University of Virginia Library

So much misinformation has
been current about the events, or
non-events, in the 19 February
meeting of the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences that a plain statement of
fact may be useful addressed to the
student body in general and to
members of the faculty who could
not be present at the meeting.

Under the longtime policy of
the faculty, advance notice is
required of any substantive
resolutions or proposals if action is
to be requested by vote at that
meeting. However, it is possible to
introduce unannounced resolutions
under new business after the items
on the agenda have been heard.
Nevertheless, if these violate the
rule and are so significant as to be
subject to substantive debate, they
either are ruled out of order or are
referred to the appropriate faculty
committee for analysis and a
recommendation at the next
faculty meeting, at which time they
are normally voted upon. Important
decisions are not made on the
spur of the moment without
deliberation, particularly because
each member of the faculty has a
right to know that his absence from
a meeting will not disenfranchise
him because of the unexpected
introduction of important matters
not present on the official agenda
that is circulated at least a week in
advance. It is essential for a faculty
which consists of some 500 members
in Arts and Sciences to govern
itself in this orderly way.

The Dean of the Faculty is
always prepared to acquaint the
Arts and Sciences faculty at any
regularly scheduled meeting with
communications or requests he has
received from the Student Council.
If they are received in time to be
placed on the official agenda, and if
they call for action, the faculty can
vote on them or refer them to an
appropriate committee for recommendation,
either course at its
pleasure. However, if they are
received too late for the official
agenda, the usual procedure would
be for the faculty to decline to vote
if they were definitely substantive
in nature, and instead to refer them
to a faculty committee for recommendation
at the next meeting.

We now come to the heart of
the matter. The Student Council,
despite its statement of intent in
The Cavalier Daily printed only on
the morning of the faculty meeting,
did not request the Dean of the
Faculty to present the various
Proposals to the faculty at the
meeting that afternoon. If the
Council had done so, even at such
short notice I should, of course,
have announced to the faculty that
this request was on the agenda for
the afternoon, and no doubt some
cognizance could have been taken,
although these Proposals were,
naturally, of too substantive a
nature to be voted on without the
necessary prior consideration or
without the report of a committee
to which they might have been sent
for discussion and recommendation.
The question of the time
necessary to divide, discuss, and
vote on eleven distinct proposals
must, also, be considered. No one
meeting would perhaps be sufficient,
particularly a meeting already
loaded with a heavy agenda.

It is completely inaccurate,
therefore, to state that the faculty
"declined" to consider the proposals.
Quite simply, the Council
never presented the faculty with
the Proposals for consideration, and
hence the faculty had no means of
knowing that the Proposals might
be offered at the meeting. A
statement of intent in the newspapers
is scarcely adequate as a
substitute for formal Council
action. The faculty, I am sure,
would never decline to consider any
requests made to it by the Student
Council. But if no request is made,
as was true for the Proposals, the
faculty is quite incapable of considering
something that is nonexistent.
The faculty, then, was
guilty of no discourtesy to the
Council or to the student body
represented by the Council. It is
contrary to fact, therefore, for
anyone to assert that the faculty
declined to consider the Proposals
or was in any way unresponsive in
the matter. I earnestly hope that
this statement will close the
question.