University of Virginia Library

Serious Subtleties

Pieter Schenkkan's motion calling for the
restructure and redefinition of the Housing
Committee passed unanimously by the
Student Council, contains one provision
which is essential for proper instrumentation
of the concept involved. Given that the
purpose of having students on an
administrative committee is to give the
students at large a voice on the committee,
and given that it is only logical that that voice
should be as strong as all others on a
committee which is concerned directly with
student lives, it is essential that those who are
thus to speak for the students at large be
chosen by them, directly or indirectly. The
present method of placing students on
committees by presidential appointment or
for ex officio reasons is hardly realistic.

For example, how can a student placed on
a committee by the president of the
University legitimately be said to represent
students; similarly, how can a chairman of
counselors (on the Housing Committee ex
officio) be said legitimately to represent
anyone but the Housing Office (which selects
him) or to represent anyone who lives
off-Grounds? Students placed on
administrative committees by administrative
appointment have no mandate or no
constituency other than the administration.
They represent no one but themselves.

It is only logical, then, that students on
crucial administrative committees be chosen
by the students, directly or indirectly. It
would be unwieldy to try to elect them all at
large, so Mr. Schenkkan's proposal, made in
reference to the Housing Committee, seems
the most reasonable alternative. He suggests
that they be nominated by the president of
the Student Council and confirmed by
two-thirds of the whole Council. We urge Mr.
Shannon to effect the restructure of this
committee as soon as possible and to allow
student representatives to be chosen
accordingly. Such a course is only democratic.

Mr. Shenkkan's motion also served to
point out a crucial consideration in the matter
of the Housing Committee's jurisdiction over
off-Grounds housing. Although it is only
logical that the right to set acceptable
standards of safety, sanitation, expense, etc.,
should lie with individual students, it is also
imperative that every student be entitled to
rent any facility available to any other
student. For that reason the University cannot
withdraw entirely from off-Grounds housing.
But it can limit its consideration thereof
(except when sought) to insuring all students
equal rights to rent. This could be achieved by
submitting the same non-discrimination card
to landlords that is now sent out, and by
compiling a list of landlords who comply
without regard for the quality of
circumstances of their facilities. The
committee could excuse the University from
responsibility for safety, sanitation, etc., by
making it absolutely clear on the lists
provided that the facilities included had been
investigated for discrimination but had been
inspected in no way in any other areas. Thus
every student would have an equal right to
live in a given apartment, and at the same time
he would have the additional right to choose
an apartment which meets his own personal
standards rather than one which meets the
standards of a distant committee.

The Housing Committee could then serve
to receive students' occasional complaints
about their landlords and exercise various
pressures to encourage the landlords to rectify
whatever problems provoked the complaints.
If a landlord were obviously derelict, the
Committee could remove his facilities from
future lists until he complied with its
demands. The all-important distinction
between such a course and the present one
would be that the committee would be there
to help the students if they wanted its help,
whereas no it stuffs that "help" down their
throats whether or not they want it. So
oriented, the Housing Committee would be
fulfilling its original (and legitimate) purpose
of serving students who want to live
off-Grounds, as opposed to its current
practice of imposing on them.