University of Virginia Library

Student Presence...

In its general statement, the report of the
Dean's Committee on the presence of students
at College Faculty meetings states that it has
not "been governed by some common
shibboleths about students and student
behavior. We do not consider students
inherently irresponsible; we do not think their
desire for increased participation in the affairs
of the University necessarily dangerous or
absurd; we do not see any reason to believe
that individually they would be more
obstructive at faculty meetings than some of
our colleagues are."

If this is truly the belief of the committee,
then it has stopped peculiarly short of acting
on that belief in its recommendations
concerning the extent of student participation
in the deliberations of the College Faculty. Its
report suggests that the Faculty allow
students who serve on Faculty Committees,
and two representatives from the College
caucus of the Student Council to be present
and allowed to speak at Faculty meetings;
these students would not, of course, be
allowed to vote.

In doing so, the Committee rejected a
Student Council recommendation that any
College student be allowed to attend a
Faculty meeting as a spectator, either with or
without the privilege of being heard. The
committee's rationale for this was the
problem of numbers; its stated fear being that
admission of students would necessitate using
a room too large to permit effective debate.
This seems to us to be merely a front for what
must have been their real concern: student
disruption of the meetings. Cabell Hall
Auditorium possesses a gallery which could
quite easily accommodate as many students as
are likely to wish to attend a meeting and the
faculty members could sit in the lower levels.

The problem of disruption is another case
entirely. Recent events have demonstrated
that it can indeed happen; quite obviously,
the faculty can do without unsolicited
outbursts. Moreover, there is a problem of
enforcement - the Student Legal Forum will
testify that once the disruptive element has
been admitted, it is difficult to stop them or
to isolate the offenders. It is quite easy, on
the other hand, to simply forbid the presence
of spectators. Offenders and their crime are
then self-evident, and can be more easily dealt
with.

One committee member, Fred Diehl, has
dissented from the majority and submitted a
counter-proposal which would allow students
to be non-participating spectators. In support
of his proposal, Mr. Diehl argues that the
physical difficulties are indeed surmountable,
and that "the opportunity to increase
student-faculty understanding and to make
the governing of the college part of our
students' educational experience warrants the
effort required to surmount any difficulties."
Mr. Diehl suggests that the Student Council
representatives to the meeting be held
responsible for the conduct of the spectators
and that the invitation to students could be
withdrawn if it began to interfere with the
orderly progress of faculty business.

But the issue in the minds of most faculty
members will not be dealing with disruptions
after the fact; they will not wish to do
anything that would lead to disorder in the
first place, and in voting on Mr. Diehl's
proposal they will, in effect, be registering
their opinions on the capability and willingness
of the students to allow them to conduct
their meetings without interference.