 | Board of Visitors minutes April 14, 1950 |  |
DEFINITION OF VIRGINIA STUDENT
A report was made by a special committee, consisting of Mr. Gravatt as chairman, Mrs.
Wailes, and Mr. Howard, which had been appointed to study the regulations concerning the classification
of students as Virginians or non-Virginians. The recommendations of the Committee, embodied
in the following report, were approved.
REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE UPON PROPOSED CHANGE IN
REGULATION FOR ADMISSION AS A VIRGINIA STUDENT
The act of the General Assembly adopted March 27, 1936 limiting and defining the powers
of the Board upon this subject is as follows.
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia, That no person shall be entitled
to the admission privileges, or the reduced tuition charges, or any other privileges accorded
by law only to residents or citizens of Virginia, in the State Universities, Colleges and
other institutions of higher learning unless such person has been a bona fide citizen or
resident of Virginia for a period of at least one year prior to admission to said institution,
provided that the governing boards of such institutions may require longer periods of residence
and may set up additional requirements for admitting students."
The present regulation adopted by the Board of Visitors June 15, 1925 is as follows
"Registration as Virginia Student. — In order to be considered a Virginia student,
it is necessary that the applicant's parents be domiciled in the State if he be
domiciled in the State; and that either his parents or the applicant for admission shall
have been a bona fide taxpayer in the State of Virginia for at least two years prior to
said application."
A new regulation suggested for adoption by Professor Charles P. Nash of the Law Faculty
is as follows:
"In order to be considered a Virginia student for any given semester, it is
necessary that the applicant be domiciled in the State of Virginia for at least one year
immediately preceding the beginning of said semester."
The changes effected by the suggested regulation are as follows
(1) Elimination of requirement that the applicant or his parents be taxpayers in the State
of Virginia.
(2) Elimination of any reference to the domicile of the applicant's parents.
(3) Elimination of any confusion as to the period of domicile necessary by definitely
fixing a one year period.
A letter of Professor Nash, dated October 31, 1949, addressed to the Rector is attached to
this report.
As to number (1) -
This committee concurs in the opinion of Professor Nash that the tax requirement of the
present regulation is of doubtful legality and should be omitted as a requirement for admission as
a Virginia student.
As to number (2) -
The committee is further of the opinion that the requirement that the applicant's parents
be domiciled in Virginia should be eliminated.
As a general rule the domicile of an infant follows that of his parents. It is recognized
that complications may arise where there is a divorce situation, orphanage or the like. There are
numerous cases involving such situations which will supply reasonable guidance for a fair and lawful
determination of the student's domicile in such situations which doubtless would be more satisfactory
than could be attained by any regulation which we might propose.
It is also to be noted that the act of the Assembly requires only, "that such person (the
applicant) has been" domiciled in Virginia "for a period of at least one year etc." The requirement,
therefore, by regulation of the Board, that both parents be domiciled in Virginia is of doubtful
legality except in so far as the domicile of the parents controls the domicile of a minor child.
As to number (3) -
Your committee is of the opinion that the domicile period should be definitely fixed in
any regulation adopted by the Board on this subject. The present situation of confusion results
from a failure to specify a definite minimum residence period and the additional requirement that
the parents or the applicant be taxpayers for a period of two years.
Your committee believes that since the act of the General Assembly requires only domicile
for one year that the Board should require in its regulation only a one year domicile period unless
there are substantial reasons for requiring a longer period of domicile. Your committee knows of
no such reasons and, therefore, recommends this change.
For the reasons above stated your committee recommends the adoption of the new regulation
as suggested by Professor Nash.
Department of Law
Charlottesville, Va.
October 31, 1949
Norfolk 10, Virginia
I have your letter of October 17th in regard to the University regulation which defines
Virginia students. A copy of the regulation which appeared for the first time in the University of
Virginia Record of 1925-26 is enclosed. I am also enclosing a copy of the Virginia statute of 1936
on the subject.
The statute requires that a person be domiciled in Virginia for at least one year in order
to be classified as a Virginia Student, with the proviso that the Board of Visitors may require a
longer period of residence (domicile). It is also provided that the Board may set up additional requirements
for admitting students.
The University regulation requires that the applicant be domiciled in Virginia, and that
the parents of the student be bona fide taxpayers to the State for at least two years prior to making
application for admission.
There seems to be only one case in which one of these university regulations was passed
upon by the Courts. The case is Bryan v. Regents of University of California (Cal.) 205 Pac. 1071.
The one year domicile requirement was upheld. The plaintiff, who had been domiciled in California
unreasonable. The Court referred to the California statute requiring domicile for one year as a
prerequisite to voting, which is similar to our Virginia statute.
It seems clear enough that the one year domicile requirement is valid. I have grave
doubts, however, as to the tax requirement. This part of the regulation may cause a person to
wait for about two and three-fourth years after he becomes a citizen of Virginia to be classified
as a Virginia student in the University. For example: X acquired a domicile in Virginia January
5, 1949. He would owe no taxes to the State in 1949. In 1950 he pays taxes to Virginia for
the first time. So after having a Virginia domicile and being a citizen of Virginia for about
two and three-fourth years he could be classified as a Virginia student. On the other hand,
another person who becomes domiciled in Virginia on January 1, 1950, about a year later than X,
could also be classified as a Virginia student in the fall of 1951.
The statute provides for (1) admission privileges, (2) reduced tuition charges, and
(3) any other privileges. The requirement of domicile for one year applies to all these privileges
and by the terms of the statute may be extended by the Board to a longer period. However,
the last clause of the statute ("and may set up additional requirements for admitting students")
refers only to admission privileges. A court might very well hold that even though the Board of
Visitors has power to extend the period of domicile as affecting the classification of students,
any additional requirements can affect only admission privileges.
It is my opinion that the regulation should be amended by omitting the tax requirement.
A suggested regulation is enclosed.
| Board of Visitors minutes April 14, 1950 | |