University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

No Room For Student Or Faculty Input

By JAMES MALONE

— Ed.)

In the past few days much
controversy has arisen as a
result of the proposal made by
Mr. Chester Titus, Associate
Dean of Students, to radically
change the counseling program
in university residence halls. I
think this proposal is both
ill-timed and ill-conceived. I
believe the proposal favors the
bureaucratic needs of the
Office of Student Affairs and
Housing and disregards the
needs of students living in
university housing. I also feel
that the proposal contains an
almost explicit finding that the
needs of the academic function
of this university are not as
important as the needs of the
university's ancillary
operatives.

For these reasons and more,
I strongly disapprove of the
proposal and suggest that the
matter be tabled until there is
time to adequately consider
not only the effect of the
proposal but also the absolute
disregard for reality which the
proposal clearly belies.

I criticize first the manner
in which the proposal was
made. I have been a student at
the university for three years. I
have been a Resident Advisor
in the first-year dormitories for
the last two years. In this time
and experience, I have gained
considerable respect for the
ability of university students to
make their own decisions and
run their own programs.

I have been greatly
impressed with the delegation
of authority which the
University has granted to its
students and the mature
manner in which this
delegation has been assumed.
The Honor System is by far the
best example of what I am
talking about. I know of very
few other universities that
place such confidence and
responsibility in the hands of
their student leaders. I do not
know of any instance, although
I realize that there might be,
where a student has been
expelled from the university in
the last three years without
having at least the opportunity
to present his case before
either the Honor Committee or
the Judiciary Committee—both
made up of only students.

The existence and strength
of the Honor System and the
Judiciary System indicates a
commitment on the part of
the University to let students
be an integral part of the
decision making process at this
university. A look at the first
few pages of the student
directory will show a reader
that students are members of
almost every committee on the
Grounds.

In redesigning the
counseling program, however,
a different approach was taken.
The new program was designed
by only a few
individuals. Once the proposal
was designed, Mr. Titus
informed the groups of
Resident Advisors and Senior
Counselors, to whom he
presented the proposal, that
despite their significant
opposition, the program would
go in effect immediately and
without any alteration
whatsoever.

Mr. Titus excused this
precipitous adoption saying
that the proposal had not been
drawn up until recently and
there had been
"unfortunately" no time to
discuss the proposal with
students before it was adopted.

From information that has
come to light since last
Wednesday when the proposal
was first made, this
explanation is, at the least,
misleading. A clear fact of the
matter is that there has been
private discussion about a
redesign of the counseling
program since the beginning of
the year. Certainly there was in
this period adequate time for
others to consider the nature
of some of the changes implicit
in the proposal.

But this opportunity was
not taken advantage of, either
because of a feeling that no
interested person would be
able to add anything to the
quality of the proposal or
because of a belief that no
interested person would
acquiesce to the nature of the
changes being made.

If the former is true, then
someone clearly has vastly
underestimated both the
competence of members of the
academic and student
communities at the university.
If the latter is true, and if the
opportunity to obtain negative
feedback on the proposal was
avoided, then grave questions
arise concerning the wisdom of
the proposal.

If as Mr. Titus contends, the
proposal was not thought of or
drawn up until the
semester-break time, then I
think a good argument can be
made to delay implementation
of the proposal until it can be
adequately considered by those
not privy to the inner sanctums
of the Student Affairs Office.

The proposal, indeed, may
have merit. The simple fact is
that there has not been enough
time to make this
determination thus far. The
only responses to the proposal
thus far have been extremely
critical.

The Dean of the College,
Irby B. Cauthen, is not happy
with the proposal, nor are any
of the Associate Deans of the
College. The present Senior
Counselors are not happy—in
fact a great number of them
are leaving the counselling
program at the end of the year.
Counselors, too, are
disgruntled with the changes in
their role implicit in the
proposal and many of them are
considering leaving the
program.

Thus, what we have is a
proposal drawn up hastily by a
few individuals without
consideration or input from
students of faculty. The
manner in which this proposal
was publicly presented goes
against every grain of openness
and exchange of ideas which I
believed was, heretofore,
present on the Grounds. To
adopt such a program, without
discussion or consideration of
the impact this program will
have on residence life at the
University will be an absolute
abnegation of not only a
concern for quality of life in
university housing, but also of
the channels of communication
available at this university
which some have worked so
hard to open and preserve. (To
be continued tomorrow.)