Student Council History

Notes & Credits

This history of Student Council is part of a larger 2018 report* on student self-governance at the University of Virginia, which includes similar histories of the Honor Committee and University Judiciary Council. For convenience and accessibility, a timeline infographic version of Student Council’s condensed history is also available.

*We acknowledge that these reports present history in a self-congratulatory manner. Please note that the 2023-2024 administration is developing a project to recontextualize the history of Student Council at UVA.

Authored by Alex Cintron
Acknowledgements to Abraham Axler & Sarah Kenny
Funded by the Jefferson Trust
Section 2 has been edited to reflect updated information, courtesy of Take Back The Night at UVA

introduction

“The first meeting of the University of Virginia Student Council was held in Madison Hall, April 25th, 1945.” In what is now a weathered journal, Secretary John B. Jones recorded the first minutes of Student Council. More than seventy years later, little remains the same: the officer positions have changed, the constitution has changed, and the students bearing the mantle of self-governance are different. The only thing that has truly stood the test of time has been the belief that students, acting on their own, can better their community, the University, and themselves.

EStablishment of Student Council

Content warning: account of sexual violence

Before there was a Student Council, there was the “University Student Body” with two separate branches consisting of a Student Assembly and Student Senate. Its member - ship consisted of 50 representatives – one from each fraternity on Grounds. In 1942, concerned with the unrepresentative nature of the organization – membership was restricted to only those in fraternities - and the body’s lack of authority, student leaders proposed a series of reforms, all of which failed in a University-wide referendum by a 545 to 421 vote.

The failure of the referendum prompted the discussion of drafting a com - pletely new constitution. In 1944, the constitution was proposed to the university body via referendum. It passed with 79 percent of the vote and on April 25, 1945 Student Council was formed. In the new constitution, 14 members were to be elected as representatives of the University, each member representing 300 students: eight from the College of Arts and Sciences, two from the School of Law, two from the School of Engineering, one from the School of Medicine, and one from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. The President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer were internally elected by the Council. Each officer would serve for one semester, until the next election when new officers are elected by the Council. In 1949, University President Colgate Darden delegated the judicial powers to “try and punish students” to Student Council when a new constitution was passed by 94 percent of the student body.

On Sunday, April 4, 1954, a 19-year-old woman was raped in an East Lawn room. Eleven male students were involved in the rape - either directly or by failing to stop it. All were suspended, and four were recommended for expulsion. University students protested what they felt were unnecessarily harsh punishments from President Darden and the administration, holding a rally in Old Cabell Hall in protest. In response to this, Darden revoked Student Council’s judicial powers in the summer of 1954.

The student body’s response to his actions actions initiated private talks between Student Council leadership and Darden to discuss how to proceed with Student Council’s disciplinary authority. In November 1954, Student Council and Darden came to an agreement resulting in what The Cavalier Daily described as Student Council gaining “more power” in the creation of the new Judicial Committee. Three years later, in 1957, the Committee established its own constitution to form the independent University Judiciary Committee.

A New Structure for a New Era: 1960 - 1970

Issues of parking and vehicle taxes dominated many meetings during this era, however bigger issues - namely coeducation and increased recruitment of black students - proved consequential with respect to the relationship between Student Council and University administrators. Student Council President Arthur H. Ogle’s term would epitomize the increasingly tense relationship between Student Council and the administration. In his end-of-term report, Ogle was highly critical of the Administration’s indifference to Student Council’s progressive initiatives including the following: a report in support of non-disciplinary action towards students caught using marijuana, advocacy for an African Studies program, a report in support of coeducation, and reports advocating for the increased recruitment of African American students to the University. Student Council remained a champion for a more race-sensitive University, electing James Roebuck to succeed Ogle, becoming the first African American Student Council President.

