University of Virginia Library

Possible Misery

As an editorial in The Cavalier
Daily argues, this indiscriminate
expansion at Charlottesville,
unlikely to be well-financed, may
bring consequences miserable for all
concerned. The parking problem
alone, already dreadful, might
suffice to bring on disorders.
"Legislators, who are so concerned
with campus violence, should know
that the most violent
demonstration on the grounds in
recent history was not the strike of
May 1970, but rather the car riots
of 1957."

The students at Charlottesville
suggest practical alternatives to
turning the University of Virginia,
with its beautiful buildings and
traditions of civility, into
Behemoth U. They are wiser than
Dr. Clark Kerr, sometime
Chancellor of the University of
California, who wanders over the
face of the land declaring that all
our higher education needs is more
hair of the dog.

***

(The following is a rebuttal to
Mr. Kirk's article by William H.
Fishback, Director of Public Affairs
at the University, which appeared
in the August 10, 1971 issue of the
National Review.)

Russell Kirk is misinformed
["From the Academy." June 25] in
his observations about the
University of Virginia. Contrary to
what he says, the applications to
the University have increased
during the past three years. In the
last year alone, applications for the
entering class rose from 6,707 to
9,378.

Also, Mr. Kirk overlooks some
very important facts as far as the
state of Virginia is concerned.
Virginia is one of the fastest
growing states in the nation. More
and more students graduating from
Virginia High Schools are qualified
to enter the University (which has
high standards that are not being
lowered), and the University feels
that it should take its share of these
talented young people. In addition,
the University has long had a
significant number of out-of-state
students who contribute much to
the educational experience and pay
more than twice the tuition charged
to in-state students.

That the University expects an
enrollment of eighteen thousand by
1980 is a projection only, but a
realistic one. Even if that figure is
reached, the University will be
among the smallest state
universities in the nation.

***

(The following is Mr. Kirk's
reply to Mr. Fishback's rebuttal,
which also appeared in the August
10, 1971 issue of the National
Review.)

Mr. Fishback's defense of
administrative policies of expansion
at Charlottesville are vague and
somewhat disingenuous. I am not
misinformed, having at my elbow
correspondence from several people
at the University of Virginia more
concerned for decent standards
than is Mr. Fishback, having
conversed with professors and
students at that institution, and
having studied the lengthy and
highly intelligent report on this
subject by that University's Student
Council-"Expansion," drawn up
by the Council's Special Committee
on Growth.

First, the matter of application
to enroll at the University of
Virginia. In fact, such applications
began to decline, though slowly and
slightly, in 1965; this decline did
not cease until 1969, when
applications began to rise abruptly.

Why was the trend of declining
applications reversed? Because the
University had lowered its
standards, and had begun to
admit-and to encourage-applicants
who would not have
been admitted under earlier
standards. As the Student Council's
report points out: "Admissions
applications actually declined in
number over the years 1965 to
1968. At the same time, however,
the number of acceptances
increased while, as we have shown,
the average college-board scores of
applicants were falling. Thus while
44.1 per cent of applicants were
offered admission in 1965 with an
average total SAT score of 1252,
48.3 per cent were offered
admission in 1970 with an average
total SAT of 1206."

Yes, the University of Virginia
had relatively high standards; but
they are slipping, and will decline
still more rapidly unless some
attention is paid to the convictions
of the present students themselves.
The argument that other state
universities are badly swollen does
not justify Virginia in committing
the same folly.

Growth of population, of
course, is a sound enough reason
for expanding facilities of higher
education. Yet it does not follow
that such a growth ought to be
achieved by forcing masses of new
students upon a campus and a town
unprepared to receive them without
injury to the works of the
mind-for that matter, lacking even
physical facilities for such growth.
Surely the alternative
recommended by many
Charlottesville students is better:
distribution of the increased
student population among
Virginia's several state institutions,
and improvement of the standards
of those other institutions. And
why, unless as a smokescreen, does
Mr. Fishback raise the question of
out-of-state students? I did not take
up that subject, and the Student
Council at Charlottesville does not
recommend any measure of
exclusion. But it can hardly be the
duty of Virginia to provide places
at Charlottesville for
undergraduates who cannot find
places in New York or New Jersey.