What are the real reasons the BoV fired Sullivan?

Read more on: Question of the week


Ryan nailed it. The other two dont seem to have been paying much attention.

Hubris was certainly involved.

@Clifford Kiracofe June 27th, 2012 | 12:26pm
Leadership Fitness:
There are a few points that perhaps some could help clarify for me:
1) who were the two no votes and the one abstention at the Faculty Senate reinstatement vote?
2.) Was Kiernan asked to resign or did he do it on his own volition?
3.) What was the involvement in this affair, if any, of Strine?
4.) What are other questions about the affair we should be asking?
5.) What kind of specific information and evidence would help us have a better understanding of what took place?
6.) Did the Kiernan-Jones-Dragas-Kington cabal have someone in mind to replace Sullivan? Name? Evidence or data?”

Yes, I would like those points clarified as well. I’ve posted on several occasions; we should be digging deeper and WIDER. I suspect that whoever orchestrated this attempt to overthrow President Sullivan is scrabbling back into the manure pile licking his/her wounds, regrouping and will return for another round. I agree that there’s MORE to this “affair” than has surfaced to date.

As for the “fat” theory (Leadership Fitness), that’s could be over the top but then again, look what happen on June 10th.

Ashtanga: yoga :: Mormonism: Christianity

Do I have that right? Perhaps others can make better analogies.

We will never really know because it is now clear, more than ever before, that there is no transparency when it comes to anything UVA does. I was no fan of Sullivan because her Presidency was no more transparent than Casteen's. The way she was fired was unacceptable by any measure and I thought she handled it with grace and class. However, she folded like a cheap camera when it came to getting her job back. Now we are to believe that integrity, honor and all the other BS that comes out of UVA's official statements has been restored. It seems to an objective observer no-one involved with UVA's Administration would understand integrity if it smacked them in the face. It's actually quite nauseating to watch how this entire episode played out because it shows how the BoV, the President and the administration actually value truth and honor. Mere words tossed around to serve whatever suits the purpose. With all the emphasis on the honor code, the expulsion of multiple students each year for its breach, this institution's leaders are probably the worst offenders of the code they impose on the student body. Leaders who are not worthy of an academic institution that allegedly represents the ideals of Thomas Jefferson. Poor Jefferson, if only he could have met all these players of the highest integrity and honor! haha! roll over Tom, roll over, and again, and again......don't worry Hill & Knowlton is here to smear.....truth and honor.....akuna mattata!

The press reports have fingered Paul Tudor Jones as the capo or the co-capo with another "wealthy donor" whose name is unclear to me. Dragas appears to be the tool of the "others" visible and invisible lurking somewhere.

We clearly need an "After Action" battle report and this will require extensive further investigation and research and analysis. After that we can proceed to "Lessons Learned." Thus armed, we will be prepared for the next invevitable battle.

Logically, Jones' activities with respect to the University need analysis. Evidently he has had some sort of game plan using the power of his wealth. He has insinuated himself deeply over the years through money.

We get the "Contemplation Center" as a front for his esoteric MacYoga and the MacYoga business of his wife. Did anyone do any serious due dilligance here? Looking over the ceremonies and announcements I note President Sullivan was her gracious self on this project. Later she is the unsuspecting victim of Jones' attack and knife in the back from Jones' apparent tool, Dragas.

We know Jones is heavy into K-12 education reform with his buddy Kiernan at StudentsFirst for example. More information is needed about his higher education actvities to get an idea of what he had planned for UVA with his allies and tools such as Dragas.

Knife Sullivan, put in a compliant President and do what? What was the intention of the next $100 million? What was it to do to our University and community?

If Ms. Angelo's hypothesis is correct about Education Management Corporation/Goldman Sachs, then who attended their reported "presentation" in February or March? Logical for a financial officer and other administrators or....or...??? Just whom?

So a combination of motives perhaps. Several key players with perhaps multiple objectives. Just who are in this network aside from those who so far have been named? And yes, just what are all of their objectives with regard to our University?

The war is not over as Old Wahoo has said.

