University of Virginia Library

Mountain Lake: What's Wrong With The University

By Charles A. Hite
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Edgar F. Shannon had just finished speaking.
But this time the words were not the usual
carefully worded, monotonic university president
utterances. This time there was an emotional
tightness in Edgar Shannon's voice and moisture in
his eyes as he told the 60 odd persons in the room
that he had poured his heart and soul into the
betterment of the University. For anyone to
suspect his sincerity was terribly disturbing to him.
They believed him and applauded. We sat, arms
folded, and tried to fight off the sense of
hopelessness and frustration welling up inside.

That applause was the last we remember of the
formal sessions at Mountain Lake. It seemed an
ironic ending to an emotional crescendo which had
been building all weekend among the 30-odd
"student leaders" and 30-odd "faculty-administrators."
District seemed to be the basis of the
emotion - distrust, on a simple level, that always
seems to exist between the 50-year old and the
20-year old. But also evident was another cause of
the distrust: the conflict between those who felt
students had the ability and right to have a direct
control in guiding their lives at the University and
those who felt they did not. Members from each
side of the generation gap split on this issue. This
was the root of the distrust at the conference and
is the root of what's wrong with the University
today.

President Shannon's Remarks

Perhaps President Shannon's intense remarks
are a good example of what we mean.
Conversation just prior to his outburst had been
driving toward a real gut issue: what did each
faction - students vs. Administration - really
expect from each other? Did each think the other
a bitter enemy? Did each believe the other to be
acting in bad faith with sinister motivations? Does
one group want to hold back the University and
force the other to destroy it?

The President's remarks reminded us of a father
addressing his children or a 19th century
plantation owner assuring his slaves that he was
doing everything he could for them and that things
weren't really so bad anyway. Herein lies the
problem. The very structure of the University
compels administrators to talk to students and
other constituencies in a paternalistic fashion.

The president is charged by the Board of
Visitors with the responsibility for the administration
of the University. He may delegate duties to
subordinates but in the end he is responsible. His
responsibilities fall into three basic areas:

1) Policy making - in which he defines the
mission of the University, formulates educational
and administration policies, interprets the policies
to the members of the University community and
citizens of Virginia.

2) Executive responsibilities - in which he
executes all laws relating to the University, all
resolutions and rules of the Board of Visitors; all
duties assigned him by the Board of Visitors;
makes recommendations to the Board of Visitors;
General Assembly, and the Governor; prepares an
annual report and other special reports for the
Board of Visitors.

3) Administrative Responsibilities - in which
he retains control of the budget, carries out
policies of the University, insures the University is
properly staffed with competent personnel,
establishes and maintains lines of communication.
The president is a member of all faculties. He is
subject to direction and control of the Board of
Visitors. Reporting to the president are various
staff officers such as the Provost and Comptroller,
and administrative officers such as the deans of the
schools of the University.

This is in no way comprehensive outline of the
duties of the President. But it demonstrates why
the President and administration below him feel
they must develop and maintain an autocratic
attitude towards the running of the University.

It is precisely this attitude and approach that
students do not want during their stay at the
University. They want a voice and a share of
control in determining policies which will directly
affect their educational experience here. And, we
expect, the faculty does not welcome this attitude
from the administration either.

An illustration of this was seen in the unofficial
meeting held by Student Council last week. Many
members were disturbed that they had been
invited as hand-picked guests. They were considered
by the President to be a broad representation
of student opinion. The point was made,
however, that the students themselves might be
better judges of who represented their opinions
and that they should have at least been consulted
when the guest list was drawn up.

Council Requests Radical Leaders

Council then sent a letter to President Shannon
asking that representatives from three other
student groups be invited to attend Mountain
Lake: the Black Students for Freedom, the
Experimental University, and the Virginia Weekly.
Council felt these were a needed supplement to
the traditional power structure groups already
invited; all members of the Council, the presidents
of all the schools, the chairman of the judiciary
committee, the president of the University Union,
the president of the IFC, chairman of counselors
and representatives from the daily student paper.

