University of Virginia Library

BOARD OF VISITORS
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
CHARLOTTESVILLE
22903
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE
NOMINATION OF A PRESIDENT
14 September 1973

Report of the Special Committee on the Nomination of a President to the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia

On 2 February 1973 President Edgar F. Shannon, Jr. informed the Board of Visitors of his intention to resign from the position of President of the University of Virginia effective in August 1974. Subsequently, the Rector of the University initiated the procedures previously provided for nominating a successor in the Manual For The Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia, 1966, as amended. Specifically, Section 4.12 of the Manual states:

Whenever the office of the President becomes vacant or a vacancy is impending, the Rector shall appoint a Special Committee on the Nomination of a President from among the membership of the Board to seek and recommend to the Board a person to fill the vacancy. This special committee shall be under the chairmanship of the Rector, and the committee shall consist of no fewer than five members.

Accordingly, the Rector appointed the following members of the Board of Visitors to serve with him as the Special Committee on the Nomination of a President. These six Visitors, in addition to the Rector, were: (1)C. Waller Barrett, (2)J. Hartwell Harrison, M.D., (3)W. Wright Harrison, (4)Lawrence Lewis, Jr., (5)William S. Potter, and (6)Donald E. Santarelli.

Organizing the Search

The First Meeting of the Special Committee was held on 14 February 1973. The Secretary to the Special Committee, who had been elected as the first order of business, was asked to report on the procedures used by the Special Committee of the Board of Visitors under the chairmanship of Rector Frank Talbott, Jr. in its search for a successor to President Colgate W. Darden, Jr. in 1958 and 1959. We wish to say at the outset that the experience of that Committee was most helpful to us in organizing our work.

The Special Committee then turned to the ways by which the assistance of the faculty, students, alumni, and friends of the University could best be secured in the nominating process. As a result of this meeting, the Rector on 16 February 1973 wrote to the Chairman of the University Faculty Senate and the President of the Student Council asking each of those bodies to select a committee to provide assistance in nominating the fifth President of the University. These letters requested the two committees: (1) to prepare a report on the qualifications of a President and on the office of the President, especially as to the needs of the University during the next ten to fifteen years; and (2) to serve as committees to screen and classify the names of individuals which came to the attention of the Special Committee.

On that same date, 16 February 1973, the Rector wrote a letter to the President of the University of Virginia Alumni Association asking the assistance and guidance of this special segment of the University family. Specifically, the President of the Alumni Association was requested to bring the matter to the attention of the Board of Managers of the Association and to publicize in the Alumni News the need for suggestions of individuals for the Presidency. Also, a letter was addressed on that same date to the Chancellor of Clinch Valley College of the University of Virginia requesting his assistance and that of his faculty in suggesting nominees.

On 6 March 1973, the Rector wrote to forty-five institutions in the United States holding membership in the Association of American Universities, of which the University of Virginia has been a long-time and active member, asking the Presidents of those institutions to suggest the names of individuals who might be considered for the Presidency. Special requests for nominees were made to the entire faculty of the University of Virginia on two occasions.

While the names of nominees were being forwarded to the office of the Secretary to the Special Committee, the Faculty Senate Committee and the Student Committee met frequently and spent long hours developing reports on the qualifications of a President and the office of the President. The Faculty Senate Committee, previously elected by the University Faculty Senate, organized on 7 March 1973. It was composed of eleven members, three of whom were from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and one member from each of the remaining eight schools of the University. Likewise, on 27 February 1973 the Student Committee, composed of fourteen members, one of whom, the new President of the Student Council to be elected at the April student elections constituted an at-large member on the committee, was selected by the Student Council.

On 16 April 1973 the Special Committee at its Second Meeting consulted separately with the Faculty Senate Committee and the Student Committee. At that time, the Rector summarized the work to be done by each committee and requested that their reports on the qualifications of a President and the office of the President be submitted to the Special Committee not later than 4 May 1973. In addition, he requested that each committee's screening efforts be completed and the results submitted to the Special Committee not later than 1 June 1973.

The Reports of the Faculty and Student Committees

The reports of the two committees were submitted to the Special Committee as requested on 4 May 1973. The Faculty Report was entitled A Report from the University Faculty Senate Committee to the Special Committee of the Board of Visitors on the Nomination of a President. The Student Committee's report bore the title of A Report from the Student Committee to the Special Committee of the Board of Visitors on the Nomination of a President. While the Special Committee does not necessarily endorse all the views expressed in these reports, each of these documents in its own distinctive way was most helpful in guiding the members of the Special Committee as they set about the task of finding a person they could unanimously propose to the Board of Visitors for the position of President of the University.