Once in office, Roebuck continued the work of an internal committee whose sole purpose was to draft and propose a new constitution in response to concerns that Student Council lacked an electoral mandate given the indirect election of Student Council President and Vice President. The committee’s proposed constitution required the President and Vice President to be directly elected by students while maintaining the old system for electing representatives. By the end of Roebuck’s term, the student body approved via referendum the new constitution by a vote 2208 to 598, ending the tradition of one-semester Student Council presidents. This structure and constitution would serve as the basis for the current document used by Student Council - albeit amended by nearly three decades of amendments and enhanced by the adoption of bylaws.

The 1970 presidency of Mannix would be noted as a “transformation year.” As specified in the constitution, there was to be an allotted amount of time in each Student Council general body meeting, preferably in the beginning, in which any student outside of the Council was able to voice their concerns and interests. Originally marked as “Student Interests” by the secretary, this outlet for students to speak to their governing body would become the “Community Concerns” section of meetings continued to this day by Student Council. More fortuitous to Mannix’s legacy and mark at the University, the year of his presidency would also be the same year in which women were first admitted to the College of Arts and Sciences, a policy that Mannix had fought in favor throughout his undergraduate career.

Student Activism Reaches a Peak:
The Rotunda Strike of 1970

Following the Kent State Shootings, which left four college students dead after being shot by state police, students at universities across the country reacted in outrage. The University of Virginia was no exception. A group called the Strike Committee - including President Mannix and former President Ogle - organized a strike and boycott of classes in front of the Rotunda on May 5, 1970. Between 3,000 and 4,000 students joined the strike during the exam period, but ultimately failed to close the University. Student Council endorsed the strike in a special meeting held in the Amphitheater. The meeting was attended by nearly 300 students.

Students continued their demonstrations until University President Edgar Shannon finally addressed the students on May 10, 1970 with a major anti-war speech. Shannon wrote to Virginia Senators Harry F. Byrd Jr. and William B. Spong Jr., urging them to fight against the continuation of the war and growing anti-intellectualism.

Student Council’s New Direction

The Mannix presidency marked a peak year in Student Council’s push for progressive policies and also as the year where Student Council took its greatest risk in favor of experimenting with a new model for student self-governance. The two-semester presidency and the community concerns time slot withstood its first year, but criticisms of the new Student Council structure would linger in Cavalier Daily editorials and community concerns would be suspended every so often in favor of strict discussion of the serious issues of the day. Mannix would not only be remembered for guiding Student Council through this transition, but for greatly improving its relationship with the administration. In 1971, Tom Collier was elected as Student Council President, marking the end of an eventful decade.

Despite the explosive first year for the new Student Council constitution, the new structure proved formative in how Student Council would proceed in its day-today actions. With a president having to campaign for the students’ votes, platforms developed to address the basic needs and wants of the average student. Rather than making bold moves such as writing letters to politicians and administration demanding coeducation or increased recruitment of black students, Student Council became more deeply involved with local issues such as library spacing, parking spaces, curriculum changes, and vehicle fees. Contenders for the Student Council presidency had to have an answer for these questions and often promise a more inclusive and responsive Student Council. Moreover, community concerns brought to the membership of Student Council issues of concern outside their own daily lives.

Campaigning on a specific platform, Larry Sabato ran for Student Council President in 1973 using a pamphlet titled “Community in the Academical Village.” In it, he urged that every student engage in self-governance, listing several means of being able to communicate concerns to the council. Larry Sabato won the election in 1973, and would embark on a presidency not only committed to the ideals of self-governance, but also committed to providing substantive results. Larry Sabato would deliver on securing the revision of the then food-services contract and eliminating the double-tax at UVA, which was a fee from both the city of Charlottesville and the University on vehicle use.

The Sabato Era: The Building of Clemons

Sabato’s lobbying efforts in Richmond would result in one of the more infamous stories in Student Council history. When Alderman Library began to experience overcrowding issues due to the rapid expansion of the University student body, students began to come to Student Council general body meetings to testify on the lack of space. The demand for a new library became an ongoing issue, one that Larry Sabato sought to address during his time as president. Larry Sabato engaged in a yearlong lobbying effort at the Virginia House of Delegates, ultimately resulting in the inclusion of funding for a new library in Governor Linwood Holton’s budget for fiscal year 1974.