President Shannon's response stated that
"because the (student) electors seem to have
selected leaders with a broad range of interests, the
invitation list appears to have included students
active in the organizations you have mentioned. I
see, however, that Annie Sue Ford, one of the
black students elected to the Student Council, is
not returning this year and has declined my
invitation. I have therefore asked Mr. George
Taylor, President of the Black Students for
Freedom, to attend the conference in her place."

Mr. Shannon knew much earlier, we suspect,
that Miss Ford would not be able to attend. Why
had he not asked George Taylor earlier? Even if
Miss Ford had attended the Mountain Lake
meeting, Mr. Taylor should have also been invited
to represent the views of his special interest group.

There is a touch of irony in the fact that
George Taylor, who was busy with Black
Orientation, sent a replacement, second-year man
John Thomas, who made tremendous impact on
the discussions at Mountain Lake.

Mr. Thomas spoke eloquently and with
conviction on the needs and problems of the black
man at the University of Virginia. Every member
of the conference was impressed with what he had
to say. Yet if student council had not written to
President Shannon he would not have been there.
Here is a primary example of the need for active
student participation in the decision making
processes at the University. And there are others.

During the course of one discussions, David A.
Shannon, Dean of the Faculty of the College, told
of a committee he was appointing to study the
organization of a black studies program. When
asked by Mr. Thomas if he or any other members
of the Black Students for Freedom had been
contacted about serving on the committee, Mr.
Shannon admitted that he did not even know of
Mr. Thomas' existence until the conference. Again,
the same necessity of students directly determining
who should represent them.

The autocracy can work against the faculty,
too. As Dean Shannon so aptly put it once, "I was
not elected and that's part of the problem." There
are times when faculty members themselves seem
to have no voice in matters that concern them.
Take the selection of the five man advisory board
on promotions in the college, for example. Dean
Shannon appoints the members.

The combined faculties also seemed to be left
in the cold when it came to Mountain Lake. There
were only two faculty members there who were
not in one way or another administrators. And
they were chosen to come because they were
members of a committee of the University Senate,
a somewhat mysterious faculty governing body
which meets bi-annually and is well infiltrated
with administrators.

Student power and its many roles in the
University seemed to creep out of much of the
rhetoric tossed around at Mountain Lake. A few
more words on it and then some discussion of
other issues raised.

Most of the discussion on student participation
centered around student representation on the
more than 50 administrative committees which
report directly to President Shannon. Many of
these committees do not contain much interest for
students. But there are several which have a
tremendous impact on student life, such as the
Admissions Committee, the Future of the
University Committee (which is preparing another
report on coeducation for the Board of Visitors),
the Master Plan Committee, and the ROTC
Committee.

The history of student representation on these
committees is a rather dismal one. In the past
President Shannon selected student members from
suggestions submitted by various deans and from a
list submitted by Student Council. In the past
Council lists had been rather haphazard, unrepresentative
and inadequate. This past year a long list
of names was submitted by council but not after
quite a bit of prodding from President Shannon. In
fact some of the list was complied by new council
president Bud Ogle.

Student Appointments

The idea of Student Council making the
student appointments for administrative committees,
therefore, may have well been greeted
with some skepticism by President Shannon. But
good arguments were presented as to why this
system would be a sound one: President Shannon
is often out of touch with student thinking; letting
Council choose the student members would save
time for other busy work in Pavilion VIII; Council
controlled appointments would also give real
decision making power to the Council, not just an
advisory role; the power of appointment by
council would represent no loss of power by
President Shannon since the committees are still
heavily weighted by faculty and administration
members.

Should the faculty pick their representatives on
these committees? As one student put it at the
conference, "That's their problem."

The idea of student picked representatives on
faculty committees was also discussed, and it was
pointed out that in some schools this situation
already exists. In the Architecture school, for
example, students sit in equal number with faculty
members in a board deciding matters of
curriculum. A particular problem exists in the
College because it is so large and is without any
formal channels where students can meet with
faculty members at the department level.