University of Virginia Library

A Blueprint For The University

By Yale Graduate

By Meade Whitaker

Mr. Whitaker is a first-year law
student who graduated from Yale
University in June. His article is in
response to Robert Rosen's "A
Prospectus For the University,"
which appeared in The Cavalier
Daily last week.—ed.

A Blueprint for Change

By way of reply to Mr. Rosen's
article "A Prospectus For The
University," I would like to make
several comments on what he
appears to be suggesting and then
compare his major paints to my
experience as an undergraduate at
Yale University. By this response, I
hope to paint out the value of the
sort of lively discussion Mr. Rosen
envisions for The University.

Though I consider this type of
activity most essential in the
process of higher education, I
should like also to note the
inherent dangers and suggest the
ways in which those dangers may
be avoided.

Student Activism

Student activism can be a
constructive tool, and it can be
good for Virginia, but only if it is
held within reasonable bounds.
Certainly students in the country's
leading universities should not
stand aside from the important
issues of our day, but should
confront those issues when they
feel impelled to do so. But this
process should take place in an
atmosphere which tolerates all
viewpoints and permits open
discussion of those issues. No
matter which side one favors, the
issues of "civil rights," "The
Vietnam War," or "black power,"
should be broached and thrown out
for discussion. A great university
does not maintain itself by ignoring
the issues of major importance
today. Indeed students can, and
perhaps ought to be indignant, but
they must channel their thoughts
and ideas in a constructive manner.
"Misbehavior" connotes a mild
form of disorder, descriptive of an
open yet orderly exchange of views.
Mr. Rosen does begin to touch on
the essential nature of Jefferson's
philosophy, though we have to be
careful not to quote out of context;
or to misinterpret this philosophy.
There can be no valid sanction for
civil disobedience, rebellion, and
destruction (not even Jefferson's
name), when there remain open the
normal, orderly channels for
voicing dissatisfaction. These
channels must remain open,
however. Yes, I think we do dare
print it, for such issues must be
discussed, and resolved if we are to
become truly educated citizens.
Awareness, knowledge, and perhaps
wisdom: the process of education
should attempt to offer the
opportunity for acquiring these
things. The printed word is only
one means to that end.

Silent Generation

The era of the Silent Generation
is indeed gone, for the moment
anyway; but that does not imply
that our generation of college
students must seize the banner of
disorder, disruption, or rebellion;
neither must we deny the past and
its lessons, or cast aside that which
has predated us. We should allow
ourselves to be guided by the past,
but not governed by it, remaining
that which is good and changing
that which needs changing. We
ought to build upon the
foundations of the past, but in
doing so we may see fit to alter the
blueprint where such alteration is
needed. Let us also remember that
the University's administrations,
who are less transitory than we,
have the responsibility for
determining long-term policy, and
in the end must decide what is in
the best interests of the entire
university community today as well
as tomorrow. That should not give
them the right, however, to ignore
the suggestions of any one class of
students.

President Brewster

Yale is a graduate and
undergraduate community of
slightly less than 9,000, yet one of
the leaders in experiment and
change in every facet of the
university scene. Yale's president,
Kingman Brewster, is a highly
respected educator and
administrator, perhaps the leading
figure in a new breed of college
presidents. He has not won this
esteem by allowing open rebellion
or by counseling change solely for
the sake of change, but by
permitting constructive criticism,
advocating change for the
betterment of the academic
community or the country and by
allowing responsible dissent, but
never disruption.

Constructive Change

Partly through Brewster's
leadership, partly through the open
channels of communication, and
partly through a mutual respect for
the other man's opinion, Yale has
maintained an atmosphere of
dissent without disruption, change
without rebellion. Yale students
often lament the fate of their Ivy
League neighbor to the south. It
may take years for Columbia to
repair the damage done by the
violent disruptions on that campus
that have not ceased yet. Yale has
been more fortunate; to date there
have been peaceful demonstrations
and silent vigils, but there have
been no disruptions of the
educational process in any of its
various aspects. Yet within this
contest there has been a great deal
of constructive change, much of it
with for-reaching implications.

