University of Virginia Library

The University And Reform

That this university is in need of reform
should come as a great epiphany to no one. It,
like most other universities, has for many
years been a part of a post-industrial society
filled with institutions unable to adapt to
changing times. Rather than serving as a
creative, analytical, and critical force in
society, helping the student develop the self
and its spiritual possibilities, it serves to
propagate stagnant normalcy, capturing a
student's mind and training it for post-graduate
commercial use. It has become authoritarian
and institutionalized to the degree that
it has forced students to become anti-authoritarian
and anti-institutional.

The old European concept of the university
as a privileged sanctuary for academicians and
youth has today been combined with a
university operated as big business. It is this
present state of the university that has spread
discontent among students throughout the
world. Among the many attitudes arising out
of this discontent is a refusal to continue to
accept control of those in society and in the
university who give them no part in making
decisions about what their lives — both in the
society and the university — should be. In
France the students have asked for a
multi-faceted reform: a meaningful and
relevant curriculum, an open admissions
policy, full support of all those who wish to
attend, and a lessening of the restrictive
influence of big business and governmental
controls to name just a few. Their demands
are being and have been mirrored in American
universities. And more than anything else, the
most widely heard request from students
everywhere is that asking for a representative
voice in determining how their years are to be
spent at the university.

Reform is not a dirty word. Planned or
unplanned, it goes on in society and
education, usually at a pace several years
behind the needs. This is why we take
particular interest in the fetal plans now being
undertaken by ad hoc and other groups to
revitalize the University Senate. It represents a
key, but by now means all encompassing, step
towards a University of Virginia which takes
into account the needs of its entire community.
The Senate is presently a relatively
ceremonial faculty-administrative body which
meets only twice a year. Created by the
General Faculty in 1925, the Senate was given
the following functions:

"the modification of degree requirements;
legislation affecting athletics; regulations concerning
student clubs; the creation of
holidays; to receive communications and
recommendations from the Honor Committee;
regulations concerning the Conduct of
examinations; any legislation affecting all
departments of the University; any legislation
affecting more than one department of the
University; and, as a matter of judgement, the
President may call on the University Senate
for its opinion and advice on any matter
affecting the welfare of the University."

The president of the University is the
presiding officer of the Senate. The Provost,
Dean of Women and Dean of Student Affairs
are non voting ex-officio members. There are
13 voting, ex-officio members, namely the
deans of the 11 schools plus the Dean of the
Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the
Chancellor for Medical Affairs. There is
generally one faculty representative for every
20 faculty members of professional rank.

Those who propose to reform the Senate
have initially indicated that their main
objective is to "have a body through which
the resources and wisdom of the University
may be drawn upon, the current opinion of
the University community may be expressed,
communication improved, and innovative
ideas brought to bear on University problems."

The draft proposal then goes on to outline
other suggestions for a revitalized senate. It
suggests elected members from all aspects of
the University community, including faculty,
students, administration, and staff. It states
the Senate should exercise its existing powers.
And, perhaps, most significant, it suggests
"the Senate" encourage the view that the
opportunity for most meaningful participation
by faculty and students in University
affairs exists and should be fostered at the
faculty or departmental level."

The message of their proposal seems to
have an important dichotomy. It recognizes
the need for a broad representative body to
consider and make decisions of matters of
interest to the entire University community; it
also sees the need for representative participation
at lower levels in which constituencies are
more directly concerned or affected.

Reform, then must also be made in this
latter area, perhaps in the form of joint
student-faculty bodies within each department
or certainly within each school where
curriculum and other academic matters are
considered. Joint representation on administrative
committees would be another level in
which this reform might occur. With these and
other lower level reforms a new network of
student-faculty, and administration policy
would be created on a university-wide scale
and thus stimulate a basis for greater cohesion
of interest in the student body.

Beyond this network would come a body
such as the University Senate where students
faculty and other members of the community
would engage in university policy questions.

To those who would discredit the ability
of students to share in the administration of
university affairs, we point to some thoughts
made by Harold Taylor in his recent book
Students Without Teachers. Mr. Taylor
achieved national prominence when at the age
of 33 he became president of Sarah Lawrence
College. There he was noted for his
progressive leadership in educational and
social affairs.

As for policy-making and government
affairs, a great deal of this can be better
arranged by students than by faculty members
and administrative officers. The experimental
colleges particularly Antioch, Goddard, and
Sarah Lawrence, have given students
responsibility in student affairs which in other
colleges are handled entirely by college staff,
and have found that not only the
policy-making but the administration works in
ways which call upon resources in students
which would otherwise remain undeveloped.
By bringing students actively into the
administration itself, the administrative
problems of college life confront the students
directly, and refute the idea that anyone who
is an administrator belongs to the enemy
camp.

A revitalized University Senate could be a
vehicle, although certainly not the only one,
for bringing a responsible and representative
involvement of all segments of the University
into policy-making and administrative decisions.
We would encourage that formal plans
be initiated for revitalizing the Senate and
hope that administrators, faculty members,
students, and staff do likewise. It is an
important step towards reforming the inadequate
system we now have.