The report of the Faculty Senate Committee, which is attached to this report as Appendix A, singled out certain attributes which it felt should be possessed by the person selected to be President. These were administrative ability and academic experience, "an articulate and persuasive spokesman" for the University before the public, and high personal standards. As the Faculty Senate Report said: "Above all, the President, in character, personality, and style, must project the proper image of the University of Virginia." As regards administrative ability, the report noted that the University of Virginia is a large and complex organization of which the President is the chief administrative officer and went on to say: "It is his responsibility to see that this organization runs smoothly and efficiently. He must understand the processes of academic administration and decision-making and provide such leadership that these processes are carried out successfully. He must have the ability to choose competent associates, be willing to delegate authority to them, and stand ready to accept responsibility for their decisions. His approach to administration should not be bureaucratic or authoritarian, but rather he should be able to achieve results in the context of the University's participatory decision-making custom in a manner that will not alienate his various constituents: the faculty, students, alumni, and citizens of Virginia."

In addition to administrative skills, the Faculty Senate Committee expressed the view that academic experience was a necessary qualification for the Presidency. "It would be difficult, if not impossible," the Faculty Senate Committee report continued, "for a person who was not familiar with academic institutions to administer such an institution successfully. Furthermore, the President must understand the faculty point of view and, as the senior faculty member, have the full respect and confidence of his faculty and students. ... He must have acceptable credentials in his area of intellectual endeavor, and he must have a strong commitment to high quality education. While it is not necessary that he be an internationally recognized scholar of the very highest order, he should have undergone the discipline of engaging in some significant intellectual effort." The report concluded on this point that "the selection of a new President should not be approached as a choice between an administrator or an academician. The President should be both."

Likewise of immense value to the Special Committee was the report of the Student Committee which is appended to this report as Appendix B. That committee in speaking of the Presidency labeled it as an office of "extreme importance, not only to the University, but also to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The University's position within the State" the Student Committee said, "has been and continues to be unique, and the President must reflect the University's character both in his private and public images. ... the Committee hopes that each potential candidate might be reviewed on the basis of that combination of qualities or attributes which would make him the most appropriate choice." In speaking of these qualities the Student Committee noted that "The next President will most certainly have to be responsive to both student and faculty problems. He will certainly have to be a person of stature who will command respect not only at the University but throughout the State. He must be an administrator capable of directing the University and of securing the necessary funds both from the state legislature and from private sources to further the University's ambitions in its search for excellence."

Moreover, the Student Committee held that "the most important qualification for a potential candidate should be his personality. The President of the University is a public figure and as such conveys this image of the University wherever he is present. The President should be able to command respect if not agreement among diverse constituencies. We seek a candidate who is honest, innovative and one who strives for a personal contact between himself and all sectors of the University."

As might be expected, the Student Committee gave special attention to the next President's relations with the student body. The committee summarized its view in the statement that "The President should also be firmly committed to the concept of student self-government and participation in the decision-making processes of the University. To do this he must: (1) constantly take a strong public stand in support of the Honor System and render all possible assistance to student leaders so that it will remain safe from attacks from outside the University; (2) make sure that the University committee structure provides a meaningful system for both student and faculty input in the administrative decisions of the University; and (3) actively seek input from student leaders concerning the problems which students face. In every sense of the word he should be 'concerned' with students and student input."

Concluding on this aspect, the Student Committee stated that "The next President must also strive to attain even higher levels of academic excellence at the University. He should continue to insist on the importance of out-of-state students and use his influence to preserve the national character of the University. At the same time he should recognize the responsibility of the University to the State in providing education to those from all socio-economic levels. He should firmly commit the University to the increased recruitment of minority students."

The Student Committee report also spoke of the President's primary role in the recruitment and retention of distinguished faculty, the President's duties with respect to representation before the people of Virginia, and the need for innovative skills in meeting the educational needs of the future.

At the meeting of the Board of Visitors on 1 June 1973 the Rector reported publicly on the general progress of the Special Committee and praised the faculty and student committees on their reports.

The Screening Process

As specific names were provided the Special Committee, biographical data was assembled and transmitted to both the Faculty Senate Committee and the Student Committee for classification in terms of the qualifications of the nominees. The total number of names that came to the attention of the Special Committee was 159 and consisted of persons from all over the United States. A number of teachers now on the University faculty were included on the list along with other individuals of the widest diversity in professional and occupational backgrounds.

