University of Virginia Library

Brian Siegel

Mannix Misread Rights Report

Former Student Council
President Kevin Mannix
charged Tuesday in The
Cavalier Daily that the Ad Hoc
Committee on Student Rights
and Accountabilities had
neglected to fulfill its charge to
"...look at the student conduct
system in an overall way and to
deal with the philosophic
questions regarding who should
establish student rules."

As a member of the
Committee, I feel Mr. Mannix
has misrepresented the content
and implications of the report.

In his article, "Rights
Committee Downgrades
Students," Mr. Mannix
accurately pointed out that the
committee was established in
the first place because
"students were originally upset
because the Board of Visitors
promulgated a set of student
conduct rules in the summer of
1970 with little student
input."

Having obtained some
necessary changes in the
Standards of Conduct early last
year, the main issue then
became one of procedure more
than substance.

It was to this question that
the committee addressed itself.
Contrary to statements by Mr.
Mannix, the Committee did
study very closely the question
of the role students should
play in the process of setting
up student conduct
regulations.

As stated in the report,
"The intent here is to create a
body broadly representative of
University students, faculty,
and administrators, but
constructed in a way which
insures a significant student
involvement in the formulation
of the standards of conduct
under which students must
live."

Mr. Mannix has emphasized
the "advisory" nature of the
recommended committee, but
has failed to point out the
Committee's concern with the
legal issues involved in giving
this committee autonomous
power.

The report clearly states,
"The Committee in shaping its
proposals has taken particular
care to respect the lawful
governing authority of the
President and the ultimate
authority of the Board." The
report continues that its
proposals would be proposals
that the President's power
either be delegated to, or
shared with, other entities
within the University.

Perhaps what Mr. Mannix
meant to criticize was the
Committee's failure to deal
with the substance of the law
in order to permit the type of
body he envisions.

Mr. Mannix offered as his
"best evidence" of the fact
that the Committee missed the
mark, the Committee's
recommendation for a
permanent standing University
committee which would have a
quasi-legislative function in
formulating proposed students
conduct standards.

Since the President usually
acts on the advice of his
advisors, strong recommendations
from the proposed
administrative committee
would carry more weight than
the flow of advice from
Student Council that has
inundated the bureaucratic
process in past years.

Mr. Mannix failed to
develop in his colloquium his
notion that the Committee
begins with the assumption
that the current approach of
having administrators set the
rules is the best approach.

As one familiar with the
history of the promulgation of
the Standards of Conduct, I
can find no correlation at all
between the Board of Visitors
and Administrators that
composed the original rules
and the recommended
structure for dealing with
student rights and
responsibilities.

Mr. Mannix also emphasized
the fact that the recommended
committee is not composed of
students 100 per cent and the
students who are on the
committee will have no true
constituency since they are not
elected. A majority of the
members of the proposed
committee will be students,
insuring significant student
involvement while permitting
needed input from other areas
of the University community
that are affected by the
"advice" of such a committee.

I also find it difficult to
accept Mr. Mannix's conjecture
that the student members will
have less powerful voices than
elected representatives from
Student Council. The system
of Student Council-appointed
representatives has worked well
on many other committees.

Then there is the reality of
trying to elect a slate of
representatives at a University
that is already overburdened
with elections which have an
average drawing power of
about 25 per cent of the
student body.

I see no way in which this
proposed committee will
downgrade the role of Student
Council in the decision-making
process at the University. It is
not taking any power away
from the Student Council that
it now possesses. Rather, it is
committing Student Council to
the duty and responsibility of
selecting students who will
represent contemporary
attitudes and ideas.