University of Virginia Library

Efforts Misdirected

The controversy centering around the
Board of Visitors - the first rumblings of
which were heard back in October with the
"ad ho" group of students' vain attempt to
open last month's Board meeting and the
latest sparks of which were generated by the
Student Council president's equally unsuccessful
attempt to gain admission to the same
Board meeting - represents a healthy desire
on the part of the students to exercise a
greater influence in the decision-making process
of their academic community. At best, it
can be seen as part of a greater student
struggle, in an age of growing sophistication,
against the outdated policies and attitudes of
an important segment of academic officials.
Coeducation and greater responsibility for
students in their dormitory life and financial
affairs are timely points of controversy between
students and administrators at the
University, as is a wider recognition of student
interest in the future development of the
University and in its academic offerings.

The approach that the concerned students
have taken with regard to the Board of
Visitors is characterized, of course, by its
symbolic value. For the actual accomplishment
of the students' ends, however, such
actions are irrelevant, based largely on a
general misunderstanding of the administrative
power structure in the higher-learning
institution.

In an article this summer in the Educational
Record, W. Donald Bowles, Dean of
American University's College of Arts and
Sciences, described three layers of authority
around which real administrative power in the
academic institution centers: the president,
the academic dean, and the department chairman.
The situation at the University is not an
exception to this analysis. While administrative
bodies such as the Board of Visitors
and the University Senate hold statutory
final-review power, as the Board does now
with regard to the recent recommendation for
coeducation at the University, their influence
in the decision-making process of the University
can be no more than limited because of
their detachment from direct involvement in
the detailed machinery within the various
levels of the institution's administration.

In making final decisions on most matters
these groups must rely on the information and
recommendations of the president and deans.
The most current illustration of this is the
Board's move, following the Woody Committee's
recommendation for the coeducation
of the University, to place in President
Shannon's hands the examination of how the
recommendation relates to the present circumstances
of the University. The findings of
President Shannon's study will largely determine
the Board's decision on the matter in
February.

As Mr. Bowles comments, "In (the) whole
exercise in campus politics, it is important for
students to ignore our foremost pronouncements
of how things are done, and to concentrate
on the actual ways in which we do
things."

In matters of broad University concern,
then, it is the president and, depending on the
realm of the issue, the deans who must be
directly approached and influenced. The relevance
of this is shown in the encouraging
spirit of cooperation which emerged from the
meeting of student leaders with President
Shannon and other administrative officials at
Mountain Lake in September. With his powers
concerning the slicing of the University budgetary
pie and his initiative in pursuing
selected areas for research and development,
the president, in the words of Mr. Bowles,
"Fundamentally determines where the institution
is going . . . While he may delegate
some of his responsibility to individuals, a
faculty group cannot perform this function
without his leadership."

At the same time, the deans, in their
positions below the president, retain a leading
role in the University's development through
their major influence in the budgetary decisions
of their school and in the appointment
of departmental and faculty chairman. With
the University entering a period of rapid
expansion, it is these centers of power which
must be singled out by students interested in
strengthening their voice in this evolutionary
process.

In academic matters it appears that the
students of the University - or at least those
of the College - have started on a proper and
successful course in achieving a greater role in
curriculum building. In contrast to the chagrin
and frustration with regard to academic planning
expressed by students not long ago and
reflected, in part, by the recent development
of the "Free University" on the Grounds, and
even by the abortive course evaluation guide
of last year, student pressure in this concern
has recently been exerted on the centers of
administrative power where it can best stimulate
action: progressive-minded deans and
departmental chairmen.

The first positive results to appear were
the formation of the College's curriculum
evaluation committee, which is headed by
Lewis M. Hammond of the philosophy department
and includes four students, and the
admittance of undergraduate students as full
members of the curriculum committees in the
English and government and foreign affairs
departments of the College. Mr. Hammond
has expressed agreement with Mr. Bowles'
evaluation of the academic department as the
most effective power center for achieving
reforms in curriculum affairs. We hope that
progress in this area will continue, with the
students concerned taking their cause to the
respective departmental chairman and, if
necessary, to the proper administrative deans.

What we suggest is, in effect, the replacement
of the sporadic campaigns against randomly-located
administrative officials and
groups, which has characterized the crusade
for greater "student power" in the past, by a
systematized drive by students, beginning at
and working out from the source of administrative
control, for a larger constructive role in
their University. It is in this way that the
"spirit" of Mountain Lake can be nurtured
and brought to fruition in decisions acceptable
to all parties concerned. It is by isolating
the centers of real power within the hierarchy
of the University's administration, and
bringing to bear his ideals in these areas, that
the student will most effectively achieve
greater responsibility in the University community.
S.M.L.