The Third Meeting of the Special Committee was held on 1 June 1973 and was devoted for the most part to a preliminary examination of the biographical data of the individuals whose names had been submitted. At this meeting agreement was reached that all the biographical data would be examined by each member of the Special Committee in order to be better prepared for discussion of the screening reports of the Faculty Senate Committee and the Student Committee at the next meeting of the Special Committee.

The Fourth Meeting of the Special Committee was held on 12 June 1973. At this meeting, and after an extensive examination of those individuals who had been placed on the preferred list by the Faculty Senate Committee and the Student Committee, the Special Committee tentatively reduced the number of persons on the preferred list to ten. Also, the Student Committee, which had included fourteen names on its list in comparison with the twenty names submitted by the Faculty Senate Committee, was asked to expand the number of names above the original fourteen. Six additional names, though not without reservations, were submitted by two members of the Student Committee on 18 June 1973.

The expanded list of names occupied the attention of the Special Committee at its Fifth Meeting on 18 July 1973. The list was examined in depth and was reduced to six individuals who resided in different parts of the country. After discussion, it was decided that preliminary interviews of these six individuals would be conducted by teams consisting of two members of the Special Committee. Four of the six individuals were accorded such an interview. A fifth person was interviewed in Washington, D. C. The sixth person declined an interview because of his wish to retire from a current academic administrative assignment to return to full-time teaching and research. One person from out of state came to Charlottesville for a view of the University and the community. Of the five individuals given a preliminary interview, three were invited to attend the next meeting of the Special Committee.

These three individuals appeared separately before the Special Committee at its Sixth Meeting on 14 August 1973. An entire day was devoted to these three interviews. At the conclusion of the interviews, the Special Committee agreed to propose a nominee at its next meeting.

The Seventh Meeting of the Special Committee was held on 5 September 1973. Early in this meeting it was decided to reduce the number of persons under consideration to two. The merits of these two individuals were again considered after which a poll of the Special Committee was conducted by secret ballot. The result was a unanimous vote to propose to the Board of Visitors the nominee we shall shortly present and to ask that the Special Committee, having completed its labors, be discharged.

Our decision has by no means been an easy one; members of the Special Committee have spoken on a number of occasions during our deliberations of the special kind of agony involved in making its selection. Nevertheless, guided most helpfully by the reports of the Faculty Senate Committee and the Student Committee and by views expressed to us by members of the University community, we now come to the Board of Visitors with the nominee whom we hope will be elected as the fifth President of the University in a lineage of office previously and presently graced by Presidents Edwin A. Alderman, John Lloyd Newcomb, Colgate W. Darden, Jr., and Edgar F. Shannon, Jr.

The Nominee

Our nominee is Frank Loucks Hereford, Jr., Robert C. Taylor Professor of Physics here at the University.

Frank Hereford was born in Lake Charles, Louisiana on 18 July 1923. He is the son of the late Frank L. and Marguerite Roussel Hereford and was married to Ann Lane on 3 January 1948. They have four children, two boys and two girls.

Frank Hereford graduated from Florida Military Academy (FMA) in June 1940 and entered the University of Virginia in September of that year from which he graduated with a B.A. degree in 1943. His decision to enter the University was greatly influenced by a mathematics teacher, the late E. S. Ligon, at FMA who was an alumnus of the University. His Ph.D. degree in Physics was awarded by the University of Virginia in 1947. He was a physicist on a research project for the Office of Scientific Research and Development, 1942-1943, and served during that same year as an Instructor in Physics at the University of Virginia. He was an Instructor in the Pre-Meteorology School of the Army Air Force in 1943, a physicist for the Bureau of Ordnance, U. S. Navy, in 1943-1945, a National Research Fellow, 1946-1947, and a physicist for the Bartol Research Foundation during 1947-1949. While at the University of Virginia he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, Omicron Delta Kappa, and the Raven Society.

Frank Hereford's formal academic career here at the University began with his election as Associate Professor of Physics in 1949. Three years later he was promoted to Professor of Physics and occupied that position from 1952 to 1966. In the latter year he was singled out for special distinction by being elected Robert C. Taylor Professor of Physics, a position which he still holds. He was a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Birmingham in England during 1957-1958 and a Visiting Professor at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland during 1971-1972. His academic administrative experience at the University of Virginia has been as extensive as has his teaching and research. He was appointed by President Shannon as Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in 1962. In 1966, Mr. Hereford was named Provost, the chief academic officer after the President. Four years later he became the first occupant of the position of Vice-President and Provost. He remained in this position until 1971 when he returned to full-time teaching and research in the Department of Physics.

