If you have been following the controversy at the University of Virginia over the past year, you are quite aware that Virginia isn’t for lovers right now.

Last June, UVA President Teresa A. Sullivan abruptly resigned after being informed that the Board of Visitors, the 17-member governing body of the university, would fire her if she didn’t. Outraged members of the university community, shocked and angered by the suddenness and seemingly warrantless nature of the decision, successfully lobbied for the board to reverse its decision within a few weeks of the ouster.

Echoes of the conflict continue to resonate in Charlottesville. Many members involved in the firing decision remain on the board, leading to high tension between affected parties. The continued investigation of the exact circumstances surrounding the decision over the past year has only raised more questions about governance policies.

But amidst the scandal and personal ethical lapses that occurred, the scandal raises a key question: Who is truly in charge of a university?

There are nominal leaders such as the university president or chancellor. But above these people is usually the board of directors, whose members have connections and responsibilities within certain industries and donor pools. Taxpayers and elected governments obviously play some role where public funding is concerned. Students and professors must somehow be represented as well.

These complicated hierarchies, scattered across thousands of universities and colleges, will experience increased stress in future years as the cost of higher education continues its endless upward climb. The conflict at the University of Virginia, as well as smaller, similar situations at the University of Texas, University of Wisconsin and University of Oregon, might be forebears of future fights that could erupt elsewhere across the country.

Some leaders will want to see a more technological approach to teaching and cost control. Others will fight for older, more Socratic methods of teaching as a method of improving learning outcomes. The visibility and size of corporate money might change as funding from outher sources evaporates.

With these disruptions looming, the faults within these hierarchies could become more exposed. Organizations which might seem unified and united in good times can suddenly splinter in University of Virginia-esque displays of personal pettiness and scandal.

Unquestionably, however, these fights are good — the more public, the better.

An open and frank conversation about the challenges facing higher education is ultimately the only way schools will adapt to a changing world. While scandal is not desirable, vocal and critical personalities, united with the common goal of maintaining the strength of a school, are just another method by which universites can establish a best way forward.

This is why the University of Virginia story is so important. Personalities aside, the fight was ultimately over perceptions that the school wasn’t advancing quickly enough into the future of higher education.

Hopefully, every school is having this conversation. Pitt’s Board of Trustees meetings, which are rarely publicized more than a few days in advance, are poorly attended by the University community, and the meetings are generally formulaic with a rundown of new developments and little discussion. Pitt’s Board of Trustees’ service to the University’s mission could be improved through a more transparent, more open discourse with more people who have an interest in the University.But a bit more strife, either internally or externally, wouldn’t be a bad thing either. Peaceful behavior by Boards of Trustee’s and presidents isn’t necessarily good. After all, for years one of the most peaceful corporate cultures in the business world existed at Kodak, which in the 1980s felt no urgency to move to digital photography. Today, the once market-leading company has fallen significantly from prominance in its field.

Next time you get the pictures from your digital camera or iPhone developed, think about whether or not you want to see more disagreement between university administrators. U.S. Congress-style gridlock and ugly PR disasters aren’t desirable or effective, but thoughtful and impassioned discussion certainly is.