The Cavalier daily :: Friday, March 6, 1970 :: University of Virginia Library

Attempting to set the tone for the
meeting, Professor of Government and
Foreign Affairs Rouhollah Ramazani
introduced a successful resolution which
welcomed student committee members
and Student Council representatives and
which called for a "spirit of mutual
respect, trust, and understanding" between
students and faculty members.

Diehl Resolution

Fred Diehl of the Department of Biology
then introduced his resolution calling for the
admission of student observers to be seated in
reserved sections at the plenary meetings.

Ralph Eisenberg, who chaired the
Committee on the Presence of Students at
Faculty Meetings, then explained why the
majority of his committee did not include this
measure in their proposals. First of all, Mr.
Eisenberg argued that student observers would
not really give any positive input or impact to
faculty meetings.

Mr. Eisenberg also noted that the faculty has
already permitted student members of faculty
committees and two representatives of the
Student Council to attend and to speak at the
general meetings. He felt that if the faculty
allowed student observers to attend meetings,
but not to have a voice, they would be more
frustrated than ever.

In the eyes of the majority of the
committee, effective representation of students'
interests was fulfilled by the members of the
student press and other students that already
attend.

Vital Communication

Dante Germino of Government supported
the Diehl resolution. He noted that by opening
the meetings the faculty would improve the
vital communication lines between the faculty
and students. He also argued that faculty
meetings could be of educational value to
interested students. They might become "more
clearly aware" of the workings of the academic
community and would have more confidence in
the decisions of the faculty.

For Mr. Germino, the problems were all
surmountable. He hoped the faculty would
"risk a little so that we gain much."

Noting that all people are not infallible,
Oron J. Hale of the Department of History said
that the faculty might "run a great risk in open
meetings." He observed that open meetings
have not worked well at all institutions and
pointed to a recent disturbance at Columbia
University as an example. His colleague, David
Flaherty, quipped in reply that the University is
not Columbia.

Alexander Sedgwick also of the History
Department noted that the admission of
members of the student press to faculty
meetings has not worked any hardships on the
faculty.

Alfred Fernbach of Government remarked
that although the faculty has been able to live
with the student reporting, he feared that the
admission of student observers would amount
to counter production and that faculty meetings
would become pro forma.

After more debate, the faculty finally
determined by voice vote not to allow general
student observers admission to the general
faculty meetings.

The chairman of the Committee on
By-Laws, Norman A. Graebner of the
Department of History, then opened discussion
on his committee's report. He told the faculty
that the two major problems that confronted
the committee in its study of faculty by-laws
were membership and student representation.

John Israel introduced an amendment to the
by-laws which would have had the effect of
taking away the power to vote from the faculty
of the Reserved Officers Training Corps
departments. Mr. Israel argued that these
instructors should not vote since they are not
appointed in the regular manner, and since they
do not have a permanent stake in the University
society.

Howard Hamilton of the Department of
Biology called the faculty's attention to the
fact that a committee had been formed in
December to study the status of ROTC at the
University. He noted that Mr. Israel's
amendment would "wipe out ROTC units at
Virginia." Mr. Israel's proposal was then tabled
by a vote of the faculty until the ROTC
Committee reports in April.