University of Virginia Library

Into The Open

Last February President Shannon stated
flatly that the issue of expansion was one
which we could "scarcely afford to debate."
Since then the administration's every move
has tended to support that assumption.
However, time and burgeoning discontent
among students and their less vocal
counterparts on the faculty convince us that
Mr. Shannon's intended show-stopper - while
logical as a tactic- is a misleading and
fundamentally false assertion. Indeed, the
issue seems rather one which we can scarcely
afford NOT to debate.

Now that it is evident that the Committee
on the Future of the University will only
consider the academic aspects of Mr.
Shannon's growth proposal, the initiative for
further study rests once again with a half
dozen or so key administrative committees.
We share Student Council's regret that the
Future Committee has been deviled as a
potential clearinghouse for major aspects of
the issue as a whole. The need for a central
coordinating body is obvious, and the Future
Committee is the natural choice.

As attention comes to focus next week on
the expansion crisis, one hopes the various
committees, whose job it is to monitor and
make proposals concerning all areas of life on
the Grounds, will take note and begin to
reconsider the basic assumptions offered
during the past year in support of a radically
expanded student enrollment. These groups
include the committees on housing, calendar
and scheduling, the library, traffic control,
security and general safety, the master plan,
and University environment. Although,
strictly speaking, these committees are run by
the administration, they include faculty and
student members, some of whom (one
assumes) must already be alarmed by the
implications presented by the growth plan.

As for student-run committees, two have
offered ample proof that debate on the
expansion question is far from over. A survey
conducted by the Honor Committee revealed
that 59 percent of a sample of students
questioned believed that Mr. Shannon's
growth plan will undermine the effectiveness
of the honor system.

The student Council's Committee on
Growth, moreover, has reported on its
wide-ranging survey, and the conclusion is
equally firm: the administration's growth plan
demands extensive review and open discussion
in the University community. Such a review
would not only consider the need for new
facilities: it would bring into question the
fundamental assumptions which underlie Mr.
Shannon's plan, and indeed, whether the
University should grow AT ALL.

Contrary to Mr. Shannon's February
statement, the debate on growth is hardly
over. In fact, if the committees do their duty,
and if the community begins to assert its
apparent reservations, the debate has hardly
begun.