By the end of the fall semester, the search for an architect began and on May 8, 1977, the Board of Visitors officially approved the construction of the library. Students would be able to use the library starting in 1982.

Sabato’s legacy would be that of turning self-governance into a tangible thing for the everyday student. Though Student Council’s actions affect the lives of virtually every student at the university, a poll in 1973 would indicate that only one in every three students had ever taken an interest in Student Council news and that only one in every ten students had ever been to a Student Council meeting. However, instead of engaging primarily in the sphere of ideas, in being a constant bell for progressive change, Larry Sabato would help usher in what 1977 Student Council President Underhill would describe as a “service-oriented” organization, focused primarily on the daily issues faced by students.

The Conservative Backlash of 1976

In 1976, Student Council’s BOV-delegated role as an appropriator of the Student Activities Fee (SAF) was seriously challenged by the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). The conservative organization and strong supporters of economic classical liberalism, believed the mandatory nature of the SAF was too burdensome. Though debate surrounding the fee has existed since its institution, it had never faced the organized opposition created by YAF. The chairman of YAF argued that the fee coercively taxed students to improperly fund organizations that may run counter to other students’ beliefs. He also argued that Student Council itself was funding liberal organizations at the expense of the beliefs of a more conservative student population. The Gay Student Union was the central target of YAF’s attacks, often using the group as an example of Student Council funding organizations that most students may have found immoral. YAF as part of campaign effort, mailed flyers to students’ parents encouraging them to oppose the student activities fee, stating, “Your child is funding a gay group!”

Though the debate over whether or not Student Council had the authority to appropriate funds through the SAF had faded away into nuisance obscurity, another incident occurred in the same year that involved the marginalization of a gay student. Fob James, a conservative representative on Student Council, challenged openly gay student Bob Elkins’ right to be a resident advisor. The incident became public, but all candidates running for election that year condemned representative James’ comments and ultimately a resolution was passed in 1977 opposing “discrimination on the basis of effectual or sexual orientation,” essentially adding sexual orientation as a protected class in the non-discrimination clause of the constitution. Such incidences of conservative challenges to Student Council’s legitimacy became the defining controversies of the mid years of the 1970’s. Though Student Council’s approach to governing the student body had transitioned more towards being a service-oriented organization, memories of its progressive stances would linger for a growingly cautious and cynical student body.

Apathy and Cynicism Grow: 1980s-1990s

Growing cynicism and antipathy towards Student Council and student self-governance as a whole would be epitomized by the election of 1979. That year, John S. Serpe ran unopposed for Student Council president, losing by a vote of 1743 to 1688 to “Howard the Duck” - a fictional write-in candidate. Although he did serve as President it remains an embarrassing moment in the organization’s history when the true winner was a fictional duck.

Student Council’s image problem began in the late 70s. In 1973, Mannix would admit that anywhere from between 25% to 75% of students seeking office in Student Council were simply trying to build their resume and get into positions of power. Though his figures are seemingly arbitrary, his sentiments were reflective of the perception that Student Council had garnered, even from within its own leadership. Editorials from the Cavalier Daily would regularly use the term “politico” to describe members of Student Council in a pejorative manner, often remarking of their empty-promises, non-substantive resolutions and actions, and the ambitious, yet unimaginative people who run for office. As 1980 rolled in, Cavalier Daily would remark, “Representatives muster enthusiasm only for useless procedural fights,” a common theme harped by the majority of students. The term of the “Tuesday Night Rep” would become popularized in these years to describe members of Student Council who only came to the Tuesday meetings and did nothing outside of that.

Further indicative of the apathy that dominated the general view of Student Council were the voting rates of the 1980s. In years before, representatives would be elected with upwards 1000 votes in competitive elections. However, by 1981, representative elections received barely 500 votes in an election. Likewise, Student Council presidents would also be voted into office with less than 10% of the student vote throughout the 80’s. Standard campaign issues at the time included creating a more responsive and communicative Student Council, increasing student safety, and advocating for a more diverse faculty. These campaign promises generally would not change from year to year, regardless of the candidate. Such cookie-cutter campaigns continued to perpetuate the disinterest with self-governance that many students throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s had.

