University of Virginia Library

Shhh...

One of the side issues raised by the release
of the report of the Committee on the Future
of the University has almost stolen the public
interest from the report itself. The validity of
the confidentiality requirement has been
seriously questioned, leading some on both
sides of the issue to doubt the efficacy of the
committee system itself. We wish to dispel
those reservations about the value of the
committees and their work because those
reservations, as mere extrapolations on a
isolated case, only serve to undermine the
work of other committees in the future.

Yet, we cannot help but query as to why
the Future of the University Committee had
to carry on its proceedings (except for one
public forum) in secret. Valid reasons have
been given for certain proceedings requiring
confidence, but no one as yet has produced
what is to us a legitimate reason for the
total confidentiality of the committee's
work. What issue could be more appropriate
for continual public scrutiny than the day to
day formulation of the plans for the future of the
University? Granted, much of the proceedings
were technical and would have garnered little
public interest, but surely there would have
been some concern shown by some people
before last Thursday when Ken Ross, a
member of the committee, released the draft
of the report to Kevin Mannix.

Mr. Ross, obviously, disagreed
fundamentally with the report. We are
convinced that he released the draft at his
earliest opportunity out of his conviction that
the public should be aware of the results
before they were finalized and submitted for
President Shannon's approval. If Mr. Ross was
wrong, it was because he breached an
agreed-upon rule for the proceedings. But the
real issue which his action raises is the
rightness or wrongness of the committee's
requirement for total confidentiality.

Having still been given no valid reason for
the overall secrecy, and finding nothing in the
final report that seriously conflicts with the
draft, we are unable to ascertain why the
committee felt it necessary to expel Mr. Ross
from its meetings, and feel that Student
Council's censure of Mr. Ross, despite their
statement deploring the committee's secrecy,
was somewhat inconsistent and altogether
useless.

Before next year's committees begin work
on the same assumption of total
confidentiality, we hope Student Council and
those people on the various committees
carefully review the reasons for secrecy.
Hopefully, the public's right to know, as well
as the best interests of the University, will
emerge the victors in this unnecessary hassle.