University of Virginia Library

Killing Senate Reform

The excitement last year about
formulating plans to revitalize the University
Senate so that it would play a much more
active and significant role in guiding the
University's destiny appears to be waning. A
vanguard proposal that would have firmly
planted the College Faculty's support behind
the movement for Senate reform, including
the presence of students as representatives
within the newly structured body, failed by a
narrow vote. Now the Ad Hoc Committee,
elected by the present Senate, seems
determined to relegate any major reforms of
the Senate to the trash can.

Proponents of the idea of a revitalized and
meaningful Senate envisioned an internal
political body that would include faculty
members, who would compose a distinct
majority, and both administrators and
students. They pointed to the difficulties that
have occurred when various proposals on
many subjects have died due to a lack of
communication on the grounds. They cited
the misunderstandings that have resulted due
to the amorphous nature of communication
channels and functional procedures here.
They noted that a new Senate could not hope
to wrestle with the major University-wide
problems effectively unless its membership
included students, as well as faculty and
administrators. Their plan protected the
sovereignty, real or imagined, of the General
Faculty. Thus far, their call for a revitalized
Senate has fallen on the deaf ears of those
who could engineer the change.

Arthur F. Stocker, Chairman of the
Committee and the Classics Department,
observed in a letter to Student Council
President Kevin Mannix: "If I read the mind
of the Senate and of my fellow
committeemen aright, there is no disposition
either to widen the scope of the General
Faculty's activities or to increase the
responsibilities of its agent, the Senate, which
has been concerned almost exclusively with
the establishment of degree programs, major
modifications of requirements for existing
degrees, and actions affecting all faculties, or
more than one faculty, of the University as a
whole."

In short, according to Mr. Stocker, the
Committee is solely concerning itself with
procedural, not substantive and conceptual
changes with the Senate. We continually hear
much about "working within the system" and
operating within the "channels of
communication" for the best possible results.
We contend that the system is such to make
the most productive results improbable, if not
in many cases impossible. To fail to consider
restructuring the Senate so that it could serve
the University community as an effective
governing body and a forum for
communication on an official level would be
to lose an excellent opportunity to improve
the University.

We reiterate our belief that all elements of
the University, students, faculty, and
administrators, should have representation on
the Senate. As the Student Council noted in a
letter to Mr. Stocker: "The University Senate,
even if it remains a faculty-administrator
senate, has the power to directly affect
students through its legislation. For this
reason, students should have some direct
input into the Senate. In addition, the
University (faculty-administrator) Senate
could provide one major opportunity for
communication between major groups at the
University. A forum for the discussion of the
great issues of the University, on a continuing
basis, is sorely needed."

Finally, we exhort the members of the
Committee not to keep their eyes riveted on a
single conception of the historic purpose of
the Senate. Rather than looking backward,
the members should focus on what the Senate
could and should be in a future which
promises continued expansion.