taken." This is certainly true; none will voluntarily surrender power. But it is for this very reason that we must petition the General Assembly. The administration is not likely to give us power parity with themselves; nor is the Board. So we must raise our sights higher and take our case to the delegates in Richmond. They are the only ones who might change the power relationship here by putting a student on the B.O.V.
So the possibility of getting a student on the Board, is not as Miss Peters suggests, impossible. But the question still remains: is it desirable to have a student on that body? She thinks not: "the final goal is power, specifically the power to make necessary changes in our academic environment without capricious veto by the administration. One student on a large Board of Visitors would hardly obtain this power...it would bring us no closer to the final goal of self-determination." I disagree. Having a student on the highest operational governing body of the school would greatly increase our position. It would do so in two ways. Firstly, it would guarantee that at least one student view would be heard; at present, it is too easy for the Board to simply shun student opinions (particularly during deliberation).
The infrequent, limited output we now have with that body which so affects our everyday lives can be no substitute for the guaranteed continuous student input that a student member of the B.O.V. would provide. This would give us power; not the naked, coercive power of the mob, but rather the power of democracy, the power to actively take part in the decisions which affect us. When one group that has been previously totally subservient to another is allowed into the councils of its masters as co-equal, it has gained power.
Secondly, a program like that proposed by Delegate Lechner would give the student member full voting privileges. There are presently 12 members on the Board; a student on the body could be the tie-breaking vote. True, we would only compose 1/3 of the total vote; but our power would still be increased from what it is now.
To take an analogous example blacks compose only 11% of the population in the U.S., yet their acquisition of the vote certainly gave them increased power. Of course this principle followed by its extreme would give the students about 85% of the vote on the Board, faculty about 10% and administration about 5%. But that is a different issue altogether.
Having one student on the B.O.V. would not instantly give us all that we want; it would not give us "self-determination." But it certainly would be a step in that direction. At the very least, it would give us a real voice on the largest conduit of campus power. The thing about Miss Peter's editorial that bothered me the most was that she offered no alternatives of her own. Until something better is suggested, I shall continue to support the principles embodied in HB2044.
Respectfully,
Michael Mello
Sue Peters made several astute observations in her editorial "The Hopeless Quest for Student Power" (October 18, 1977). She proved that "economic force will not be effective in our quest for authority"; her rejection of violence is equally valid. However, I must disagree with the basic these of her piece: that having a student on the Board of Visitors would not enhance our position vis-a-vis the administration.
Miss Peter's statement that "power is not totally in the hands of the administration" is incorrect. The deans of the college are the administrators that most directly affect our lives, but they are elected by the President: a B.O.V resolution of February 8, 1975 states that "the President shall be the chief executive, administrative, and academic officer of the College, and as such he hereby is authorized, directed and empowered to appoint and employ, upon such terms as he shall think best, such administrative and staff personnel as he shall deem proper- to fix their duties and functions, and to discharge and such appointee or employee."
So it would seem, at first glance, that the President is the real source of power here; this is not the case, however. He exercises his powers on "behalf of the Rector and Visitors of Mary Washington College." The President himself is thus only a conduit of power: it is the Board which, according to Section 23-91.40 of the Code of Virginia, has the power to "control and expend the funds of the College... make all needful rules and regulations... appoint the President... and all teachers, and fix their salaries." And yet even the Board is not the final reservoir of campus power. Section 23-91.34 of the Code of Virginia states that the B.O.V. is "under the control of the General Assembly." The General Assembly created the Board in 1972; it defined its role and powers; it can modify that role anytime it sees fit to do so. THAT is where the final source of power is, not in Fredericksburg at all, but rather, in Richmond.
There presently exists a student organization which has as its purpose the presentation of M.W.C. student views to the General Assembly: the Student Lobby. The Lobby has been extremely active since it was founded; moreover, it has met with much success in its efforts. Recall the HB547 was defeated last year. The specific concept of student representation of the B.O.V. has had its advocates some delegates in the Assembly Representative Ira Lechner introduced a Bill (HB2044) on January 24 of this year, which would have put a student on the Board of all state-supported colleges and universities. The bill provided that "the student member shall have the same powers and duties and shall be subject to the same liabilities as any other member of the Board." The bill was defeated, but perhaps if the entire network of state student lobbies concerted their efforts (as they successfully did with HB547), a similar proposal might fare better in the future. Certainly it seems incorrect to say that "there is no reason to bring up the possibilities of student representation," as Miss Peters did.
She further states that "power is never given, it must be taken." This is certainly true; none will voluntarily surrender power. But it is for this very reason that we must petition the General Assembly. The administration is not likely to give us power parity with themselves; nor is the Board. So we must raise our sights higher and take our case to the delegates in Richmond. They are the only ones who might change the power relationship here by putting a student on the B.O.V.
So the possibility of getting a student on the Board, is not as Miss Peters suggests, impossible. But the question still remains: is it desirable to have a student on that body? She thinks not: "the final goal is power, specifically the power to make necessary changes in our academic environment without capricious veto by the administration. One student on a large Board of Visitors would hardly obtain this power...it would bring us no closer to the final goal of self-determination." I disagree. Having a student on the highest operational governing body of the school would greatly increase our position. It would do so in two ways. Firstly, it would guarantee that at least one student view would be heard; at present, it is too easy for the Board to simply shun student opinions (particularly during deliberation).
The infrequent, limited output we now have with that body which so affects our everyday lives can be no substitute for the guaranteed continuous student input that a student member of the B.O.V. would provide. This would give us power; not the naked, coercive power of the mob, but rather the power of democracy, the power to actively take part in the decisions which affect us. When one group that has been previously totally subservient to another is allowed into the councils of its masters as co-equal, it has gained power.
Secondly, a program like that proposed by Delegate Lechner would give the student member full voting privileges. There are presently 12 members on the Board; a student on the body could be the tie-breaking vote. True, we would only compose 1/3 of the total vote; but our power would still be increased from what it is now.
To take an analogous example blacks compose only 11% of the population in the U.S., yet their acquisition of the vote certainly gave them increased power. Of course this principle followed by its extreme would give the students about 85% of the vote on the Board, faculty about 10% and administration about 5%. But that is a different issue altogether.
Having one student on the B.O.V. would not instantly give us all that we want; it would not give us "self-determination." But it certainly would be a step in that direction. At the very least, it would give us a real voice on the largest conduit of campus power. The thing about Miss Peter's editorial that bothered me the most was that she offered no alternatives of her own. Until something better is suggested, I shall continue to support the principles embodied in HB2044.
Respectfully,
Michael Mello
Original Format
Newspaper
Contributor of the Digital Item
Perrigan, Christina
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Mello, Michael A., “Letters,” HIST299, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/49.