History of the BOV: Why They Are

History of the BOV: Why They Are

United States -- History

Micheal Mello article on the History of the Board of Visitors. Tell who they are, how they were formed, and what they do.

Mello, Michael A.

Mello, Michael A. "History of the BOV: Why They Are" The Bullet (VA), April 4, 1978

HIST 298, University of Mary Washington

1973-04-04

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.

2 JPG

300 dpi

English

Fredericksburg, VA

There is a gulf between the Board of Visitors and the students. THE BULLET, by closely examining the Board form in as many different aspects as possible over the period of several weeks, seeks to bridge the gap-the division between the group that holds the most power on campus and the group that holds the least. This inquiry should begin with an examination of the past in the hope of better understanding the present and dealing with the future.

There are two historical lines to trace in the etiology of the current concept of the Board of Visitors her at M.W.C. One begins in 1819 with the founding of the University of Virginia and the other, in 1908 with the creation of the State Normal and Industrial School for women, the first incarnation of the present day Mary Washington College. The two strands come together in 1944 when the passage of the McCue-Randolph Bill brought M.W.C. under the auspices of UVA and separate again in 1972 when Mary Washington College again becomes an autonomous institution.

The Act of the Virginia State Assembly that established the University of Virginia laid down in minute detail the powers, duties and responsibilities of its Board of Visitors: 1) the “erection, preservation and repair of the building, the care of the grounds and appurtenances and of the interests of the University generally” 2) the appointment of a “Bursar. Proctor and all other agents” 3) the “appointment and removal of all professor” 4) the establishment “of rules for the government and discipline of the student, not contrary to the laws of the land” 5) the “regulation of tuition fees and the rent of dormitories” 6) and in general, the direction of “all matters and things which, not being inconsistent with the laws of the land, to them shall seem most expedient for promoting the purposes of the said institution.” The seven members of the Board would be appointed by the Governor, subject to approval by the General Assembly, and they would elect a Rector from among their ranks.

The driving force behind the University was, of course. Thomas Jefferson; and the intellectual foundation of the institution was to a great extent attributed to him. In fact, the portions of the 1819 Act dealing with the B.O.V. were taken verbatim from a report written by Jefferson at Rockfish Gap in 1818. Thus, his views on higher education in general and the Board in particular provide a revealing insight insight into the theoretical framework behind the use of the whole concept of a governing Board of externally chosen nonacademic citizens as the ultimate authority in a university. In a speech on discipline at U.V.A, Jefferson said “the insubordination of our youth is now the greatest obstacle to their education. We may lessen the difficulty by avoiding too much government, by regulating no useless observances, none which shall merely multiply occasions for dissatisfaction, disobedience and revolt by referring to the more discreet of themselves the minor discipline, the greater to civil magistrate.” Specifically of the B.O.V., Jefferson writes in Rockfish Gap Report that “the best mode of government for youth, in large collections, is certainly a desideratum not yet attained with us. It may well be questioned whether fear, after a certain age, is the motive to which we should have ordinary recourse. The human character is susceptible to other incitement to correct conduct, more worthy of employ, and of better effect. Pride of character, laudable ambition and moral dispositions are innate correctives of the indiscretions of that lively age; and when strengthened by habitual appeal and exercise, have a happier effect on future character, than the degrading motive of fear. Harding them to disgrace, the corporal punishment and servile humiliations cannot be the best process for-producing erect character. It will be then for the wisdom of the Visitors to devise and perfect a proper system of government which, if founded in reason and comity will be more likely to nourish, in the minds of our youth, the combined spirit of order and self-respect, so congenial with our political institutions, and so important to be woven into the American character”

The institution which was in time to be known as Mary Washington College was founded 89 year after the University of Virginia. The General Assembly created the Virginia Normal and Industrial School for Women in Fredericksburg on March 4, 1908 and put it “under the supervision, management and government” of a Board of Trustees, to be appointed by the governor; by and with consent of the Senate.” The Act gave the Trustees the “right …to plead and be impleaded in courts, to receive all gifts, subscriptions, donations…the same to be held, invested distributed or expended for the best use and benefit of the school… and to exercise such other powers and do such other acts which are necessary and proper to accomplish the end for which said school…(was) created. Said trustees shall form time to time make all needful rules and compensation of teachers and employees… and prescribe the preliminary examinations and conditions upon which students shall be received therein.”

The Board of Trustees first met on April 27, 1908 and elected Rev.Sidney Peters as its first President. Three weeks later, the Board met again and elected Edward Hutson Russell as the first president of the school. Throughout 1909, the Board convened regularly to map out the course that the new school would follow. In December, it approved the contract for the dormitory and a few days later, two of its members appeared before the Senate Finance Committee in Richmond to request appropriations. At the February 21, 1911 meeting the Board elected the first faculty members. Events thus continued under the close supervision of the Board until the new normal school opened in September of 1911. The Board of Trustees was superseded in 1914 when, by order of the General Assembly, control of school was placed under a central Board of Visitors for the State Normal Schools for white women in Virginia. The new Board, which composed of twelve members, on form each congressional district and two form the state and large, had jurisdiction over all four normal schools in Virginia and was given the authority to “manage the affairs of the four institutions (at Fredericksburg, Harrisonburg, Radford and Farmville), appointing officers, teachers and employees.”

In 1924, the General Assembly changed the school’s status from a normal school to a teacher’s college. It also changed the name of the governing authority: the Virginia Normal School Board became the Board of Virginia Teacher’s Colleges. Edward Alvey, in The History of Mary Washington College, wrote that “the duties and rights of the new board, as enumerated in the new legislation, were almost identical to those of the former board.”

Control of the college shifted again in 1930 when the General Assembly abolished the Board of Virginia Teachers Colleges and transferred management of the four schools to the State Board of Education. This Board would continue to be the governing authority of the newly created Mary Washington College until it merged with the University of Virginia in 1911. As M.W.C grows so did sentiment to go the last mile and expand into a full-fledged liberal acts college for women. Early efforts to achieve this end had ended in failure in 1932 with Governor Pollard’s veto of the plan, but in 1943 a new governor, Colgate Darden, came out strongly in favor of consolidation. A bill incorporating Darden’s proposals was introduced into the General Assembly and it passed 88-2. It provide that “the supervision, management and control pass from the State Board of Education to the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia… that the president of the University of Virginia by the chancellor of Mary Washington College… and its chief administrative officer, and that the title of the chief local administrative office will be that of president.” M.W.C. would remain under the supervision, management and control of the UVA BOV for almost three decades.

MWC existed as female auxiliary of The University of Virginia. On Monday April 10, 1972, Governor Linwood Holton signed into law legislation that provided for the establishment of M.W.C. as a “complete autonomous institution with its own corporate governing board bearing the name the Rector and Board of Visitors of Mary Washington College. For the first time since 1914, the college was a self governing institute. In this respect the history of our own particulate board of B.O.V begins only six years ago.

Newspaper

Ammirati, Patrick

Williams, Megan