Anent Peter Kiernan:

"He is also on the Board of Williams College"


Anyone with Williams College connections who could enlighten us?

Working toward a psychological profile of Kiernan:

"So what is "strategic dynamism," and who are its practitioners? Quite the opposite of the methodical, long-term visions found in most universities' strategic plans, strategic dynamism implies a near-constant "stirring of the pot" within an organization, explains Donald C. Hambrick, a professor of management at Pennsylvania State University's main campus.

That could mean wild changes in asset allocation within a company's investment portfolio or a radical alteration of a business's marketing approach. Proponents of strategic dynamism value the potential rewards of substantial, fast-paced change more than the stability of a gradual strategic evolution, Mr. Hambrick says.

There's another thing about executives who embrace strategic dynamism: They're totally in love with themselves, Mr. Hambrick says. In 2007, Mr. Hambrick co-authored a study that found a strong correlation between a chief executive's level of narcissism and his or her penchant for making frequent changes consistent with strategic dynamism.

The study used five indicators to measure a chief executive's narcissism, including the prominence of the executive's photographs in a company's annual report, the frequency of the executive's name in company news releases, the disparity between the chief executive's compensation and that of the company's second in command, and the frequency with which the chief executive uses first-person-singular pronouns in interviews.

For those keeping score, Mr. Kiernan's e-mail to Darden trustees contains 19 first-person pronouns...

Unless someone reins in fools like Mr. Kiernan, there could be tough times ahead for UVA."


So he headed the B School Foundation. The question arises as to the judgment of the board there.

Narcissistic personality disorder is a serious matter. Perhaps some with professional knowledge of this can enlighten us. Any CI types in our group, what is your take?

From above: "In 2007, Mr. Hambrick co-authored a study that found a strong correlation between a chief executive's level of narcissism and his or her penchant for making frequent changes consistent with strategic dynamism."

This would correlate to the firing of Sullivan perhaps. It correlates to his long and close relations with Hollywood types a mecca of stardom and narcissism.

I would suggest that you "follow the money."to find the answer
Dragas, Farrell, McDonnell, Tudor Jones, Koch Brothers? Whats the connection?
What was the emergency?
Did it have anything to do with the Governor's impending trip to the see Romney and audition for VP ( or cabinet posts) and then on the the Koch Brothers retreat?
Bob McDonnell is looking for a job after Jan 2013.


i wanted to share this latest bit of fallout with those following the story.

many people have questions about the actions of Ms. Dragas, and we all want to know what was really going on and why. It now appears that the accreditor has some questions, too, about compliance. Seems like they may appoint a Special Committee to look into this.

I certainly hope that among the other problems caused by Ms. Dragas and her close associates on the board responsible for the forced resignation of President Sullivan, loss of accreditation is not one of them. Bad enough that this appears in the Chronicle of Higher Education, but it will certainly be more than just another embarrassment if this investigtion
threatens our accreditation.

Don't worry--UVa could get another accreditation -- all the for profits are accredited by somebody.

Some data which may support Ms. Angelo's hypothesis concerning Goldman Sachs:

"The boom in for-profit education, driven by a political consensus that all Americans need more than a high school diploma, has intensified efforts to recruit the homeless, Bloomberg Businessweek magazine reports in its May 3 issue. Such disadvantaged students are desirable because they qualify for federal grants and loans, which are largely responsible for the prosperity of for-profit colleges. Federal aid to students at for-profit colleges jumped to $26.5 billion in 2009 from $4.6 billion in 2000. Publicly traded higher education companies derive three-fourths of their revenue from federal funds, with Phoenix at 86 percent, up from just 48 percent in 2001 and approaching the 90 percent limit set by federal law.

