The Fallacy of “Shared Governance” at UVA: Part III

At UVA, “shared governance” is increasingly invoked, yet its meaning remains elusive. It is not a legal concept or historical norm, but has become a rhetorical tool used to push for expanded influence in university decisions. While faculty, staff, and students have defined roles, these do not include institutional governance. Calls for “shared governance” often seek authority beyond current legal and structural limits—without offering reciprocity. Faculty and students want input on Board of Visitors (BOV) decisions, but would resist any similar BOV involvement in their internal affairs.

This imbalance reveals a core contradiction: the demand for influence without the willingness to share power. A striking example of this clamor came last month from Ian Mullins, a sociology professor and union member, who insisted faculty, staff, students, and community members were “props” in the current presidential search. He called Paul Mahoney’s interim appointment “illegitimate” and urged a fight for shared governance. Yet his assertions were not based in reality. Earlier presidential committees (1973, 1984, 1989) actually had minimal or no non-BOV participation. In contrast, this 28-member committee drawing protestations currently includes more students and nearly the most faculty representation in UVA history. It is well within the BOV’s discretion –  the sole legal authority over presidential appointments – who are under no obligation to structure it differently or include anyone else.

If such a broadly representative committee can still be called illegitimate, what actual standard would satisfy current critics? And if faculty and students truly want binding power in these decisions, would they accept BOV influence in Faculty Senate elections, curriculum choices, or student-led bodies like the Honor Committee or Student Council? Almost certainly not.

Indeed, shared governance in these areas is a courtesy, not a legal right. It is not enshrined in any statute, nor structured reciprocally across any UVA entities:

• Faculty Senate: The BOV does not appoint its leaders and Senate leadership is elected by faculty. While the BOV grants a non-voting, advisory seat to the Faculty Senate, it has no decision-making power. The BOV holds no seat in return on the Faculty Senate committee.
  
  

• Student Council: Its leaders are elected by students. Like the Faculty Senate, it receives an advisory, non-voting seat on the BOV, but the BOV has no role in Student Council affairs and no reciprocal representation.
  
  

• Honor System & Judiciary Committee: These are entirely student-run, with leadership elected internally. The BOV has no seat or influence in their operations.

The current model gives faculty and students non-voting advisory roles on the BOV. Meanwhile, the BOV has no such presence in student or faculty governance bodies. If shared governance were truly mutual, the BOV could justifiably seek influence over faculty committees or student elections—an idea most would find unacceptable.

Faculty are employed to teach and conduct research; students to pursue education. Neither group governs the university. While UVA allows considerable student self-governance and consults faculty on academic matters, these are privileges, not entitlements. Neither group appoints deans, selects the Provost, or determines BOV membership. Calls for shared governance in executive decisions have no legal or structural basis. This one-way expectation reveals a deeper tension—power is sought, but not to be shared.

This asymmetry exposes the reality: advocates aren’t really asking for shared governance, but selective participation—a voice when it suits them, insulation when it doesn't. True shared governance would require mutual authority and accountability. Are faculty and students willing to give up some autonomy in exchange for binding-vote influence? Until that question is answered honestly, shared governance at UVA will remain a discretionary courtesy, not a right.

Efforts to redefine shared governance as co-governance misrepresent both the University’s legal structure and historical precedent. The authority to govern rests with the BOV. Genuine collaboration is possible and often productive, but influence without reciprocity risks becoming unilateral entitlement. Ultimately, the UVA faculty and student groups pushing the shared governance verbiage must confront its own contradiction: their desire for a vote without the burden of ceding any autonomy. That’s not shared governance—it’s selective governance with underlying motives.