University of Virginia Library

Collier's Response
Rejects 'Concession'

Edgar F. Shannon

President of the University

Tom Collier

President of the Student Council

—Ed.)

Much has happened in the last twenty-four
hours that may have profound effect on the
University in the days and years to come. I have
received two letters from you, one of which
holds out hope, another which is most
distressing. Permit me to reply to them now.

Although your letter to Vice President and
Provost David A. Shannon outlines what might
be new directions for the Future of the
University Committee, Mr. Gillespie, other
members of Student Council and I have agreed
that the actions planned for Monday night and
Tuesday should proceed.

Several reasons underlie this decision. Your
letter to Vice President Shannon offers the
hope that the Future of the University
Committee may become the body that we have
sought for a year and a half: a single group
charged with investigating all aspects of growth
and expansion at the University. However, your
charge must be read in conjunction with your
statement in the covering letter to me that "the
primary responsibility of the Future of the
University Committee is academic." Thus, the
charge is susceptible to the interpretation that:
(1) The Committee's primary concern is
academic development as opposed to physical
facilities and (2) Physical limitations will
continue to receive only secondary
consideration, both in the Future of the
University Committee and elsewhere.

Responsibilities

More specifically, you charge the committee
"this year" to examine enrollment as it relates
to "academic improvement" and
responsibilities to the Commonwealth.
Responsibilities to students regarding the
quality of their environment are "also" to be
given some consideration. We see in this
language no hint that the present preoccupation
with increasing enrollment will end. We see no
suggestion that any credence is being given our
contention that the physical facilities that are
or will be available are inadequate for the
present student body. We perceive no
recognition that the future "physical and
budgetary exigencies" that you mentions
already exist.

As popularly elected officers and members
of the Student Council we have a responsibility
to a constituency of 12,000 that has
unmistakably indicated to us its belief that the
University's physical ability to expand in
enrollment is inseparable from its ability to
maintain academic excellence. The latter-goal,
we feel, cannot be reached without giving
paramount consideration to physical
limitations. In recent years, these limitations
have been given but slight consideration. While
your new charge would certainly be an

Peter Gillespie

Vice-President of the Student Council

improvement over the present situation, if the
committee undertakes its secondary role with
vigor, we have neither assurance nor indication
that it will attempt to do so, nor that it will be
allowed to by narrower-scope committees on
fundamental decisions concerning facilities.
And we have no intimation that if the
committee plays its secondary role with the
vigor required, any recommendations that are
not in accord with present policy will be given
effect.

We have not suddenly discovered the
problem of perilous growth. While we
sought, through every available avenue a
thorough review of present policy, conditions
have reached or neared crisis proportion in
classroom space, housing, traffic and parking,
and food services; the library's decline seems
accelerated.

'Need For Concern'

Our efforts to secure an open and critical
examination of these problems have been met
with nothing save assurances by your
spokesmen that someone, somewhere within
the University's bureaucracy, was also
concerned. Such concern, if it exists, has not
been manifested; it is not to be seen in any of
your letters of October 15.

It is to accent the need for such concern and
consideration that we originally scheduled
University Tuesday. We did so only after Vice
President Shannon had informed the members
of the Future of the University Committee that
that body could not deal with growth
problems. We did so only after many hours of
discussion with the Provost and with your
assistants, Mr. Gardner and Mr. Elwood. After
making the decision to proceed with the
activities, we maintained daily contact with
Dean of Students Robert Canevari, informing
him of all changes in our tentative agenda.
Thus, we were quite grieved to be told in your
letter of yesterday afternoon that you had just
learned-and from The Cavalier Daily-of our
plans. We had naturally assumed that when we
dealt with your designated representatives, we
were in communication with you.

Capital Outlays

A point that you raised to me might well be
worthy of consideration by the Committee on
the Future. You spoke of your recent request
to the legislature for $23.6 million for capital
outlays. We are so firmly dedicated as you to
the proposition that the University desperately
needs the three new buildings that this money
would provide, and the renovation of two older
buildings also included in these funds, for it is
we who now suffer from the lack of classroom
facilities. The committee might consider
whether additional enrollment is wise until
these buildings are well under construction.

It seems to us an undeniable truth that it is
our duty as students, as you suggested, to aid
you in your efforts to secure these funds. And