In acceding to Mr. Hereford's desire to return to teaching and research, President Shannon said in a letter of 14 September 1970 that "No member of the faculty or staff has had a greater influence upon the University's policies and development." President Shannon went on to say that Mr. Hereford had a leading part in obtaining "major development grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation and for the establishment and development of the Center of Advanced Studies." He said, in conclusion, that Mr. Hereford's purpose had been "to retain at the University its best talent and to draw to it the most talented scholars, teachers, and scientists from elsewhere in America and abroad." The present academic vitality of the University, Mr. Shannon said, is a measure of Mr. Hereford's success in that effort.

A number of outstanding awards have been made to Mr. Hereford. In 1946, a year before he received his Ph.D. at the University of Virginia, he won the U. S. Naval Ordnance Development Award. In 1953 he received the Horsley Research Award from the Virginia Academy of Science. For three successive years, 1954, 1955, and 1956, he was a member of the National Science Foundation Fellowship Committee. Three years later he served on the NATO Postdoctoral Fellowship Committee. He was Chairman of the Southeastern Section of the American Physical Society in 1962-1963, and won the Forty-Fourth Annual President and Visitors' Research Prize awarded by the Virginia Chapter of Sigma Xi in 1968. His extensive services to the University in teaching, research, and administration were recognized in 1966 when he received the Thomas Jefferson Award, perhaps the most coveted award the University can bestow.

Throughout Mr. Hereford's academic career, he has published extensively in the field of Physics. His first article appeared in the Journal of Applied Physics in 1947 and he has published one or more articles every year for a total of more than sixty since that time including 1973, with two exceptions. No one is better qualified to testify to his scholarly production than Jesse W. Beams, an internationally known scientist, formerly Francis H. Smith Professor of Physics, and now Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University. In a letter dated 6 July 1973 to the Special Committee, Mr. Beams wrote that Frank Hereford "had one of the highest graduate scholastic records ever made in the Department of Physics at Virginia and is one of the best all around physicists with whom I have ever been associated."

Mr. Beams continued: Frank Hereford "has been a consistent and productive scholar during his entire scientific career. He has made several very important contributions to Physics, but I will list only three to illustrate the high stature of his work... (1) he pioneered many of the principles that are now employed in the modern multibillion bolt linear accelerators used for research in high energy physics; (2) he is the co-discoverer [with M. A. Pomerantz, now Director of the Bartol Research Foundation] of the presence of heavy particles striking the earth from outer space. Special interest in these particles has since developed in connection with space exploration and in modern theories of the universe; and (3) his more recent pioneering work on the behavior of electrons and radiation in liquid helium down to within 0.3 degrees absolute temperature already has stimulated much research and theory in low temperature physics."

Mr. Hereford acquits himself well when measured against the qualifications set forth in the reports of the Faculty Senate Committee and the Student Committee. He amply meets the standards proposed by the Faculty Senate Committee of having "undergone the discipline of engaging in some significant intellectual effort." He has "acceptable credentials in his area of intellectual endeavor and . . . a strong commitment to high quality education." He is not only familiar with educational institutions but his career as a teacher and an administrator at the University of Virginia is in line with the statement of the Faculty Senate Committee that "the selection of a new President should not be approached as a choice between an administrator or an academician. The President should be both."

Likewise, he more than adequately meets the qualifications set forth in the report of the Student Committee. He is "a person of stature who will command respect not only of the University but throughout the State." His experience in academic administration, moreover, qualifies him at a very high level as, in the words of the Student Committee, "an administrator capable of directing the University in the securing of the necessary funds both from the State Legislature and from private sources to further the University's ambitions in its search for excellence." In addition, no better person could be selected who would support in full measure the Student Committee's statement that the President must "constantly take a strong public stand in support of the Honor System and render all possible assistance to student leaders so that it will remain safe from attacks from outside the University."

Mr. Hereford's scholarly and administrative achievements in a very real sense almost speak for themselves. He is indeed highly qualified for the position of President of the University of Virginia. We would like, however, to call your attention to the fact that he would have at his side his lovely wife, Ann, and their fine family. No one who has observed to any degree a University President in action would question the necessity for a strong helpmate in undertaking the tasks that a President has to assume.

For all these reasons, therefore, we come to you unanimously and enthusiastically with the proposal that you adopt the following resolution:

RESOLVED by The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia that Frank Loucks Hereford, Jr. be and he is hereby elected President of the University of Virginia, effective 1 September 1974.

