University of Virginia Library

Chabot, State Official
View Growth Question

By PARKES BRITTAIN

In a letter received by the Cavalier
Daily, Roy E. McTarnaghan, director of
the State Council of Higher Education,
indicated that he had answered the
questions which Phil Chabot, secretary of
the Student Council, had asserted were not
sufficiently answered by State officials in
connection with growing pains here at the
University.

Photo By John Alexander

Phil Chabot

Secretary Of Student Council

Mr. McTarnaghan's recent letter
enclosed a copy of the letter dated
August 17 "which was in answer to questions"
proposed by Mr. Chabot. In Mr. Chabot's letter
of August 10, he asked questions concerning
the University's commitment to enrollment
projections, the growth of other state
institutions of higher learning, expansion at the
University in relation to facilities in
Charlottesville, and criteria to be used for
determining future enrollment projections.

Mr. McTarnaghan, by sending the copy of
that letter, expressed his interest in Mr.
Chabot's colloquium which appeared in the
Cavalier Daily on October 13, "which indicates
a lack of response by the State Council of
Higher Education to questions raised by Mr.
Chabot."

The enclosed letter noted that "if the
University should request to pull back its
enrollment projections at any future date, it
certainly would be within the decision making
realm of the Board of Visitors."

In reference to growth in other state
institutions, Mr. McTarnaghan indicated that
there was little increase in student demand for
many of these institutions, and that "there are
currently no plans to open new universities or
new branches."

Mr. Chabot had also questioned the eventual
effect that expansion will have on the
Charlottesville community. Mr. McTarnaghan
replied that "these are matters for which the
University administration, in cooperation with
the Board of Visitors, has the legal
responsibility in executing their plans."

In relation to the criteria to be used for
determining enrollment projections beyond
1976, Mr. McTarnaghan said that census
analyses will play a major role in setting such
projections. He noted that "Virginia has one of
the lowest percentages of college-going rate
among college age young people in the United
States today."

Mr. Chabot then replied in a letter dated
August 25, in reference to expansion and how
it will affect the Charlottesville community,
that "we have observed that this 'college
town' atmosphere often creates circumstances
in which local leaders, and citizens themselves,
are unwilling to give effective voice to what
they perceive to be the best interest of the
community for fear of alienating University
officials."

"On the other hand," he continued, "the
University as an institution has no
corresponding restraint on the local scene."

Mr. Chabot noted, however, that now
"various officials of the city of Charlottesville
are openly apprehensive over what may be a
serious housing shortage in the City and
surrounding areas in the coming years."

He then added detailed illustrations of his
points.

Mr. McTarnaghan replied in a brief letter
dated August 27, "I cannot give the answers
you seek because it is the Board of Visitors, not
the State Council which will involve itself with
college-community planning.

"What is our position if the Board of
Visitors does not fulfill its responsibility in
these matters?" Mr. Chabot asked yesterday.

He stated that the State Board "answered
the questions, but did not respond to the
problems in a active way. There's a difference
between listening and hearing."

He added, "the question now is whether
they performed their minor function to answer
the questions or whether they performed their
optimal function which is to act."