Photo by Chris Myers

April 8, 2003

Staff Report

Tuition and fees will go up about 11.2 percent for in-state undergraduates next year after action by the Board of Visitors that satisfies politics and practicality.

State legislators, all of whom face election in the fall, passed a bill that will enable them to tell voters they imposed a 5 percent cap on tuition at public colleges and universities.

But that cap is part of a complex formula, which Colette L. Sheehy, vice president for management and budget, explained to board members Friday. The University was allowed to double the $385 surcharge imposed on the current semester and add that amount into this year’s base before calculating the 5 percent hike. On top of that, the University can add a charge to recoup the costs of the 2.25 percent salary raises and related benefits approved by the General Assembly, Sheehy said.

"The bottom line is, we went up as much as we were allowed within the guidelines," said William H. Goodwin Jr., chairman of the board’s finance committee.

As a result, tuition and fees (including student activity and auxiliary fees) for next year will be:

• $5,964 for in-state undergrads;

• $21,984 for out-of-state undergrads (up 6.9 percent);

• $7,856 for in-state graduate students (up 22.3 percent);

• $19,965 for out-of-state grad students (up 2.3 percent);

• $9,700 for in-state students at U.Va.’s College at Wise (up 5 percent); and

• $18,638 for out-of-state students at Wise (9.6 percent).

Adding in the charges for room and board, the price of attending U.Va. for undergraduates next year will be about $11,514 for in-state students, $27,534 for out-of-state.

Rates for tuition and fees at the Darden School will rise 6.1 percent to $28,126 for Virginians and 5.1 percent to $33,126 for non-Virginians. At the Law School, in-state rates range from $21,325 for third-years to $23,725 for students entering in the fall; out-of-state students will be charged $29,128.

Diversity discussions lively

Also at last week’s meeting, the Board of Visitors found itself facilitating an unplanned three-day discussion on diversity issues.

It was a theme that first unfolded in President John T. Casteen III’s opening remarks Thursday afternoon, and one that threaded throughout several key committee reports until it reached a finale Saturday morning in a thoughtful, and sometimes tense, debate.

Board members and University administrators clearly were troubled by recent events – including the reported racially motivated assault of Student Council candidate Daisy Lundy as well as an earlier "blackface" incident – their impact on the University community and what needed to be done in response.

While the board’s diversity committee and a presidential commission were launched on Day One of the meeting, and talk of additional diversity initiatives took place regarding curriculum and student life, one pointed question about suspected racism and hate crimes at the University heightened the tone Saturday morning.

Board member Terence P. Ross asked Patricia M. Lampkin, vice president for student affairs, if the University wasn’t "sugarcoating" the present problem. "This is about hate crimes and hatred," Ross said. "Part of our job is to educate students … to go to the core of what happened instead of patching it up."

Lampkin acknowledged that over the past months she and many others at the University – including students, faculty and administrators – had similar discussions. She noted that they struggled over the definitions, as well as the scope of the problems, but concluded that the issue went well beyond race.

"There certainly are serious racial concerns," Lampkin said, "but we are a dealing with a complex situation that must address all facets for our efforts to succeed."

Later, Lampkin elaborated. "Diversity is the term our current students use," she said. "Another term, multiculturalism, also incorporates race, ethnicity and religion. These are all difficult issues, and each needs to be addressed in a different manner." Because of the the University’s history and recent events, she added, special attention is being paid to critical issues related to African Americans.

Over the past five months, Lampkin and others have looked at a series of long-term strategies for change, and she believes that substantial progress has been made with the help of many voices.

The board discussion leapt back and forth across the boardroom table, with Warren M. Thompson, chairman of the board’s newly created special committee on diversity, entering in to commend students for their maturity in dealing with recent events. Outgoing student member H. Timothy Lovelace Jr. meanwhile encouraged the University to focus on declining African American enrollment and noted that there is a perception among students that the board has a history of being inattentive to diversity issues.

Gordon F. Rainey Jr., the newly elected rector whose first official act was to create the special diversity committee, stepped in with a question for Lovelace and John Rodney, incoming student board member.

How, Rainey asked, would you grade the board on diversity?

While both offered some constructive criticism, they declined to give a letter grade.

Rainey called them "kind," then said he ventured the board deserved a "C minus at best."

Rainey said, for the second time in as many weeks, "diversity is a priority of this board … but we need to put some meat on that declaration."

Thompson took Rainey’s comments and commitment a step further. "As a leading university in this country, we should be setting the standard, not settling for middle of the pack. … We must hold each other accountable and set goals as to where we’d like to see this institution three years from now," he said. "I should resign if I’m not able to effect change. And if each of us takes the responsibility to set goals, we’ll see change a lot quicker."

Building designs spur debate

In other matters, the Building and Grounds Committee approved the design for temporary buildings behind Ruffner Hall, but not without a debate about how many board members should OK plans.

Under current board rules, the committee has the final say in building design, but some want the full board involved. Charles Glazer, who is not a member of the committee, asked Friday that the full board consider temporary buildings approved by the committee the day before. Even though the buildings are temporary, to house classes displaced by renovations to other buildings, Glazer feared they could be used a long time and did not want something cheap or ugly on Grounds.
"Temporary buildings can last a generation," he said.

Some committee members objected, saying the issue had already been decided and that the full board had weightier issues to discuss.

Rainey referred the matter to the board’s Special Committee on Governance for consideration on future projects. Board member John O. Wynne suggested the full board may want to consider only projects passed out of committee on a split vote.

Two temporary buildings, 6,000 square feet each, will consume about one-third of the parking lot behind Ruffner Hall. They will be metal buildings, painted brick-red with white trim and gray metal roofs, with a projected lifespan of 10 to 15 years. They will be used for studio art classes while the arts precinct is being built and Fayerweather Hall is renovated.

The design approval issue was first raised Thursday during a report from committee members William G. Crutchfield Jr. and Mark J. Kington on streamlining the building approval process. Under their plan, a standing subcommittee would oversee minor projects, with infrastructure projects handled administratively. The Buildings and Grounds Committee, not the full board, would approve projects once, at the schematic stage. There would be two architect selection committees, one for major projects and another for minor ones, with the full committee polled to ratify the selection.
Goodwin, a committee member, objected to not bringing design plans to the full board. The committee approved the streamlining plan, with the exception of the final design approval question.

The committee also approved a six-year capital plan calling for $1.1 billion in construction and renovation from 2004 to 2010. Sheehy said Gov. Mark Warner could use the six-year projection in making his 2004-06 budget.

The committee is still examining architectural guidelines for the arts precinct and is rewriting the job description for a University architect.

While the board took its lunch break Friday, about 60 people staged a living wage rally on the steps of the Rotunda. They called for an increase in wages for University employees and linked it to the civil rights agenda of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the 35th anniversary of his death.