APPENDIX A

A REPORT FROM THE
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE
TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE BOARD OF VISITORS
ON THE NOMINATION OF A PRESIDENT
May 4, 1973

Pursuant to the request of the Rector of the University, this initial report deals with two matters: (1) the Office of the President of the University of Virginia, and (2) the qualities which the next President should possess and the criteria by which he should be selected.

The committee has engaged in extensive conversations with more than half a dozen key administrators within the University, and it has studied the report submitted to the Board in July, 1958, by our predecessor committee of the University Senate. Suggestions have been invited and received from the General Faculty. Just as the committee of fifteen years ago could note the high order of statesmanship of President Darden's administration so can this committee note with pride the University's academic advancements during the administration of President Shannon. Observing that these two presidents were unlike in background and personality and yet both successfully filled the office, the committee concludes that their successor need not resemble either so long as he embodies the essential qualities outlined below.

While the fundamental qualities needed in the University President remain essentially what they were seen to be in 1958, developments in the intervening years and the circumstances likely to confront the University in the near future require some alterations in priorities as to certain characteristics. In the main this is a matter of a shift of emphasis. This report attempts to identify in general terms the duties which belong to the office of the President of the University of Virginia and, stemming from these, the qualifications to which special attention should be given in seeking a new President.

I. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

The President's general responsibilities can be divided into two groups.

A. The President must work to preserve and enhance the distinctive character of the University of Virginia. In doing so he should promote the following traditional values (listed in no set order of priority):

--academic quality; primacy of the intellectual enterprise.

--sense of integrity and mutual trust embodied in the Honor System.

--good learning climate fostered by easy, personal relationships among students and faculty; undergraduate instruction participated in by faculty of all ranks.

--widespread student participation in athletics for the benefits of sportsmanship and physical development.

--participatory decision-making, involving faculty and students to a significant degree in important policy decisions.

--a national posture with a substantial out-of-state enrollment.

--a physical environment aesthetically pleasing and congenial to the development of the mind and to the life of an academic community.

Pressures are at work which threaten these distinctive qualities of University life. The new President must have the ability to detect those threats and the persuasiveness and strength of character to resist them successfully. One who has been a student or a faculty member in the University is more likely to understand these qualities--and be committed to them--than one who has had no connection with the institution. The committee would not make a connection with the University an essential requirement. In any case only very thorough interviewing will be capable of revealing a candidate's commitment to the traditional values listed above and his qualifications for enhancing them.

B. At the same time, the President must meet new circumstances with innovative skill. These circumstances include:

--coeducation.

--growing numbers of black students.

--tightening of governmental funding, state and federal, and the increased use of formula funding by the state.

--slowing of the growth rate to the point of steady size.

--pressures for increases in in-state enrollment.

--pressures for winning athletic teams at the expense of academic quality and traditional University values.

--more stringent standards for faculty promotions and tenure which may in turn give rise to movements for new forms of decision-making or for collective bargaining.

--demand for new forms of measurement of faculty productivity and accountability.

--insistence by taxpayers for cost effectiveness in public higher education.

--the creation, growth, and development of other state institutions of higher learning.

--the demand for non-resident degrees and other new forms of continuing education.

--rising demands for services to community and state.

--physical dispersion of components of the University away from the central grounds.

These conditions, singly and in combination, will call for innovative responses if they are to be dealt with in a way that maintains the primary intellectual mission of the University while also preserving its distinctive character and sense of community. Thus the person selected should be one who has demonstrated creative thought and a willingness to innovate, along with evidence of an understanding of and attachment to our traditional University values. He must be able to exert a progressive leadership which is also appropriate, in substance and in tone, to the University of Virginia. While he must meet new conditions imaginatively, he must effectively guide a consolidation and assimilation of the growth of the past decade.[1]

II. QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

The committee here sets forth, in three parts, the qualities, talents, and attitudes (in addition to those mentioned above in connection with the duties of the Presidency) which should be possessed by the person selected to be President.

A. Administrative Ability and Academic Experience

These two qualifications are listed together in order to emphasize their equal importance. The President must be a capable administrator, but he must also be highly sensitive to academic values and familiar with academic procedures.

1. Administrative Ability

The University of Virginia is a large and complex organization, and the President is the chief administrative officer. It is his responsibility to see that this organization runs smoothly and efficiently. He must understand the processes of academic administration and decision-making and provide such leadership that these processes are carried out successfully. He must have the ability to choose competent associates, be willing to delegate authority to them, and stand ready to accept responsibility for their decisions. His approach to administration should not be bureaucratic or authoritarian, but rather he should be able to achieve results in the context of the University's participatory decision-making custom in a manner that will not alienate his various constituents: the faculty, students, alumni, and citizens of Virginia. While actual administrative experience in an institution of higher education is useful, such is not essential so long as there is evidence of the requisite administrative talent.