Even as the positive development of the student body electing its first female Student Council President in 1984, Carole Kirkland, it happened in the midst of student apathy. Negative perceptions would only grow when in the same year, Vice President of Organizations Rudy Beverly pled guilty for embezzling Student Council funds.

The Modern Era: 2000-Present

The modern era of Student Council, from the beginning of the new millennium onward has been one of confronting controversy in a world where the medium to communicate is ever changing and demanding. In an era where technology, social media, and a far more advanced press is able to rapidly circulate the flow of information, Student Council has found itself confronting national issues head on once again as it did in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the 2003 race for Student Council President, candidate Daisy Lundy reported that she had been the victim of a racially motivated hate crime where she was physically assaulted and called a racial slur, with the attacker denouncing her candidacy for Student Council president because of her race. This incident immediately sparked outrage, leading to a massive campaign on Grounds in cohort with the Law School to address issues of race that still so prevalently affect people of color at the university. Due to the massive support Lundy received after her attack, her opponent withdrew from the race and she won the presidency on a wave of furor against racial prejudices at the university.

Controversy over Student Council’s efficacy as a truly democratic and representative body would emerge once again in the election of 2004. Though university-wide cynicism had been decreasing in the past few years as issues of race and gender began to animate elections, the appointment of Chief of Staff by the newly elected Student Council president Noah P. Sullivan flared up old criticisms of Student Council as being more interested in politics than actual solutions. Sullivan had served as Chief of Staff to Daisy Lundy from 2003 to 2004; so many heads were turned when he appointed Daisy Lundy as his Chief of Staff after his election victory. The Cavalier Daily, along with other students voicing their dissatisfaction with the appointment, once again questioned the legitimacy of a Student Council that seemed to refuse to hold itself accountable for its “nepotistic” actions.

Though sharp controversies and an animated group of students who seek to institute change for students of minority backgrounds have marked the first decade and a half of the new millennium for Student Council, the next few years may very well be the dawn of a new era. Such controversies on race and gender capture the minds of students across the country, and in response to tragic events, students look to their student governments for answers. Criticisms today aren’t like the criticisms of the 1980’s and 1990’s where Student Council was described as “doing nothing.” Criticisms today are that Student Council isn’t doing enough. Slowly, yet gradually, voting rates have been increasing from year to year. However, the most recent structural change that could potentially change perceptions in the future of Student Council could be that of the opening up of membership under the presidency of Abraham Axler in 2015. As opposed to allowing individual Student Council committees to selectively choose whom they want on their committees, resulting in perceived high rejection rates, Axler standardized the application and admissions process, increasing membership dramatically under his term. Such a move has proven to increase the scope of Student Council’s reach and increase student participation in committees that may very well affect their lives. Future Student Council presidents may not be able to truly scale back such a development, as the benefits of having a larger and more diverse Student Council cannot be easily refuted. In a time where presidents take bold actions to democratize Student Council, where technology and the rapid flow of information forces student leaders to take immediate and non-equivocal stances, and where recent tragedies and events animate a once apathetic and cynical student body, the future of Student Council and self-governance has never looked brighter.

Very little history of Student Council is passed on throughout the years. The very existence of a truly self-governed student body is a fragile one, riddled with challenges and threats to the idea that we can indeed have a say in our own fate. As former president Abraham Axler noted in his last speech to Student Council, the gavel that the Chair of the Representative Body holds only says, “For the self-governed.” There is no name; there is no mention of events or history. The only history on the gavel is its roughed-up head, chipped away from the years of serving as the punctuation between meetings. The loud crack as it hits the table is one that every leader of Student Council has heard. Despite the wide range of challenges that Student Council has faced and may continue to face in the future, there will be students who rise to the challenge to uphold the tradition of true self-governance. At the end of the day, no matter what troubles may come, the gavel’s declaration, “For the self-governed,” and its idea of a truly self-governed student body lives on.