Facing opposition from students, faculty and staff, the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors last week launched a plan to disband the university’s popular and popular lifestyle learning communities.
Often considered a selling point in Virginia Tech’s recruiting efforts, the living learning programs bring together students with common interests. Current examples include living learning communities (or LLCs for short) for first-generation and transfer students, while others are built in areas of study such as the arts or engineering. But the board is now questioning the effectiveness of the entire system.
The board’s decision to close the program said the metrics “do not support a measurable difference” between students in LLC and the overall student population. In addition, it noted that many support services in the lifelong learning program are duplicative and closing them would create “significant cost savings.”
Besides being effective, the proposal also aims to address a problem that many college leaders would envy: Virginia Tech is growing and needs more beds for its rising freshman population. (Last fall, VT enrolled 38,995 students across its campuses and accepted a freshman class of 7,088.) The decision to close the LLCs will also redistribute “all residence hall beds available on campus to first-year undergraduate and first-year transfer students,” according to the decision. Limiting limited housing allocations to first-year students will ultimately drive some off campus and into the private housing market.
But concerned students are worried about the loss of such communities, and faculty are skeptical about the projected savings. Local officials are also concerned about how pushing more students into family neighborhoods could reshape Blacksburg, which has a population of about 45,000. At the heart of the move—backed by a real estate developer who sits on the university’s board and owns several residential properties near campus—are questions about potential conflicts of interest and who benefits.
Mounting Objections
The proposal to eliminate LLCs came after several years of discussions to expand campus housing. Previously, Virginia Tech had planned to add a large number of beds through a project known as the Student Life Village, which was approved by the Board of Visitors in 2022. But that plan was canceled by the board last year. The board has now shifted its focus to improving existing facilities and adding fewer beds than planned.
As the board deliberates on the fate of the live-learning program, which could be restructured or closed in 2027, it has met opposition from all sides, especially from students who value these programs.
Emma Roshioru, president of the Undergraduate Student Senate, said Within Higher Ed via email he has heard from many students who want to maintain lifelong learning communities, which many see as essential to their undergraduate experience at Virginia Tech.
“Whether it’s because of the mentoring they get from high-level people in these communities or the relationships students build from day one at the university, Living-Learning Programs make what can feel like a big campus much smaller, which happens by being part of a community of students with similar interests and/or similar backgrounds,” he wrote.
Thomas Feely, a non-voting undergraduate representative on the board, said at last week’s meeting he heard from many students who opposed the idea. Many students say the LLC experience is more important to them than Division I athletics, he noted.
Faculty and staff also spoke out against the idea.
At last week’s board meeting, Justin Lemkul, president of the Virginia Tech Faculty Senate, cast doubt on the idea that disbanding the programs would bring significant cost savings. He also noted in his remarks that the board approved pumping $229 million more into athletics last season.
“I am concerned that disbanding the Living-Learning Program and its affiliated communities will seriously damage Virginia Tech’s reputation as a place that fosters community, responds to the interests of individual students, and allows them to customize their college experience,” Lemkul wrote in an email to Within Higher Ed. “Virginia Tech is a large university, and enabling students to connect with communities with similar interests helps make the university feel smaller and more accessible. In addition, communities provide students with an academic and social foundation that we believe is critical to their success.”
Local media reported that workers also spoke out against the decision at last week’s meeting, expressing concern that losing such communities would hurt recruiting efforts.
Blacksburg Mayor Michael Sutphin also outlined the plan in a letter to the board. He wrote that the decision and other actions by Virginia Tech seem to point to plans to “significantly increase the size of the freshman class,” which will increase the need for off-campus housing.
“First-year students may only have newly available beds for one year, but if they aren’t in a high-quality housing expansion, many of these students will enter Blacksburg’s limited private housing market for the rest of their time at Virginia Tech. That pattern will put increasing pressure not only on the rental supply but also on transportation, utilities, and public safety services organized by the University in lieu of funding.”
Conflict Concerns
Following a flurry of opposition, Virginia Tech’s board appeared to be listening to its critics. Although board members decided to postpone the vote, the decision could come up again at their next meeting.
Virginia Tech officials note that negotiations are ongoing.
“The outcome of that future discussion is unknown. Another thing to note is that the university’s review of this program has not been completed. The steps the board will take are also unknown,” said university spokesperson Mark Owczarski. Within Higher Ed by email. “The important work is yet to be completed, and the university leadership is focused on that work now.”
As the board weighs whether to close the life-learning communities, speculation has swirled about how the move might benefit one member: Jeanne Stosser, who owns multiple rental properties through Campus Management Group, and a home-building firm. The university described him as one of “Virginia’s leading developers and property owners, responsible for a wide range of residential and commercial properties.” Two anonymous sources shared their concerns Within Higher Ed about how he would benefit from the proposal, and speculation about his motives has been rife on the Internet for at least a year.
Stosser—who supports the plan to ban LLCs—did not respond to a request for comment. But at last week’s board meeting, he rejected the idea that expelling students from the school would hurt Blacksburg. Finally, he dismissed concerns about housing capacity as a non-issue.
“In the next three years, a lot of housing will be off campus. And Blacksburg has the capacity to take care of all of that,” he said, according to local media reports.
Stosser, a major GOP donor, was appointed to the board by former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in 2024. It’s not clear how or if he’s responding to concerns about whether he’s willing to benefit from a move that could move students out of school and into his rental housing.
Asked about such concerns, Owczarski pointed to Virginia code and city ordinances related to conflicts of interest. He added that Virginia law “provides a way for any board member to recuse himself in the event of a conflict” and that “all board members are reminded of this annually.”
Town-Gown Tensions
Given the wide range of matters handled by boards, including real estate issues and major construction projects, experts say it is common to see trustees appointed in real estate and development countries. But housing concerns are often among the most difficult relationships in city clothing relationships.
Stephen Gavazzi, a professor at Ohio State University and an expert on urban clothing relations, said Within Higher Ed via email that “trust in institutions is weakening.” Although he notes that the research he leads “shows that concerns about bias—especially in the classroom—are rampant in higher education,” that may extend to governance. He added that when trustees make decisions that appear to be in line with their outside interests, “it can raise broader questions about fairness and independence” that could damage trust in the sector.
For Gavazzi, even if there is no clear conflict of interest, opinion is important.
“Therefore the risks involved may be minimal in terms of legality and legitimacy,” he wrote. “At a time when trust in higher education is already shaky, boards that don’t properly block potentially troubled trustees risk public skepticism that could linger long after the vote.”