2. Academic Experience

It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a person who was not familiar with academic institutions to administer such an institution successfully. Furthermore, the President must understand the faculty point of view and, as the senior faculty member, have the full respect and confidence of his faculty and students. It is unlikely that one who has not had experience on an academic faculty will satisfy this requirement. He must have acceptable credentials in his area of intellectual endeavor, and he must have a strong commitment to high quality education. While it is not necessary that he be an internationally recognized scholar of the very highest order, he should have undergone the discipline of engaging in some significant intellectual effort. Apart from intellectual accomplishments, a recognition of intellectual standing would be helpful in assuring faculty that he has an understanding of and a commitment to the values of higher education.

The committee believes that the selection of a new President should not be approached as a choice between an administrator or an academician. The President should be both.

B. Representing the University

The President is the official spokesman for the University and represents the University before the public. He must be an articulate and persuasive spokesman.

At the present time there seems to be fairly widespread disenchantment with higher education and its goals. Thus it is crucial to have a president who can build our image in the public eye and amongst those parties concerned with providing funds for the University. In presenting the case for the University, the President must be politically astute and have a good sense of timing. He must win both respect and support for his ideas and the goals of the University. The President must have the flexibility and skill to interact with many different groups. It is especially important that he be able to convince legislators, state officials, alumni, and other private citizens of the desirability of the goals of the University. He must also have an enthusiasm for pursuing private financial support and an ability to obtain it, as private funding will be crucial to maintaining the margin of academic excellence. His skill in representing the University will be essential in preserving the leading role of this institution within the state system of higher education.

C. Essential Personal Attributes

While certain qualities of character and personality are so essential for the job that they can be assumed, the committee nevertheless think they are worth listing: integrity, good physical and mental health, energy, enthusiasm, unqualified dedication, a sense of humor. While arguments are made concerning an appropriate age for the President, his marital status, and geographical origin, the committee has not taken a position on those points. The individual must be even-tempered and able to function well amidst constant interruptions and multiple pressures. Above all, the President, in character, personality, and style, must project the proper image of the University of Virginia. Respectfully submitted,

The University Faculty Senate Committee on the Nomination of a President

William W. Abbot Department of History College of Arts & Sciences

Richard M. Brandt School of Education

Barbara Brodie School of Nursing

O. Whitfield Broome, Jr. School of Commerce

Judah M. Eisenberg Department of Physics College of Arts & Sciences

J. Shelton Horsley, III School of Medicine

William Rotch Graduate School of Business Administration

William Zuk School of Architecture

Daniel J. Meador School of Law Chairman

Avery Catlin School of Engineering & Applied Science Vice-Chairman

Robert Kellogg Department of English College of Arts & Sciences Secretary

Appendix A
The Overloaded Condition of the Presidency

The position of President is overloaded. The President has too many matters to deal with, too many decisions to make, too many public occasions to attend, too many ceremonial functions to perform. He has insufficient time for reflective thought, too little opportunity for planning. There is also evidence that communications within the University suffer because of this condition. There is need for improved coordination of fiscal and academic decisions before they reach the highest administrative levels.

While any relief which can be given the job will still leave it an unusually demanding position, some amelioration of the overload should be attempted. Two suggestions have been advanced:

1. Create a new administrative position directly under the President, e.g. an Executive Vice-President.

2. Provide relief from ceremonial duties by creating a new position, perhaps known as Chancellor, with the responsibilities of attending public occasions, performing ceremonial duties, and delivering speeches as the University's representative.

The creation of a new chief administrator under the President is favored by some but is opposed by others. Proliferation of administrators is disturbing to many faculty members; it further isolates the President from the faculty, and it tends to build a schism between faculty and administration which happily has been avoided here.

The creation of a ceremonial representative is an interesting innovation not yet tried by American universities, though this division of function is familiar in Britain. Such an office would require a distinguished figure of impressive credentials; he might be a retired faculty member or an eminent alumnus. Residence in Charlottesville seems necessary. This person would have no administrative authority; he would function at the President's direction. His substantive pronouncements would be written by or cleared with the office of the President.

The extent to which the problems stemming from overload are tied up with the personality and style of the one who is President is not clear. For that reason it seems wise not to decide what ameliorating steps should be taken until the new President has been in office at least a short while.