The industry is now fully mainstream. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. owns 38 percent of the for-profit Education Management Corp. in Pittsburgh, which has 136,000 students in programs ranging from fashion to culinary arts, and former President Bill Clinton took a position as honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, owned by Baltimore-based Laureate Education Inc. Investors are flocking to the industry, drawn by the stability of government funding and the profit potential of online classes. But some of the unsavory practices that spurred Congress to act are springing back to life, with a new wrinkle or two. "

"Federal aid to students at for-profit colleges jumped to $26.5 billion in 2009 from $4.6 billion in 2000. Publicly traded higher education companies derive three-fourths of their revenue from federal funds, with Phoenix at 86 percent, up from just 48 percent in 2001 and approaching the 90 percent limit set by federal law. "


Follow the money.

By the way, have we determined whether the Goldman Sachs Education Management Corp. met with ANY UVA employees in February or March 2011 as Ms. Angelo posits? Logical for them to meet with someone in the financial operations area one would think.

Follow the Money?

As we note from the board membership of the Robin Hood Foundation founded by Paul Tudor Jones Messrs. Fuld/Lehman and Blankfein/Goldman sit around the table which includes Peter Kiernan.

For background on Fuld, Blankfein and their Wall Street friends see the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. 4 part series entitled "Meltdown."

Here is the link to Part 1, a must see:


I included this in my Introduction to Global Politics course (POL 105) last year to give context to our textbook chapters relating to International Political Economy (IPE) and the present global financial crisis. We used a challenging and excellent textbook on Global Politics from Oxford University. The first year students handled the materials well and were shocked by the video. They were also excited to learn more. I think there were a half dozen or so term papers on the financial crisis in two classes: the Euro, Greece, Spain, topics along those lines.

So back to the topic here: Wall Street > Jones and Kiernan and buddies like Blankfein>Dragas etal>BOV>UVA.

Follow the money indeed.

in response to non-smoker,
from what the faculty and staff have had to say about the president, it appears that non-smoker makes an inaccurate observation of the president's performance. but perhaps
non-smoker is in the public relations business. or maybe he read that wall street journal opinion piece that made so many statements that were immediately proven false.

obviously, as we have seen, the president works in an environment that is influenced by politics. perhaps she, like others working in a political environment, is careful in going about her work.

also for non-smoker

president sullivan may have had her own reasons for quietly accepting with grace and dignity what she was told was the boards decision when she submitted her resignation as she was told to do by ms. dragas. one of them might have been a wish to do what she could do to minimize disruption at her institution.

however, as events have proven, this was an approach that ultimately demonstrated her wisdom, as those responsible have sufferred the consequences of their strutting arrogance and hubris, and she never left office and remains president, but in an infinitely more powerful position.

the language you use to describe her action is inaccurate and inappropriate.

To any one who thinks Sullivan will be other than UVa business-as-usual (no more honorable or less than anywhere else) I reference her investigation of the VQR case, She found no grounds for criticism.Granted she was new- it wasn't her baby-it was Casteen's where a very overpaid editor gave poetry awards to his boss's (Casteen was his direct inline boss) son. I can't recall if that was a cash award.Minor matter, well yes-- And biz as usual, a newer set of cronies instead of old. Wahoo.

Perhaps some of the speculation as to who was involved and what happened might be resolved by the the Virginia General Assembly, who has control of the BoV, as specified by SECTION 23-69 of the Virginia Code. A series of investigative hearings held by the education committees of the house and senate would at least put the board on notice that they can't act with unfettered authority, may possibly answer key questions, and may produce necessary reforms. The governor has virtually no power over the board, so it does no good to insist on an intervention from one who is powerless to intervene. Dragas and others may find some humility, however, if confronted by a white-lipped legislator who has no dog in the fight.

"the language you use to describe her action is inaccurate and inappropriate."

You are clearly a partisan in this debate and I am not. I find UVA's administration, the BofT and BoV self serving and absolutely corrupt, as they demonstrated to the entire country. Actually, even the UK press was reporting all these corrupt shenanigans. She has changed nothing since being President. Wasn't Strine her pick? I find it ominous that her first demand for return was Dragas' removal. Same old same old!!!

Kindly don't pontificate with your talking points, obfuscations and propaganda. Again the reason she got so much support was that she seemed the lesser of the evils, and it was clearly a vote of no confidence in what Dragas et al did and how they did it.