University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

'Go To Hell, David Shannon'

By MARK MITTLEMAN

—Ed.)

If the interview with
University Provost David
Shannon reported in the
November 16 Cavalier Daily is
an accurate statement of his
views and of the policies
guiding the present University
administration, it is absolutely
incredible that this man has
been entrusted with the
responsibilities of his office.
His obvious contempt for
students, his demonstrated bad
faith in considering their
complaints through the Future
of the University Committee,
and his wholly inadequate logic
in the defense of his own
policies all make it clear that
he is completely unqualified
for the position.

So students who oppose the
University's unchecked growth
because it has damaged the
quality of the academic
environment are "elitists"
now? And those who wanted
to go to an elitist school should
have gone somewhere else? In
other words, those who wanted
a high-quality academic
environment should not have
come here? Thanks a lot, Mr.
Shannon! Why did I bother to
come here to Law school when
I could have had Harvard,
Michigan, or Chicago?

Better Education

I really believed I could get
a better education here, in an
academic environment where
there is not just a good faculty,
but also freedom from the
pressure I fought and hated
all through college. That means
freedom from crowds, from
dirt, from lines; from hostile
townspeople; from impossible
prices; from aggressive,
mean-spirited, and overly
competitive students; from
arrogant, untouchable
professors; from the hazards
and ugliness of a big, decaying
city. And do you have the
nerve, Mr. Shannon, to tell me
that the effort to escape them
wasn't worth it? That I
shouldn't have done it? That
you don't want me here? That
you want to change the
University so no one like me
ever comes here again? Go to
hell, David Shannon!

But there is more involved
here than mere personal
resentment of the man's gross
insensitivity Who does Mr.
Shannon think he's fooling
with his incompetent— or
dissembling, or just plain
dishonest—arguments about
growth and the quality of the
University? In the first place,
take the idea that expanding its
size improves the faculty.
Princeton is considerably
smaller than the University of
Virginia. Is its faculty poorer?
Does it have more trouble
attracting excellent teachers?
Arizona State is larger than
Virginia and growing even
faster. Is its faculty better? Of
course not. The size of a
university has nothing to do
with the quality of its teachers.
Only the unique attributes and
quality of its academic
environment can attract
them—or the salaries it is
prepared to pay.

If that environment is
destroyed as a fulfilling place
for students, inevitably it will
be destroyed for the faculty,
too. And if the best students
are driven away to other
"elitist" schools which have
more to offer them, why
would good teachers want to
come? Incidentally, the first
students that leave will be those
from out of state, who pay
higher tuition. Where will the
money to pay higher faculty
salaries come from then? If the
enrollment is increased,
perhaps the legislature will
allow the University to hire
more faculty members. But
will it offer them larger salaries
than it does now, or will it
only pay enough to attract
more people of the same
quality we have already. Or
will it be so overjoyed at the
departure of the damyankee
out-of-state students that it
will vote all the professors big
raises? Or all the
administrators?

Sheer Increase

Or is Mr. Shannon's logic
that a sheer increase in
numbers will improve the
faculty in quality, because the
bums he has on tenure now are
pretty lousy, but he won't
make that mistake again? Will
the wonderful new professors
offset the incompetent old
ones? Will the University attain
the magical 73.7 per cent
faculty quality quantity?

And the argument that
increased enrollment of women
(and, by implication, of blacks)
means that total enrollment
must grow, to avoid offending
the legislature, is a strange and
hypocritical one to make at
this time. For years it was
intimated that the University
had to go slowly on minority
and female admissions to avoid
offending the wealthy,
conservative but devoted
alumni who contribute to its
crucial endowment fund. And
now the administration is
apparently ready to ignore
their feelings about the
changed character of the
University because a crucial
source of funds is at stake. Did
they suddenly become less
important once the sex and
color lines were broken? Was
the pressure on the legislature
formerly too insignificant to
override their wishes when it
only came from a few
disgruntled bitches and uppity
niggers? I guess that's what Mr.
Shannon thinks; he admits that
we have already turned away
qualified women but "if we did
this with both men and
women" he fears we would be
in trouble with the state. So,
are the alumni and other
contributors who care about
the future of the University
unworthy elitists now, though
wise counselors in the past? Or,
more likely, does the
administration hope to placate
them with propaganda that
conceals the true situation—the
deterioration of the academic
community that has already
begun—while depicting the
protesting students as mere
villainous agitators?

And what about the strange
coincidence that women and
black students are the most
severely affected by the
University-created housing
shortage in Charlottesville?