University of Virginia Library

ACLU Letter On Withdrawal

The following is a statement of the American Civil Liberties Union
concerning the University's policy that students who drop out of school
must leave the Charlottesville area.-Ed.

SIR:

Last week's edition of The Virginia Weekly has exposed a
highly arbitrary University policy. A student in good academic
and disciplinary standing sought to withdraw from the University.
Before it would officially recognize his "good standing,"
however, the University required him to sign a form in which he
agreed to leave Charlottesville immediately. To expedite his
departure, the Dean of the University, B.F.D. Runk, pressured
the University Library into firing the now ex-student from a
position which both he and the library had assumed he could
retain after his resignation.

These events raise serious issues. Apparently this University
policy reflects in part a rule that absence from Charlottesville
during a student sabbatical is a prerequisite to re admittance. If
this is true, it is difficult to see the relation between re admittance
and the place the student spends his sabbatical. It is even
more difficult to see the relation between re admittance and the
official status accorded the student when he voluntarily withdraws
from the University. "Good standing" exists independently
of a student's future plans. If a student has a good record when
he withdraws from the University, it is dishonest not to acknowledge
that record.

Another important issue raised by this University policy
is whether or not it is imposed on a student who does not intend
to reapply to the University. If he asserts his right to remain in
Charlottesville, is he also denied official recognition of his "good
standing?" Certainly such a denial, in addition to being legally
questionable, is inherently unfair (1) because a decision to live
in Charlottesville should not eradicate a good record compiled
while at the University and (2) because the denial might substantially-injure
the student's future educational opportunities,
his career, and his reputation.

As disturbing as the University's policy is Dean Runk's implementation
of it. Does the Dean always enforce the policy by
driving the student from the town? The fact that he had the
student fired shows that the Dean is willing to go to extremes
to enforce the policy. If this firing is somehow a legitimate
exercise of his authority within the University, the Dean
should nevertheless realize that, in cases where a student is not
employed by the University, inducing a breach of contract or
otherwise interfering with an ex-student's life may well be a
civil wrong, actionable in a court of law.

Certainly this episode and the issues it raises point up the
danger of allowing the University a free hand in dealing with
students. The students of this University should demand a formal
system of procedural safeguards and substantive limitations that
will prevent just such excesses as have been uncovered in the
last week. Contrary to the opinion of many University officials,
students do have rights which they do not surrender merely by
attending the University.