Appendix B
The President's Term

A presidential appointment for a stated term (5 to 7 years) subject to renewal, is an idea favored by a number of faculty members and administrators. The key administrative appointments within the University below the President are now made for five-year renewable terms. There is much to be said for putting the Presidency on that basis. Periodic assessment and renewal of appointment would give a renewed confidence and sense of purpose to the President, while the periodic suession of incumbts would make the change of Presidents, for whatever reason it came about, less traumatic for the University. Without taking a firm position, we bring this idea to the Board for its consideration.

APPENDIX B

A REPORT FROM THE STUDENT COMMITTEE
TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
BOARD OF VISITORS ON THE NOMINATION OF A PRESIDENT
MAY 4

This report represents the efforts and thoughts of the Student Committee on the Nomination of a President. The Committee has sought to present a student viewpoint on (1) what personal qualifications the next President of the University of Virginia should possess and (2) what problems he will face as well as tentative suggestions on their solution.

In the preparation of this report, the Committee has sought the ideas of students, faculty members, administrators, and alumni. Each of these groups expressed different concerns as to what the role of the President is or should be. This report attempts to express these concerns from the perspective of the Student Committee.

I. The Qualifications for the Office of the President

The Committee feels that the Office of President of the University of Virginia is one of extreme importance, not only to the University, but also to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The University's position within the State has been and continues to be unique, and the President must reflect the University's character both in his private and public images. The Student Committee does not feel, therefore, that it is appropriate or necessary to suggest restrictive qualifications at this time. Rather, the Committee hopes that each potential candidate might be reviewed on the basis of that combination of qualities or attributes which would make him the most appropriate choice.

There are certain qualities which are obviously desirable ones for the next President. The next President will most certainly have to be responsive to both student and faculty problems. He will certainly have to be a person of stature who will command respect not only at the University but throughout the State. He must be an administrator capable of directing the University and of securing the necessary funds both from the state legislature and from private sources to further the University's ambitions in its search for excellence.

To accomplish this, this Committee feels that the President should be approximately thirty-five to fifty-five years of age. He should have academic experience and should have attained a terminal degree in his field. He should have had experience with or exposure to professional schools. He should have administrative experience or have clearly demonstrated in his work an ability to lead and inspire others.

The Committee further feels that politicians or former politicians should be reviewed with great care. While the Committee feels that great emphasis should be placed on the President's ability to work effectively with the legislature, it recognizes that Virginia is no longer a one-party state. A person selected today because of his partisan ties with the party or persons in power might well find himself and the University without such ties in several years. The Committee is concerned that the disadvantages posed by such a situation may very well outweigh any immediate advantages such a candidate might provide.

An attribute which the Committee feels should be weighed favorably in the consideration of any potential candidate is his ability to relate to both the University and the Commonwealth of Virginia. This is not to imply that such a person must have attended the University or have been a resident of Virginia, but rather, that he appreciate the position of excellence and leadership which the University has long maintained among colleges and universities within Virginia and accept the University's goals in its role of service to the State and nation.

The most important qualification for a potential candidate should be his personality. The President of the University is a public figure and as such conveys this image of the University wherever he is present. The President should be able to command respect if not agreement among diverse constituencies. We seek a candidate who is honest, innovative and one who strives for a personal contact between himself and all sectors of the University.

II. The Role of the Presidency

The Student Committee has found it advantageous to divide the various duties of the President and the problems we feel he will have to face into four categories. These include athletics, the student body, the faculty, and relations with the state legislature.

THE PRESIDENT AND ATHLETICS

The Student Committee feels that the next President of the University should continue to build an athletic program which is competitive within our conference, but one which also places emphasis on building leadership characteristics in the individual participants rather than glory for the school. Athletic excellence isgoal to be relished and appreciated only after the athletes themselves are distinguished as leaders among their fellow students. The President must seek to implement a successful athletic program without sacrificing any of the academic standards which the University has maintained throughout its history.

The Committee feels that the next President should place renewed emphasis on the development of recreational facilities and programs, integrating athletics into all phases of student life, and that he should conscientiously coordinate the establishment of a fully developed inter-collegiate athletic program for women.

The Committee further recognizes the importance of the athletic programs at the University both in improving public relations and in obtaining financial aid for the University. Moreover, the Student Committee strongly urges that the President accept ultimate responsibility for all phases of the athletic program.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE STUDENT BODY

The students should be a major concern of the President. A student's educational experience depends on a mature and well-guided program under the President's direction. The rate of student growth has been a major concern in recent years. Uncontrolled expansion, with poor planning, produces overcrowded classes, intolerable living conditions, and an irreparable loss of community and personal interaction. The students at the University are concerned with this problem and will require the next President to be responsive to student efforts to maintain an environment of scholarly pursuit in conjunction with a meaningful living experience.