Starting Point

Let us examine for a moment
some of the changes that have been
effected at Yale recently. All of
these touch in some way Mr.
Rosen's points about democratic
institutions, activism, student
power, and the voicing of
dissatisfaction. My hope here is that
what has taken place at Yale may
serve in some way a starting point,
and a guide for the administration
and the students here at Virginia.

Orderly Processes

Suffice it to make one more
point which Mr. Rosen touched on.
The changes mentioned above, and
many others besides, are very
relevant innovations, all of which
have taken place at Yale through
peaceful and orderly processes.
Yale's Student Advisory Board,
along with the Yale Daily News,
absorbed, refined, and channeled
student opinions and proposals on
these issues. Extensive studies were
made of the issues, proposals then
being presented in each case to the
top-level administration, which
officially effected the change. In
more than one instance the changes
exceeded the original proposals
made to the University officialdom.
The power of final decision lay in
the hands of the administration,
but the results speak for
themselves. These changes were
effected by a receptive
administration not because of a
forceful show of student power
seeking to "revolutionize" the
university but because the
proposals were concrete, sound,
and reasonable and properly
channeled. Let it be said, however,
that the administration was willing
to discuss any proposals made by
the students during the entire
process.

On the front page of the issue
containing Mr. Rosen's article,
there was an article concerning
Duke and the changes being made
in the curriculum. Three years ago
Yale instituted this very change in
its course requirements. Farther
along in the article the grading
system is mentioned with the
comment: "We are changing to a
new grade system as soon as we get
a report on the success of Yale and
its system." Just last spring Yale
sponsored the first Afro-American
conference, and a program in
Afro-American studies is offered
beginning this fall. The Sons of Eli
wood Vassar, and though the
courtship proved barren, the idea
was picked up across the country.
Hardly last and certainly not least,
parietal rules were relaxed
considerably this past spring. In
reference to another of Mr. Rosen's
points: the Yale community has
become deeply involved in a
number of ways with the larger
New Haven community
surrounding the campus.

Lively Discussion

The Cavalier Daily can, and
should be, a readily accessible
forum for the expressing and
channeling of student opinion.
Likewise the Student Council can
and should be an all-important
forum as well as a mediator
between students and
administration. If all the parts
function properly, there should be
no need to revolutionize the
university. The difference between
responsible dissent and disruption
must be recognized and clearly
distinguished. Once the process of
constructive change is disrupted by
a resort to disorder, sides become
polarized, dialogue is cut off, and
proposals become demands. But let
us remember that this process of
constructive change cannot begin
unless the agents in that process
assume their roles, and do so
actively. Both students and
administration must play a part in
this process in order that progress
may take place. Both must be
willing to co-operate: students must
think before they speak and their
suggestions should be reasonable; in
turn, the administration must be
sensitive, receptive, and thoughtful,
and it cannot hide behind the shield
of a respectable yet perhaps
misdirected philosophy. I would
hope that there will be no need to
resort to demonstration or even
riot, as Mr. Rosen suggests may
happen. An "enlightened
administration" should "deal
fairly" with legitimate student
proposals. There is no reason that
change cannot take place against a
background of moderation and
compromise, predated by free and
open discussion of the issues at
and.

Mr. Rosen's point is well taken:
no school can afford to sit idly by
while important changes are taking
place in prominent universities
throughout the country. The
University and her students can
derive untold benefit from lively
discussion of important issues
arising both within the academic
community and in the world
outside. All participants in the
processes of discussion and change
must heed the words of the other
man and each must be sensitive and
responsible. Let us preserve the
distinction between responsible
dissent and disruption, and let us be
more than willing to listen to
reasonable and constructive
proposals. The end results will be
far better in the long run.