University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Growing. . .Growing. . .Gone

By Phil Chabot

—Ed.)

The recent report of the Student
Council's Special Committee on
Growth seems to have
accomplished its first objective;
that of reopening the question to a
more complete discussion. Within a
week of the report's release an
assistant to President Shannon
conceded there were areas of
concern which needed more
consideration and indicated
agreement with the now obvious
necessity of making more
information public.

The Charlottesville Department
of Planning gave evidence of its
satisfaction with the report by
requesting copies for every member
of the City Council. Several
members of the General Assembly
discussed the issue with Virginia's
delegates to the Student-Legislator
Forum and noted their support of
student concerns. Student Council
endorsed the recommendations of
the committee and began their
implementation.

Sub-committees on Lambeth
Field and the Birdwood Tract were
formed. Information began to
arrive from concerned faculty and
students reinforcing and expanding
the considerations upon which the
committee documented its
opposition to expansion.

The entire issue is entering a
critical phase. At this moment
Council's specific recommendations
calling first for a reexamination of
the issue and subsequent steps are
before President Shannon.

The Governor has before him
request to urge the University to
initiate such a review. We have
requested a hearing before the
Governor's Budget Council. The
faculty is to meet shortly to
consider its stand on the issue.

It is not really a time for
optimism but it is a time for hope.
We have learned that Pavilion VIII
is the main source of pressure as
well as the source for the myth of
legislative reaction.

At the Student-Legislator
Forum a prominent member of the
House of Delegates said that the
University has no special mission to
educate all qualified state students
but does have a responsibility to
offer Virginia residents a
high-quality education. He went on
to say that it is doubtful the
University could fulfill that
responsibility under the conditions
likely to ensue from an enrollment
of 18,000.

Narrow Enrollment

There seemed to exist a general
recognition that the University
needed to maintain a high level of
out of state enrollment. It was only
questioned why that enrollment
was restricted to so few states.
There also existed a general
consensus that such policies were
beyond the purview of the
legislature. Moreover there seemed
to exist support for the idea that
the University could fulfill the
responsibility it maintains as its
own by better use of its branch
institutions thereby improving the
over-all quality of education
throughout the state.

Although the administration has
embarked on an impressive
campaign to encourage support for
its policies several important
questions remain unanswered. If
the University is expanding to
provide for the large numbers of
applicants in 1980 what will be
done with the excess when in 1987
the college-age population returns
to the same size as in 1971?
(Science. Vol. 172. P133-4)

Grads Decrease

If the University is expanding to
fulfill its responsibilities to graduate
education why will the proportion
of graduate students in the total
student body fall by 1980?

If the University is expanding to
gain more capital funds why have
we not actually received such funds?
In short, when the standards of the
State Council of Higher Education
inform us that we have sufficient
classroom space for an enrollment
of 18,000 (meaning full use of
facilities from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) can
we expect additional facilities
before we reach 18,000? If not, and
that appears likely, then expansion
is self-defeating until the University
exceeds 18,000.

Of course we cannot really
expect the University to change
such a major policy on its own
accord regardless of the legitimate
objections which have been raise,
whether those objections are similar
to the above — reaching to the
heart of the problem — or deal with
the community results of expansion
What then can students do?

(1) Sign the expansion petition.
A group of first year students are
organizing a petition campaign so
that we might satisfy several
members of the General Assembly
who have requested some
indication of the depth of student
and citizen concern.

(2) Send the special committee
any information or suggestions you
might have which were not covered
by the special report. A second
report will be prepared if we obtain
sufficient, additional information.

(3) Volunteer to do research
over the summer as we need all the
help we can get.

Unaware Of Trend

Information and research exerts
the optimal pressure on the points
which should now be our major
areas of concern: the General
Assembly and the Board of Visitors
— not because they are the source
of our problem, but because they
are the means by which expansion
may be halted.

Recent discussions have made it
obvious that members of the
General Assembly are not aware of
the trend toward expansion for
they see the situation in
increments. No real decision can be
made by anyone when they are
deprived of information. The
University administration should
begin by releasing to the legislature
and general public the full details of
its expansion plans through 1980
and beyond.

As for the Board of Visitors, all
that is needed is the courage to
make the decision they know is
right and stand by it. If the real
villain in this tale is the formula
used to determine the University's
funding, the Board should take a
firm stand against that formula,
rather than against students and the
University.