The President should also be firmly committed to the concept of student self-government and participation in the decision-making processes of the University. To do this he must:

1) Constantly take a strong public stand in support of the Honor System and render all possible assistance to student leaders so that it will remain safe from attacks from outside the University.

2) Make sure that the University committee structure provides a meaningful system for both student and faculty input in the administrative decisions of the University.

3) Actively seek input from student leaders concerning the problems which students face. In every sense of the word he should be "concerned" with students and student input.

The next President must also strive to attain even higher levels of academic excellence at the University. He should continue to insist on the importance of out-of-state students and use his influence to preserve the national character of the University. At the same time he should recognize the responsibility of the University to the State in providing education to those from all socio-economic levels. He should firmly commit the University to the increased recruitment of minority students.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE FACULTY

The President's role with regard to the faculty should consist of the following concerns and responsibilities:

President should accept personal responsibility for the e faculty. Realizing that a first-rate faculty makes university, the President should hold himself for seeing that the University of Virginia has the uished faculty possible. In this connection, the President should:

A) establish the highest standards for the faculty.

B) actively recruit Visiting Professors and seek funds to pay for Visiting Professorships

C) personally review all cases of hiring or firing faculty, as well as all cases of granting or with-holding tenure or promotions.

2) The President should make every effort to make the faculty feel that he is interested in each and every one of them and in the work that each of them is doing.

3)e President should commit the University to substantially the number of qualified "minority-group" professors on the.

4) The President should be concerned about broad areas of curriculum (i.e. the establishment of new areas of curriculum) but should not be concerned about the establishment of specific courses.

5) The President should be actively involved in securing funds for the construction of new facilities whenever such faciliare needed and should be constantly aware of what new ties are needed by the University and their priority.

6)President should be concerned about and should hold himseponsible for improving the low-status departments at the University so that all departments at the University are distinguished.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE LEGISLATURE

The new President's duties will certainly be many and varied, but none will be more important than his relationship with the state legislature. The demands on state funds by the community college system and four-year institutions will be great in coming years. Justifiable efforts to raise the funding levels of these institutions could result in decreased funding for the University. The President must be an articulate spokesman in Richmond to prevent such a decrease as well as an able fund raiser within the private community.

Perhaps the greatest attributes that the new President can have in regard to his duties in Richmond as well as to money raising in the private sector are personal integrity and articulateness. The individual legislators must respect the President, and they must know that his budget requests represent fairly the needs of the University. If the President can engender the trust and respect of the legislators, then they will be much more willing to listen to his requests and to expend the funds needed for the continued improvement of the University.

In the past, the President's duties required that he present to the legislature a very detailed report of the necessary allo for the University. The future, however, will no doubtand a different kind of presentation. The detailed work will still be necessary, but that will be done mainly by the Vice-President for financial affairs and his staff. The University's requests will be forwarded to the State Council of Higher Education, and there will be less chance for a detailed presentation by the President.

The new President, therefore, will have to be an advocate of the University's needs publicly rather than in his presentation to the legislature. The image that the President portrays of the University will be largely responsible for the funds that the University receives from the state. He must assure the legislature that the University is known throughout American colleges and universities as an excellent academic institution. He must convince the legislature that if the University is to remain nationally renowned, the State must give a financial fair share to it; at present state appropriations as a percentage of total University revenues are well below the national average for public universities. Equalization of Virginia's colleges and universities, achieved by averaging appropriations for all institutions, can only result in mediocrity; the President should work for the goal of increased appropriations for all institutions of higher learning.

The new President must be active in a number of other issues with which the legislature is concerned. He must strenuously oppose any attempt to legislate a limitation on the number of out-of-state students which we can admit. He must also fight a disturbing legislative trend toward equalization of per capita expenditures for graduate and undergraduate students; legislators must be convinced of the tremendous benefits which accrue to the state through strong graduate programs, benefits which fully justify adequate funding. Finally, while duplication of programs and resources must be avoided, the new President must resist attempts to centralize decision-making powers in the State Council of Higher Education and other state agencies. The traditional autonomy of educational institution in Virginia must be preserved.

In conclusion, the need for a President, gifted with the ability to publicly articulate the University's position, will become even more necessary as the state's bureaucracy becomes more complicated and the political leadership of the state becomes less stable. The President must be able to put forward a well-thought out program of development for the University with continued emphasis on the University's role as the leader of higher education in the State.