University of Virginia Library

Apathetic Faculty

Too often we have heard the argument
that students shouldn't be given too much say
in the running of colleges because they would
not take the responsibility of the job
seriously. If the meetings of the Faculty of
the College are indicative, however the
dreaded disease of apathy has also hit the
faculty.

The conservative nature of the College
Faculty and the lack of positive inclination to
change at the University in general are
long-standing traditions in Charlottesville.
Recent meetings of the College faculty,
however, have far surpassed this stagnation
and have hit rock-bottom disinterest. Often
faculty meetings perform all too functionary
and minor tasks such as adding new courses or
changing faculty rules. But the boring nature
of faculty meetings is no excuse for the poor
attendance which has marked recent sessions.
Faculty members are well informed by the
Dean of the Faculty concerning the
sometimes important topics to be discussed at
the meeting and therefore have little excuse
for their non-attendance.

This poor attendance has a killing effect
on attempts to initiate change at the
University. Just last year, when the issue of
curriculum reform was being hotly debated,
at least one meeting had to be adjourned due
to the lack of a quorum (80 members). Last
week another meeting was adjourned for the
same reason when the issue of a self-paced
course program was discussed. Because of that
postponement, the discussion on the program
cannot take place before the next meeting in
April.

What is more frightening than the lack of
attendance, however, is the statements of
certain members of the faculty. In the
discussion of the self-paced course, Robert
Harris, a well-respected member of the
Government Department, stated that the
proposal was "so novel as to be shocking."
Then, when Mr. Harris discovered that he
could not defeat the proposal, he delayed the
vote by calling for a quorum — but under the
guise of needing "more information."
Unfortunately, Mr. Harris is only one of many
faculty members that find any minor change
in curriculum "shocking." While schools such
as MIT have offered similar self-paced
programs for years, the University remains as
far behind as usual.

Perhaps we should not complain about the
lack of interest among faculty members in
their meetings. After all, when the faculty
does meet, it only seems to show its utter
contempt for progressive change. And when
minor changes somehow make it through the
faculty labyrinth, like last year, to hear the
fanfare and alarums piping forth from Wilson
Hall auditorium, one might surmise that
major reform had actually taken place. But
until the faculty begins to face its
responsibility, progressive reform will remain
an elusive hope.