University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Ripe For Revolution

By Jere Abrams And Jackson Lears

—ed

The University is ripe for revolution. The
nature of this revolt is still in question: Will
we be concentrating our rebellious energies
on the social problems of the University? Or
will we be opting for institutional reform
and establishing a sound, new foundation
for changes? In every way, the University
role is changing (and must change) to suit its
function. Perhaps the most important (and,
to date, the most neglected) aspect of
revolutionizing at Virginia should be centered
on the very crux of the school's
super-structure — the curriculum.

Silently, gradually, our hallowed
Grounds have been infiltrated by a new
breed of people — students. These resistant
young people are not prepared to subject
themselves to the dehumanizing conditioning
of the Old University. That concept is a
myth for the new undergraduate student.
No longer can concerned students tolerate
categorization as receptacles of capsulized
knowledge. No longer can they accept a
passive existence as mere objects, acted
upon by academicians who would rather be
somewhere else than the classroom. And
never again will they tolerate herding and
the stereo-typing as "undergraduates" or
"gentlemen scholars."

The new breed of student is intelligent
and motivated. But above all, he is
concerned with learning how to think
critically as well as mechanically. Why
should this University continue to insult his
intelligence, sap his will, and turn his
concern to indifference? Why shouldn't the
undergraduate resent treatment as anything
but an individual? If what we offer our
students in our curriculum is only frustration,
then we must re-examine our goals and
means and adjust to suit circumstances.

The University, as part of its function,
must adjust itself to the needs of these
students who are coming from a newly
complex and affluent society. This society
has often been one that isolates the
individual and impersonalizes all experience.
The University must adjust its goals of
education to such a changing social climate.
To be dynamic, it must realize its ultimate
function — the broadening of human
understanding. Ideally, the University of the
future must give impetus and guidance to
society's changing temperament. No longer
will ivory towers remain untainted.

Institutions are creatures of the people.
When they fail to serve the functions for
which they were created, or for which they
are needed, they are either reformed,
discarded, or violently destroyed. This
realization does not rule out stability,
tradition or scholarship in our educational
institutions. But it does disallow unresponsiveness.
It demands fundamental institutional
reform periodically, to meet the
needs of the beneficiaries.

Our revolution need not be destructive if
our faculty and our administration act now
to revitalize this university. Revolution — as
in the definition of democracy — can and
should be peaceful. It can and should be
constructive rather than destructive. Progress
is not necessarily change in the super-structure
of the University — not the addition of
buildings nor the creation of new committees.
Here, progress means change in the
essence of our undergraduate educational
philosophy. This progress manifests itself in
policy change and in genuine curriculum
reform.

Is this making a subterfuge of the
curriculum? Perhaps. For in many instances,
the fault is with indolent and uninterested
students. But the curriculum is certainly not
a conducive element in the undergraduate
learning experience at Virginia. It is, in most
cases, the point of departure for a
conditioning syndrome that manufactures
memory banks in a four-year demoralizing
process. The only independent or critical
thought such a system provokes and
perpetuates is how to best obliterate one's
awareness outside the classroom and on
weekends.

Change is coming to Charlottesville.
Soon the hallowed Grounds will be
harrowed Grounds — harrowed by the
reaction of human beings revolting against
inhuman treatment, both in society and in
the University. But we can avoid
destruction.

We must alter the sources of social and
academic ills; only then can we justly call
for change in the ramifications of University
policy. The source is in curricular and
educational philosophy. Now is the time to
act.