University of Virginia Library

Negotiate Now

In their February 22 letter to D. Alan
Williams (reprinted on this page), eight
Association Deans join with Irby B.
Cauthen, Jr., Dean of the College, in a
reasoned and compelling argument for
delaying implementation of the Titus order
on dormitory counseling. More than voices
of restraint, these men -whose charge it is
to assure the quality of academic advising
and instruction -raise important questions
concerning not only the substantive
implications of Mr. Titus's plan but also the
meretricious method of its formulation.

The existing counseling program, they
state, "has been successful." And
improvements may be hoped to emerge, for
the present system, they add, is hardly
"sacrosanct." While "it has added greatly to
the life -both social and academic -of our
students," the Deans say flatly that any
redefinition or changes in the program must
come only after "full consultations" with all
those affected especially the academic
administrators themselves.

"We in the Office of the Dean of the
College," the letter explains, "are
particularly concerned about how the
proposed changes fit the necessary academic
advising... More and more we have come to
rely upon the good service of dormitory
counselors and resident advisers in a very
important aspect -but not the only one -of
a student's life here." Given such a concern,
it is not surprising that the Deans are quick
to note the near absence of attention to
academic functions and responsibilities in
the corporate terminology of Mr. Titus's
unfortunate proposal.

The drift of conversation Tuesday night,
when the Raven Society heard sharply
conflicting remarks from advocates and foes
of the Titus plan, pointed clearly to the
intellectual vacuum in which a small group
of business-minded maximizers felt obliged
to draw up and deliver as fait accompli their
fiat on housing. First, there was D. Alan
Williams, whose rhetoric on the virtues of
"student input" rang hollow. In no way did
Mr. Williams satisfy his audience that the
changes are justified, nor could he defend
the manner of their determination.

Next, Chester Titus -who owes the
University nothing if not his swift
resignation -rambled pointlessly about his
"philosophy of the counseling program."
Such a concept remains vague, at best, and
possibly hints at the insidious: when
questioned on his specific interpretation of
that "philosophy," Mr. Titus remarks
proved only evasive and distinctly unhelpful.

Thus, the supposed advocates of the new
program failed to come up with even the
slightest defense of either the program itself
or the matter in which it was presented.
Indeed, the final blow fell when Richard
Shutts, the University's Business Manager,
rose to speak: "Forgive me," he told the
group, "but I'm a business man. I don't
want to get involved in the academic side of
this."

We agree, sir; businessmen should play no
part in formulating this program, which so
seriously effects the quality of student life
at the University. It should be left to those
who have a major interest in the academic
counseling, and social aspects of dormitory
life to devise any counseling program.
Deans, counselors, and dorm residents
should have been consulted while the
program was being conceded. That they
were not was clearly a mistake, but Student
Affairs, we contend, can partially rectify
that error by accepting the Cauthen
proposal.

Rather than accept Mr. Titus' vague
philosophy of counseling, we would cite the
views of Charles Whitebread and James
Malone -both Resident Advisers -whose
sensitive and informed observations on
dormitory life deserve full consideration.
They argue effectively in favor of a genuine
philosophy of counseling, more a spirit than
a methodology, and one which stresses the
personal side of dorm life. Procedures of
rigid enforcement, they insist, must take
second place to the human needs any
counselor or adviser encounters. Obviously,
such a position fills the immense gaps
between what ought to be the strictly
housekeeping chores of the Housing Office,
the administrative duties of the Office of
Student Affairs, and the academic
obligations now keenly felt in Cabell
Hall.

Despite their obvious failures of the past,
we in good faith can only assume that the
officials in the Office of Student Affairs will
see the merit of the Deans' request and
delay implementation of any new program
until the people who will be most severely
affected have had a major part in devising
possible reforms. We trust that the meeting
last night of the Executive Committee of
Counselors was called as an honest attempt
to determine if the senior counselors
support Mr. Cauthen's proposal to table the
program. Attempts to force the plan past
established opposition have been
unsuccessful; Student Affairs should be
forewarned that this opposition will not
fade.

The Office of Student Affairs must come
to grips with the larger issues which today
face this University as a living environment.
And a solid first step toward that goal is the
immediate arrangement of full and open
negotiations between Dabney House, Cabell
Hall and the residence houses. As it stands,
the Titus plan is a disaster on the make. Mr.
Williams and his colleagues owe it to the
University to stop it now.