The Cavalier daily :: Tuesday, October 6, 1970 :: University of Virginia Library

The committee was formed last
November by the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences to make recommendations for
the strengthening of the existing
University Senate. Since this time, the
committee and several interested student
leaders have helped in the formulation of
proposals to augment the University
Senate.

Survived in Name Only

Events, such as the strike of last May
and student-administrative tensions in
general, have been instrumental in
constructing a format of relief from these
differences through the medium of a
faculty-student senate.

The University Senate was established
by a resolution of the General Faculty
adopted in 1925. During the past 45
years, however, the Senate has survived in
name only.

The formal authority of the Senate
rests on the original resolution which
delegated to it "all functions and duties
then performed by the General Faculty with
the exception of conferring degrees." Yet, since
its conception in 1925 the Senate has spent
most of its time trying to decide exactly what
its functions are.

No Formal Authority

The few distinct duties it did hold, such as
receiving communications from the Student
Honor Committee and conducting legislation
affecting departments of the University, were
rarely conferred by the Senate. Today, as then,
the Senate has no formal authority. By custom,
the faculty governed issues which pertained to
educational matters and the administration
performed the business matters of the
University.

Last spring, in an informal meeting of
students and faculty members, including Bud
Ogle, Student Council president of last year,
and David H. Flaherty, Professor of History,
the plans for a new and vibrant Senate,
responsive to the needs of every group in the
University community, were discussed.

Concerned with Student Rules

From such informal discussions, Student
Council action, and the report of the special
committee on the University Senate, have come
provisions and proposals for the new
faculty-student senate.

In an interview with Mr. Flaherty, several
new and exciting aspects of the senate were
discussed. The Senate would be concerned with
student rules, departmental judgments on
educational matters, and issues pertaining to
the welfare of the University community.

20 students Proposed

Among these, Mr. Flaherty pointed out
that under the new proposals 20 students
would join 60 faculty members and 20 officers
of the administration in collaboration on topics
of University-wide concern. All members of the
Senate would have equal right to speak and
vote on matters coming before them.

Mr. Flaherty also noted that even though it
may be appropriate for the Senate on occasion
to advise the administration on policies
effecting students, the Senate should not
attempt activity to regulate student affairs. "We
must realize," said Mr. Flaherty. "that the
Senate will also be a sounding board for
administrative policy. Our main concern is
communication."

He also expressed his concern that there is
wide-spread disagreement among faculty
members as to the effectiveness of such an
agreement.

An article in the July 6 edition of The
Chronicle of Higher Education may help
reassure some of the opposition. The article
deals with the formation of such a representative body at the University of New
Hampshire where Alden L. Winn, a professor
who at first opposed the idea says, "By and
large it's quite successful. It's given students a
voice and because they have a voice, it has
dampened in the minds of some students the
need for protest."

"It's co-opted a lot of people in the best
sense of the word, bringing them into a
discussion-making process. Since the new senate
has been in operation, no-vote has broken down
into student vs. faculty."

Concerning the nation-wide student protests
of last year, one student ventures the
observation that "the senate helped keep the
on. It provided a forum - if it weren't for that,
things might have been a lot worse."

Opposition to Proposals

Mr. Flaherty also asserted that there seemed
to be considerable opposition to the proposals
among several faculty members. Some members
proposed that students be allowed in the Senate
without a vote while others completely
excluded students from representation.
Percentage representation and the overall
purpose of such a senate were also questioned
by various faculty members.

The general faculty has yet to vote as a
group on the proposals for the new Senate but
already sentiments run high on both sides.

"We'll take it to the faculty at the next
meeting in October," said Mr. Flaherty, "when
we'll find out exactly what everybody thinks."