University of Virginia Library

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.