University of Virginia Library

Donn Kessler

The Curse Of Growth

It appears to be an almost
acceptable past time today to
criticize the future growth of the
University in Charlottesville. Cited
in the complaints of both students
and faculty alike are the growing
size of classes, overcrowded
classrooms, traffic jams, and the
supposed lack of livable housing
available at decent prices.
Unfortunately, few of either the
critics or defenders of growth have
realized that the issue at stake is
not that of pure growth but rather
that of whether growth is beneficial
to the University and, if it is
beneficial, whether it is to take the
form of intelligently planned
growth or the drifting of this
institution into a megaversity. First,
therefore, let us look at the reasons
for growth and what the results of
well-planned growth could mean
for the future of the University.
Then, let us examine some of the
past planning of administrators in
other areas of the future of the
University and then examine
current planning for growth.

Rationale

There is some rationale for
planned growth of the University
here in Charlottesville. On the side
of the academicians, a larger
student body will, say some
administrators, attract a larger and
more qualified faculty on the
graduate level. And as most people
know, if the graduate program of a
university is more varied, it attracts
a higher qualified faculty and
student body. The prestige of the
University then rises and so, even
more qualified faculty and students
are attracted to the university and
the cycle begins once again.

On the side of the state, recent
figures have pressured the state
government to demand the
enrollment of more in-state
students at the University. In a
recent editorial in The
Virginian-Pilot, it was revealed that
in 1960 there were 32,635 students
on Virginia-owned campuses. "By
1970", the paper continued, "there
were 107,567, an increase of 230
percent."

Furthermore, in a speech given
to a meeting of the governing
boards of Virginia's public colleges,
Joseph McConnell, Rector of the
University, indicated that the
growth in college-age people is
expected "to rise from 325,000 to
380,000 by 1980". Indeed, if
expectations prove correct, the
state system of higher education
must grow and adapt to the
changing times.

No Plans

But, these expected benefits
from growth depend upon the
assumption of well-administered
planning both on the part of the
state and the part of the University
administration. This wise planning
is, however, absent from Governor
Linwood Holton right down to the
most specific planning of college
administrators in Charlottesville.
Let us see how both the state and
the University have failed to plan
for constructive change in the past
and then examine how they are
failing right at this moment to
constructively plan for future
growth of the University.

The lack of wise planning
unfortunately fits right into the
mainstream of the history of the
University. Last year, in a speech
delivered before an honorary group
on the Grounds, former provost
Frank L. Hereford attempted to
show how the University had
always planned ahead.

He cited the fact that the
University had actually accepted a
black law student in 1950, four
years before the Supreme Court
ruling in the Brown case. Mr.
Hereford also stated that the
University had prepared the way
for coeducation by preparing a
long-range plan for admitting
women to the Charlottesville
campus scheduled to begin last
year. Finally, Mr. Hereford cited
how the University's Alderman
Library was one of the most highly
rated libraries in the southeast.

Unfortunately, Mr. Hereford, a
defender of growth, failed to
mention certain other facts. Up
until 1969, the University had the
lowest number and lowest
percentage of black students for
any state institution in the nation.
Indeed, while an ever larger number
of black students is being admitted
each year, the percentage of black
students in last year's entering class
was only five percent. And that five
percent brought the total
University enrollment of black
students to only a little above two
percent of the total student body.
This two percent total resulted in
the issuing of a letter by the
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare that the University
should attempt to hasten its
enrollment of more black students.

Secondly, Mr. Hereford, a
sincere supporter of planned
co-education at the University, also
failed to mention that it took a
successful suit by a woman denied
admission to the University because
of sex, to finally convince the
University administration to
approve a three year plan for full
co-education in Charlottesville.

Finally, the former provost
failed to mention that the rating of
Alderman Library has declined in
past years. According to statistics
of the Association of Research
Libraries, Alderman Library
dropped from 26th rank in 1969 to
28th rank in 1970 among 76
university libraries in the nation in
terms of total number of volumes.
Alderman Library also ranks,
according to an article in The
Cavalier Daily of May 11, 1971,
40th in "terms of volumes added
during" 1970 and 48th in total
operating expenses, and 50th in
expenses for books.

After A Surplus

Indeed, only after a surplus was
found in the overall University
budget, was an increase of
$325,000 made to the book budget
last year. That increase will allow
the library, in the words of its
librarian, Ray Frantz, to "approach
the average expenditures of other
colleges...in the Association of
Research Libraries." As to the
problem of where these books will
be stored, one must quote Kenneth
G. Peterson, Associate, Librarian.
"The present buildings are for all
practical purposed filled," he told
The Cavalier Daily last year.