University of Virginia Library

The December Meeting

On May 8, 1968, we wrote: "We...have no
idea that chaos such as that which brought
Columbia to a standstill would erupt at the
University. In the first place, there do not
seem to be any issues here burning enough to
incite such obtrusive concern, and, in the
second place, if there were, we feel that the
administration would seriously consider student
objections to any of its policies or
undertakings and thereby take steps to rectify
an inflammatory situation before it erupted.

"We have seen, for example, more than
one occasion in the past several years in which
the administration has responded to student
demands both for more privileges and for
more power... In no situation has the administration
ignored student complaints or suggestions...

"Violence of the sort which rent Columbia
'asunder' is defensible only after all other
methods of expression have been completely
exhausted. Fortunately, these methods are,
we have every reason to believe, inexhaustible
at the University."

Then, on September 13, 1968, in the first
issue of this session, we wrote: "...As students
everywhere get more and more fed up with
the antics of that [older] generation, as each
day brings new such antics, students everywhere
get more and more 'on edge.' The
students of this university, insular as it is, are
not immune to the spreading uneasiness...

"This year...we will see more and more
demonstrations of increasing fervor. This year
we will see more and more coats and ties
among those demonstrations...

"...We hope those in the administration
whose power it is to do something about it
will never fail to realize the intensity of the
feelings of those who seek change or who
conscientiously rebel or speak out...; further,
we hope that in realizing that intensity and
the conscience therein they will never fail to
respond accordingly lest those harboring it be
driven to lose sight of what is best for the
University.

"Nothing much has changed on the surface,
but all-important changes have occurred
underneath. Look out, because when those
changes manifest themselves on the surface,
anything could happen."

After the Mountain Lake Conference we
said (September 17, 1968): "No decisions were
made on the mountain, but the groundwork
for many future decisions was laid. We suspect
that students who seek changes in the future
will find a more receptive audience than they
have had in the past...

"The ever-expanding generation gap can
never be closed, but it has certainly been
bridged effectively at this university. May that
bridge never collapse, for without it the
University might well follow it down."

The announcement that the $100 dorm
deposit was rescinded was made on the same
day: "...Mr. Shannon's announcement...to rescind
the decision - much more rapid than
anyone dreamed of - seems to confirm our
speculation about increased receptiveness of
administrators to student feelings... Mr. Shannon
heard the students' opinions on the
matter, was impressed with the legitimacy of
them, and acted accordingly. Once again
administrative receptiveness to a reasonable
student request has girded up that bridge
between generations."

And on September 27 we said, quoting
those student leaders who had been interviewed
by Newsweek about campus activism,
that "the administration here, as opposed to
that at Columbia, for example, usually responded
to student demands so quickly that
no one really ever had time to become
actively militant..."

Now, for the first time, we see definite
signs of the administration's faltering in its
all-important responsiveness to reasonable student
demands. It is true that a black admissions
officer has been hired, but only on a
part-time basis, and it took many months of
prodding to get even that; it is true that the
dorm deposit was rescinded, and we know
that a significant statement is forthcoming
from the Housing Committee concerning
sprinklers and students' rights to stay in their
off-Grounds housing regardless of their landlords'
compliance or non-compliance with
new approval standards, and we are gratified
that the administration responded in these
cases; at the same time, however, we are quick
to realize that the situations rectified in the
last two cases were unreasonable and indefensible
to begin with.

The point is that there are too many issues
left on which students are getting a sort of runaround,
or to which they are getting very
slow, if any, response - and by response we
mean mere consideration. For example, let us
consider the matter of the open meeting of
the Board of Visitors. In May of this year
Rick Evans, president of the Student Council,
told Mr. Shannon that he would like to talk to
the Board on student matters and to answer
its questions thereon.

On October 29 Mr. Shannon received a
petition with 3,000 signatures which requested
the Board "to discuss in an open forum
issues of interest with students, faculty, and
administration at the University." On October
22 the Student Council had formally supported
the efforts of those who circulated the
petition in a unanimous resolution. The Cavalier
Daily added its support on October 24.
On October 29 the Student Council reiterated
its concern over the open meeting by suggesting
that "President Evans and President
Shannon work jointly to set up a student-administration
committee to make arrangements
for an open meeting with the Board of
Visitors."

In a letter dated November 1 Mr. Evans
presented the Council's position to Mr. Shannon
as follows: "The Student Council has
directed me to request that you establish a
student-administration committee to study
the problems of and hopefully to effect an
'open' meeting with the Board of Visitors. As
this is obviously a matter deserving some
study, and as student opinion has already
been strongly expressed in favor of such a
meeting, may I recommend all possible haste
in the establishment of such a committee... I
cannot stress enough the need for action on
this matter... I feel, that it is essential that
some concrete proposal, at the very least, be
presented to the Board in December so that
some sort of answer to the problem may be
effected at the next Board meeting (I believe
in February)..." That letter was delayed in the
mail and did not reach Mr. Shannon's office
until November 6. He received it personally
and acknowledged it on November 8.

Meanwhile, on November 4 members of
the ad hoc committee for the open meeting
had followed up their petition with a letter to
Mr. Shannon, which he acknowledged, along
with the petition, in a letter dated November
8. In that letter he made reference to his plans
to set up the committee the Student Council
had recommended, and said he would present
the petition to the Board. In another letter,
dated November 12, Mr. Shannon appointed
that committee.

The committee will hold its first meeting
on Monday. Thus it cannot possibly present
its recommendations to the Board today (the
December meeting referred to by Mr. Evans).
Hopefully it can make them at the February
meeting, but even then nothing can possibly
be effected before the meeting after that, in
the spring or early summer, eight months after
it all began. When it became apparent to Mr.
Evans that such was the case, he requested to
attend the current Board meeting in its
entirety personally, as he had requested in
May, but was told that such a decision could
not be made on such short notice.

Whatever the administration's reasons for
delaying consideration of this matter, the fact
is that the goal involved cannot possibly be
attained before early summer, if then. And
this was a matter on which the Student
Council had requested "all possible haste" so
that "at the very least" it would come before
the Board today. The "very least" of what the
Council requested turned
out to be even beyond the "very most" of
what it got. We can only insist that Mr.
Shannon, as a "very least," could have urged
the committee to have its recommendations
ready today. The petitioners had hoped for
some sort of open meeting today.

This is just one example of the administration's
failure to give what students feel is
proper and properly hasty attention to a
matter of great concern to them. Similar
situations have developed in the matters of
dormitory self-rule, co-education, the Housing
Committee (which was discussed at length at
Mountain Lake), the Student Activities Fee,
lighting on the Grounds, and numerous
others.

Our hope is that the administration will
realize the intensity of the students' feelings
on all these matters and respond in a fashion
pursuant thereto. Our hope is that the administration
has not forgotten the "spirit" of
Mountain Lake, for it is in that spirit that
many, many students, leaders and non-leaders
alike, have placed all their trust. The bridge of
which we spoke after the conference in
September must not be allowed to collapse,
and it is a bridge of the sort which requires
the full support of both of its tiers, the
administration and the students. If one tier
falters, the other cannot possibly bear the
load.