University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Making A Sacrifice To Bureaucracy

By JAMES MALONE

—Ed)

My second criticism of the
Chester Titus proposal to
redesign the counselling
program arises because the
proposal favors the needs of
the Offices of Student Affairs
and Housing over those of the
academic function of the
University.

There are rumors that the
reasons for redesigning the
Counselling Program do not all
come from the Office of
Student Affairs. According to
informed sources, the Housing
and Business Offices
threatened to charge the Office
of Student Affairs next year
for rooms used by counselors
unless the Counselling
Program, itself, became more
responsive to the needs of the
Housing and Business Offices.

That such a threat would
ever be made seems a bit
incredible. But it really isn't
when you consider that there
exists a contractual document
negotiated between Student
Affairs and Housing over the
scope of each other's
responsibility. The Housing
Office is responsible to the
Vice—President for Business,
not Student Affairs. Student
Affairs and Housing are
constantly bickering over the
extent of their respective
fiefdoms. The only solution
thus far envisioned has been to
write out just where the
jurisdiction of each office
begins and ends.

That this rivalry exists is
counter-productive in itself,
but that this squabbling is
permitted to affect decisions
relating to students' university
experience is absurd.

Everyone admits that terms
and conditions have been
treated with varying degrees of
disregard by individual
counselors for quite some time.
The Titus proposal is
apparently an attempt to solve
this bureaucratic problem and
restore law and order to
residence hall life. But what of
those terms and
conditions—e.g., no preparation
of food in the dormitories. At
Mountain Lake in 1970,
Richard Shutts. Business
Manager of the University,
admitted that the reason
refrigerators had not been
allowed in the dormitories was
that Food Service would suffer
a loss in revenue. Does anyone
believe for a minute that the
motivation for banning
cooking in the dormitories
comes from other than the
same business-oriented
interests.

No one will deny that the
Housing Office has an interest
in making sure that they end
the year with as many
habitable dormitories as they
had at the beginning of the
year. No one will deny that
Housing ought to be allowed to
maintain the physical
condition of the dormitories as
best they can, but at some
time, someone has got to
remember that the function of
the Housing Office is only
ancillary to that of the
University's academic purpose.

The quality of life in the
residence halls at the
University should be
determined by those in touch
with the academic purpose of
the University, not those
charged with sweeping the halls
and justifying accounts.

Third, I criticize the
proposal because it is bereft of
any semblance of a modern
educational philosophy. It is a
throwback to in loco parentis,
a tradition that has gone by the
boards in most enlightened
circles of education. The Titus
proposal was instituted from
"on high"—in a manner
reminiscent of high school
student council days.

The proposal contains a
severe concern for "control" of
the physical aspect of the
residence halls. Resident
Assistants are responsible "for
a section of a building." Senior
Residents are responsible "for
an entire building." Head
Residents are responsible for a
couple of buildings. This
language implies a concern for
order and discipline rather than
a concern for the student who
will live in these "buildings."

This is an academic
institution. It is doubtful that
all but a few die-hard
administrators would be here
unless students were also
present. As such, decisions
ought to be made to serve the
academic function and purpose
of the University. If the
Housing Office has a problem,
it should be considered within
the framework of the academic
nature of the community, not
by itself in total disregard of
the fact that this is an
educational institution. The
dorms can't be run like
Howard Johnson's Motel or a
New York City high-rise. The
clientele is different.

The counselling program,
because it should be a function
of the academic purpose of the
University, must be responsive
to the clientele-not the
Housing Office's interpretation
of terms and conditions. The
program proposed by Mr. Titus
is primarily responsive to these
Housing needs. It is built upon
a philosophy that sees
academic matters to be outside
the scope and purpose of the
counselling program. It sees the
fourth floor of Cabell Hall as
the only place where academic
advice ought to be given on
this campus. It believes the
Counselling Center or the
Mental Health Clinic to be the
sole places where personal