XIII. Administrative Committees
After the establishment of the Presidency, the administrative
offices embraced the incumbent of that position,
the dean of the University and the college, the dean of
the department of graduate studies, the dean of the
department of law, the dean of the department of medicine,
the dean of the department of engineering, the
director of the summer school, the bursar, the registrar,
the librarian, the superintendent of buildings and
grounds, the director of the Fayerweather gymnasium,
the superintendent of the hospital, the University physician,
the sanitary inspector, and the alumni secretary.
We have already given some description of the powers
of the President. The Faculty, taken as a whole, was
known as the General Faculty. The minor faculties
were made up of subdivisions of the General Faculty
according to departments. The principal administrative
machinery was composed of working councils, drawn
from the membership of the General Faculty, which
also included the President. The most important of
these was the Administrative Council, which consisted
of the President and the deans of the several departments.
This committee took shape only a few weeks
after Dr. Alderman gathered up the reins of government,
and it was his chief adviser in one of the most vital provinces
falling under his supervision, for it passed upon
the delinquencies of the students,—more particularly in
cases of individual drunkenness, or improper conduct
on the part of their different social organizations.
The second administrative body was the short-lived
Academic Council. Its function was to thresh out beforehand
all matters of importance which were to be
disposed of by the General Faculty at their next meeting.
Its work in this way sensibly facilitated the progress
of business in the Faculty room by bringing it forward
in a digested form, for this made practicable a quick
decision on the merits of each case as submitted. The
Academic Council itself not infrequently relied upon
a sub-committee to investigate a question under consideration,
and report first to its own body before the
Faculty was informed of the conclusion reached. Such
a question was the one that came up in 1904 touching
the regulations to be adopted for entrance examinations,
—at that time under earnest discussion.
The General Faculty was divided into administrative
committees charged with the performance of certain
clearly defined duties; thus there was a committee of
this character to supervise the University publications;
another, athletics; another, the catalogue. There was
a separate committee appointed for each of the following
purposes; to keep in order the University cemetery;
to oversee the condition of the buildings and grounds;
to adjust the entrance requirements; to advise with the
librarian; to follow the affairs of the different college
associations; to superintend the religious exercises;
to arrange for the public celebrations; to regulate the
relations with the accredited schools. In addition
to these different committees, there was one to watch the
condition of the several devices in use for fire protection;
another to find out the means of self-help for students
of small income; another to keep the University clock
and bell in proper repair; another to manage the affairs
of the Commons Hall; another to supervise the graduate
department; and still another to superintend the
Summer School of Methods. For additional purposes,
there were other committees in active existence. In
short, there was no single interest of the University,—
indeed, no important branch of any single interest,—that
was not under the protecting eye of a trained committee.
The largest membership embraced in any committee
was to be observed in the one in charge of publications.
That membership numbered eight; but, of the committees
in general, the membership ranged, on an average,
from seven to three. Most of these committees acted
through sub-committees, which reported to their head committees;
and the latter, in turn, reported to the
President and General Faculty.
After the establishment of the office of President,
much of the business which had formerly been transacted
by the General Faculty was transferred to the
minor faculties representing the several departments,—
academic, law, medical, and engineering. The dean of
these departments possessed some of the powers of the
former chairman of the Faculty. To each was frequently
referred the applications from students submitted
to the minor faculty of that department. A
student found deficient was first admonished by his
professor, and then by the dean of his department;
and it was the dean's duty to report that fact to the young
man's parent or guardian.
With the delegation of authority to councils and committees,
the need of the General Faculty holding frequent
meetings steadily declined. In 1907, there seem
to have been eleven sessions of that body; in 1909, ten;
in 1911, nine; in 1914, four; and in 1915, five. Between
October 22, 1906, and November 24, 1917, apparently
the number of meetings did not exceed seventy-nine,
a yearly average of seven,—the greater number
of the seventy-nine occurring previous to 1911.
One of the innovations which followed the creation of
the Presidency was the use of the academic cap and
gown. This had been introduced by President Alderman
at Tulane University. In a short time, several
ceremonies were established at the University of Virginia
which were thoughtfully calculated to increase the
dignity and impressiveness of its administration. For
instance, in 1905, the graduating class was, for the first
time, formally presented to the alumni at the banquet at
finals. Next, the University Hour was appointed. This
was a monthly meeting of teachers and students in the
public hall for the purpose of discussing the numerous
questions which involved the interests of both. Convocation
Day, in the autumn, and Founder's Day, in spring,
were celebrated with academic processions, full of color
and distinction; and on the same occasions interesting addresses
were delivered. Thus, on the ceremonial side
of university life, a new vision was exhibited, which
recognized that the splendor of a seat of learning can be
promoted, not only by an appeal to the sense of intellectual
acquisitiveness, but also by an appeal to the sense
of beauty and dignity.
