University of Virginia Library

The Rule Changes

After spending two or three years at the
University as a student or a faculty member,
it is a little easier to separate the wheat from
the chaff in University politics and controversies.
Already this fall we have seen a few of
those momentous underwhelming controversies
that sometimes fill the pages of this
newspaper and the meetings of Student
Council with stormy rhetoric and emotional
espousals of faith and love for the University
and libertarian values. As the "Rules" debate
is laid to rest, we would like to try point out a
little wheat in the chaff.

The Board of Visitors, after consulting the
Administration and several students, officially
promulgated the rules or Code of Conduct in
late August. Even before classes began, the
Code found itself at the docket of student
justice attacked on three interrelated fronts.
First of all, the students felt that there was far
too little student input in the formulation of
the Code. Although the Chairmen of the
Honor Committee and the Judiciary Committee
participated in lengthy discussions while
the Board was considering the eleven points,
we are inclined to agree that this was really
far too little student participation -
especially in creating a system of control that
one must live by.

Many students saw the rules as a means of
pacifying the Virginians angered by the
disturbances at the University last May. President
Shannon was bitterly lambasted by
politicians and newspapers, particularly the
powerful Richmond Times-Dispatch, for his
personal stand against the Cambodian operations
and his alleged soft stand during the
Strike. The Code of Conduct which greeted
returning University students, along with the
University's decision not to follow the
"Princeton Plan" for Congressional elections,
was viewed as a political "get tough" policy
to appease the financial backers of this
institution. No doubt these official moves
provided some consolation to student-haters
across the state.

To charges of political appeasement the
Administration responded that the old judiciary
code of conduct was so vague as to be
unconstitutional. Realizing that the University
had little time to draw up a legal set of
standards embodying the old principles
(acting like a gentleman or a lady and not
bringing discredit to the University), the
Administration tried to move as quickly as
possible and was therefore unable to consult
many students. This, of course, sounds like a
lot of rationalization.

Finally some students, notably those on
the Student Council, objected to some
procedural aspects of the Code of Conduct.
After numerous meetings and statements of
position, the Council this weekend presented
the Board with a number of rewordings and
alterations which were approved. Here we
find some wheat. The Board was presented
some reasonable objections and took appropriate
action without the fear that they were
"giving in" to student demands. The students
involved did not approach the question in an
undiplomatic, uncompromising, unreasoning
manner. They are to be commended for their
results. We hope that this new attitude by the
Visitors of listening to and acting for students
without fear that they are facing a coercive
foe will be the mark of this Board. Perhaps
the conference at Mountain Lake and the
informal social occasions at which both
students and the Visitors can get to know
each other will start bringing fruit for the
University.

The Administration should see that students
want to participate on more than a
superficial level when the subject under consideration
directly affects them. If this rules
debate serves as a valid example, and we
believe that it does, then students are certainly
capable of providing the Administration
and the Board with essential input.