University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Mannix Blasts Shannon's Proclamation

By KEVIN L. MANNIX

Students returning to the
University after semester break
were delighted to read in the
February 3 issue of The
Cavalier Daily that the size of
next year's entering class will,
as a result of an Edgar F.
Shannon proclamation,
decrease from 2,162 to 2,000.
This news, transmitted to news
media throughout the state,
created an immediate positive
response. One student leader
labeled the decision "a great
victory for students." If this
constitutes a student victory,
one shudders to countenance a
"defeat."

The Shannon proclamation
was a political and
psychological coup for this
University administration, for
it constituted public notice
that the expansion plans of
Edgar Shannon have been
reaffirmed and it is an indirect
method of demonstrating that
the Future of the University
Committee, which is supposed
to be studying expansion, is
only as effective as Edgar and
David Shannon desire.

The proclamation is a
political and psychological
coup because it pretends to be
a decision against expansion,
and it has been so interpreted
by casual readers, while careful
students of administrative
decisions and announcements
at this University have learned
that there is always a "catch"
somewhere. In this instance,
the decrease in first-year
admissions by 162 is offset by
an announced increase in third
year transfers by 76 persons,
thereby creating a net decrease
of entering students of only
86. In addition, total
enrollment will increase by
600. Most importantly, the
Shannon proclamation is not
predicated upon the
assumption that expansion is
creating problems and
therefore should be cut back.

Rather, Mr. Shannon has
stated that this action was
necessary because "last fall's
undergraduate enrollment ran
ahead of projections." Thus,
the Shannon edict "is
necessary to hold the total of
the 1972-73 undergraduate
enrollment to the figure on
which the University's budget
request...was based." The key
to all of this is the fact that the
enrollment figures setting up
expansion.

What Shannon really has
done is said that he is
reaffirming his decision to
expand, because we actually
ran ahead of our expansion
projections this year so we are
cutting back slightly to keep
the projected expansion from
getting ahead of itself. That is
all he said—but he made it
sound like he was cutting back
on expansion. The victory for
Shannon in this whole affair is
that he managed to make a
pro-expansion affirmation
sound like a cutback, and most
of us bought it. The
University's press releases on
the subject had every
newspaper headlining a
"cutback" in admissions rather
than a re-affirmation of
expansion.

Of even greater concern is
the method of the slight
cutback in first-year
admissions: Shannon has
announced that it will only
affect out-of-state students. All
along, administrators have
warned that cutting back on
expansion would result in the
state legislature forcing us to
cut out-of-state admissions.
This is certainly a matter of
concern. In this case, it has
become a self-fulfilling
prophecy: in order to avoid
having our percentage of
out-of-state students cut back
by Richmond, we are doing it
ourselves (rather, the
administration is doing it). This
is analogous to committing
suicide in order to keep from
being killed. This was a totally
unnecessary decision by
President Shannon, and it
creates a dangerous precedent
for the future.

Finally, it adds ammunition
to his pro-expansion campaign
because now he has "proof"
that cutbacks in admissions
result in cutbacks in the
percentage of out-of-state
students. In effect, the logic of
the argument will become
redundantly self-perpetuating.

The saddest aspect of this
proclamation, though, does not
lie in President Shannon's
re-affirmation of his expansion
policies, for that might be
expected. The saddest part is
that it proves predictions that
the assignment of the question
of expansion to the Future of
the University Committee was
a public relations sham. Many
of us doubted the credibility of
this action. At a public meeting
last Fall of the Student Council
with members of the
Committee, they were urged to
immediately advise against any
enrollment increases until at
least an interim report was
prepared on the subject. Yet
the Committee members were
certain that no decisions would
be made until their initial
recommendations were in.

After all, hadn't Edgar
Shannon said that the
expansion enrollment figures
were tentative? Certainly,
David Shannon, Vice-President
and Provost (and therefore
charged with implementing
President Edgar Shannon's
expansion policies), who also
happens to be chairman of the
Future of the University
Committee, must have known
that a decision was imminent
regarding next year's entering
class size. Why did he allow the
committee to ignore this
situation?

In the end, President
Shannon, I am told, was kind
enough to personally visit the
Committee and inform the