University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Policies Reflect Decisions Made In Vacuum

By PHIL CHABOT

There is something very
wrong with the manner in
which important decisions are
made at this University. Any
observant person should not
take long to see that nearly
every major University dispute
has at its base a dissatisfaction
with the manner in which a
decision was arrived at. Most
major University decisions lack
legitimacy; legitimacy in the
sense that the decision is
accepted on the part of some
major constituency as having
taken into account its
particular concern and interest.

Most students tend to
believe that their non-academic
interests are seldom taken into
account by the University.
When student interests are
served it is generally believed
by students to have been the
result of coincidence. Thus,
students are the most vocal in
voicing their opposition to
particular University decisions,
often with good cause. The
'first annual' (not to be
followed by six years) report
of the Future of the University
Committee (1966), for
example, virtually ignored the
likely effect on student life
when it set the University
enrollment figures for 1980.

Students are not along. That
particular committee also failed
to take into account the effects
of expansion on the
Charlottesville Community.
One should not be surprised
that the residents of the Bellair
subdivision raised a
noteworthy fuss when they
learned that the University
had, without consulting them,
requested funds for a
connecting link to Birdwood
directed through their
properties.

In recent years students
have come to a better
awareness of the plight of the
University's non-academic
employees. State law prohibits
such employees from forming
unions and University practice
takes their concerns into
account in the decision-making
process only incidentally.
Thus, employees raised a fuss
when they learned of the
University's 'pay parking plan'
last August.

Many faculty members have
been warning of the erosion of
faculty leadership for some
time. Astute observers can
point to many examples where
the faculty have lost control of
academic decisions. This has,
for some time, been a gradual
erosion. There have been few
vivid examples—until this
month.

This month the Dean of the
College and the Association
Deans were given a vivid
illustration of the fact that
important academic decisions
are now made in
administrative corners.
Fortunately, the Deans were
successful in delaying the
implementation of the new
counseling program. Yet they
cannot have escaped from this
predicament without a better
realization of the present and
future trend in University
governance.

Now that Messrs. Cauthen,
Wallace, Diehl, et al. have been
given this illustration of their
common interest with
students, townspeople, and
non-faculty staff, perhaps we
can work together to set the
structure right.

Most committees today
report directly to the President
who reports to the Board of
Visitors. The real power to
determine a decision does not
rest with the Board, however,
or even the President, but with
those who provide the 'facts'
over which the committee
deliberates or who 'guide' the
committees. That is, generally,
administrators. There is usually
just enough participation in
significant decisions to
perpetrate the myth that there
is participation. Often the basic
elements of a decisive decision
have already been arrived at
'somewhere.'

This is not an argument
supporting the 'conspiracy'
theory of University
governance. The fact of the
matter is that the University is
too diverse to make a
conspiracy possible. The
University simply runs; often
by habit. It runs like
organizational theory predicts
such bureaucracies will
run—often in a manner which
does not take into account its
varied constituencies.

Supporters of administrative
predominance (meant here to
include the system of
University Committees
reporting directly to the
President) tend to fall back
upon the argument that the
complexities of the University
require that it be governed by a
corporate-like organization.
They say, in short, that the
present system of governance is
efficient.

One could make an entire
case against such a form of
organization on the ground
that academic matters, not
simply efficiency, is supposed
to be the purpose of the
University. But this would only
provide a counter-argument. It
is necessary to attack the
argument of efficiency itself. In
actuality the present system is
not efficient. It is not efficient
to make a decision or
promulgate a policy and then
spend weeks, months, or even
years fighting about it with
constituencies that do not feel
their interests to have been
taken into account.

Of those example given
earlier, a lack of proper
concern for factors mentioned
in implementing the expansion
decision has resulted in a bitter
quarrel which has spilled over
into the General Assembly,
involved mass demonstrations,
and consumed huge amounts
of time and effort on the part
of all concerned. The Bellair
Homeowners' Assoc. succeeded
in getting the Birdwood access
road placed under a year-long
review by the State Highway
Department. Student and staff
opposition to the pay-parking
scheme resulted in a one year's
delay, too; and the Deans have
now succeeded in delaying the
counseling program for a year.

All of these delays and the
time and effort expended in