Told by U-Va. Rector Helen E. Dragas that 15 of 16 board members wanted a new president, Sullivan said she worried that a public airing of the question would throw the campus into turmoil. But forcing a robust board debate at that critical moment might have altered the course of events.
“I didn’t really want to put the university through a difficult period,” she said. “As it turned out, I did not save the university from a difficult period at all.”
In her Madison Hall office lined with shelves of sociology books, Sullivan reflected on Monday afternoon on the crisis that made her one of the best-known university presidents in America — the celebrated survivor of a clash that has come to stand for the uncertain future of public higher education.
Seven weeks after she was returned to her post, Sullivan trod cautiously through many questions. She refused to speak about last week’s abrupt resignation of the university’s chief operating officer, Michael Strine, amid questions about his role in her ouster. She avoided comment on personal feelings about Dragas. Pressed several ways, she said she does not know what precipitated the effort to force her out.
Sullivan and Dragas pledged in July to work together to advance the university’s goals. The two will do so in public Wednesday and Thursday at a Board of Visitors retreat in Richmond that could provide an early hint of how well they can achieve that and how much tension remains.
In the interview, Sullivan was asked whether Dragas ever apologized to her. “I don’t think I want to go there,” she said.
The start of it
Looking back, Sullivan, 63, said she is still unable to pinpoint red flags that may have warned her that her presidency was in peril.
The 18-day leadership crisis at the historic Charlottesville campus started June 8, when Sullivan was told that the board wanted her to leave. Soon the campus was in an uproar about the secretive process and the loss of a popular president. The controversy made national news, and on June 26 the board reinstated her.
Sullivan noted that at a spring board meeting, she was praised by one board member — and applauded by all — for her work with alumni and community leaders.
“Possibly, I was overly lulled by what I saw as positive signals,” she said.
Sullivan said she has drawn lessons from the crisis — the importance of communication with members of the board besides the rector and vice rector, for example.
She was blindsided by the depth of the board opposition Dragas depicted on June 8. Later, Sullivan would learn that her support was broader than she had been told.