University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

A Path Of Protest And Reason

By PHIL CHABOT

The Student Council has just
called for a day of action to point
out to the University
Administration that the Student
Council was correct when it said
that students were 'upset' by the
present lack of University and
community facilities due to
expansion.

Let none of those in the
provincial press and none of the
politicians say that we were not
patient enough, that our opinions
were uninformed or the product of
ideology, or that we did not utilize
every conceivable channel short of
what we have just recommended to
make our point clear.

For nearly a year the Student
Council Growth Committee has
researched the facts of housing,
parking, traffic, academics, and the
like as well as the graduate
deterioration of our social
environment. We have looked at the
University's past, present, and
future development plans, the state
system of higher education and the
University's role in it. We have
looked at actual physical conditions
as real as any national survey to
which those in favor of expansion
may appeal.

More Open Discussion

For nearly a year we have
submitted reports and worked
through the established channels of
the Governors' office, the General
Assembly, the State Council of
Higher Education, the Board of
Visitors, the Faculty, the
Administration, and the City of
Charlottesville. Our April report
(Expansion) asked for "a more
open discussion on the entire issue
of expansion and a general
re-evaluation of the decisions of the
administration" and made clear in
the succeeding pages why such a
discussion and review was
necessary. Council also endorsed
the recommendation of the Dent
Committee that no future
expansion be permitted until
facilities were adequate.

But earlier, in February,
President Shannon had said that the
issue of growth was one that we
could "scarcely afford to debate."
Since that time the administration
has made every attempt to fulfill
that statement.

At first the administration used
its superior resources-control over
information, domination of the
media, speaking engagements and
the like-to deny a forum for
debate. But the reconstitution of
the Committee on the Future of
the University by the College
Faculty provided a body in which
there could be a free and open
discussion and review of the entire
question-a forum in which the
minds of intelligent men could
reason on the basis of fact. Or so
we thought, until the charge of the
committee was limited to the strict
consideration of academic matters.

In one quick sweep the Student
Council lost all that it had sought
to obtain in the year before-a single
committee in which all the
questions of expansion could be
considered. The administration
sought to divide the question and
the specific problems in their
"appropriate" places without ever
being considered in full and integral
relationship. This could only have
been done if the University did not
believe the Student Council when it
said students were upset with the
problem.

If one wants specific instances
in which the University has sought
to avoid the question, these too are
readily available though only a few
may be noted here. The entire
confusion over who is responsible
for University expansion could be
ended if the University admitted
the fact that a committee which
met in 1966 and has not
reconsidered the problem in the last
five years is the source of the
present crisis.

Throughout the last year
Council's attempt to gather
information has been
met-particularly in the business
office which is responsible for
housing, traffic and parking, and
the Master Plan-with one of the
most sophisticated run-arounds
conceivable. But then we realize
that students should not be
concerned with business matters.

Usual Consistency

In May when the Faculty of the
College of Arts and Sciences finally
appeared as though they were going
to take strong action, the
administration, for whatever
motive, sent the University's
enrollment projections through
1976 to the State Council for
Higher Education just days before
the faculty meeting. The
administration then made its
argument to the faculty on the
basis of 'how is it going to look in
Richmond if we change our mind?'
And, of course, the financial stick
carried by Richmond was not left
unmentioned. With what I
understand is their usual
consistency in such problems, the
faculty thereupon proceeded to
approve a motion which
reconvened the Committee on the
Future of the University.

The finale of this shortened
scenario of events came last week
when the Provost announced that
nothing was relevant to the work of
the Future of the University
Committee except academics. In
other words, the committee would
make the same mistake it had in
1966-arrive at an ideal decision
which in no way took into account
the physical confines of the actual
situation here in Charlottesville.
The committee is thus prepared to
ignore the fact that if people are
brought to a place they must be
fed, housed, transported, and the
like-and in an institution of higher
education this must be done in a
manner which is conducive to
academic life. In answer to a
specific question Mr. Shannon
admitted that the committee would
deal with everything but the issues
which concern students most.

Now perhaps traffic jams and
unsuitable housing or overcrowded
undergraduate classes, the decline
of the Honor System, and all the
other problems exposed in the
Expansion report do not make a
difference. But our purpose in
calling this day of action is to say it
does make a difference-it makes a
great deal of difference to us. If the
administration finds an excuse for
expansion in the increasing tensions
which would result if the University
did not expand then the high-level
of tension which now exists on the
part of the student body must be
made quite evident.

In short the moderation to
which the Council has pledged itself
and to which we constantly
adhered despite abuse has ended.
All our options of working within
the system have been closed off one
by one. We have been forced to
take to the path of protest as well
as reason. And even if the forum of
reason will, because of our reaction
to the first meeting of the
Committee on the Future of the
University, be reopened, we cannot
but remember that 'they' didn't
believe us or take us seriously.