University of Virginia Library

The University Senate

The Senate of Virginia vest complete
authority for governing the University in the
Rector and Board of Visitors. After 1904
with the institution of the office of President,
the main powers for governing the University
rested in the hands of the Visitors and the
President, and generally continue to rest there
in 1970. No matter which side of the fence
you might find yourself on-faculty, administration,
alumni, students-it is fairly obvious
that the power at the University could stand
some redistribution, if democracy has
meaning here.

The Administration and the Board after
last spring's rude awakening have shown a bit
more willingness to be swayed by arguments
and opinions posed by members of the
University community outside the small circle
of power. With the exception of the Honor
Committee which has had absolute
self-government for many years, other student
groups, notably the Student Council are
attempting to take a more active role in
shaping the direction of the University and
providing legislation for student life. They
have to some degree been successful.

The faculty used to play quite an active
role in determining University policy on a
wide number of subjects by staying in
close, constant and influential consultation
with the President and the Board. At the time
of the first University Senate meeting in
1925, the powers of the General Faculty
could be summed up in ten major points:

1. The conferring of all degrees given by
the University

2. The modification of degree
requirements, especially for baccalaureate
degrees

3. Legislation affecting athletics

4. Regulations concerning student clubs
of all characters

5. The creation of holidays

6. To receive communications and
recommendations from the Student

Honor Committee

7. Regulations concerning the conduct of
examinations

8. Any legislation affecting all
departments of the University

9. Any legislation affecting more than one
department of the University.

10. As a matter of judgement, the President
may call on the General

Faculty for its opinion and advice on
any matter affecting the welfare of the
University.

With the exception of some of the purely
academic powers, almost all of the above
spheres of influence have fallen into the hands
of the Administration. The faculty now only
consults, and that is rather irregular. The
Senate rarely meets, and when it does the
issues that are brought before it are usually
not too significant.

Last year the College Faculty recognized
the need for the faculty to reactivate the
University Senate so that faculty members,
who do compose a central part of this
University, would have an opportunity to
take part in a more regular and significant
way in discussing and deciding the important
University-wide issues that have arisen in
recent years. For example, the University
Senate has not concerned itself with racial
desegregation, coeducation, ROTC, or any
overall plan or set of priorities for the
University.

A College committee under the
chairmanship of Lauren Henry of the
government department proposed a new
Constitution for the Senate to the College
Faculty for consideration. Unfortunately, we
believe, the College Faculty narrowly voted to
just inform the current Senate that there is
need for reform rather than endorsing the
very progressive constitution of the Henry
committee.

The proposed Senate would consist of 100
members, composed of 60 faculty members,
20 members of the Administration, and 20
students from a wide range of opinion so as to
be representative. The students would have a
full vote on all matters except those which
concerned the faculty alone or an individual
faculty member.

The new Senate would play a much more
active role in advising the President and the
Rector and Board of Visitors on behalf of the
faculty concerning educational policy and the
welfare of the University. It would have a
number of working committees such as
Educational Policy, Research Policy,
Long-Range Planning, and Athletics for
example. The leadership of the frequently
meeting organization would rest with a
faculty dominated Executive Council, not
with the President of the University alone.

We regret the College Faculty's failure to
endorse this proposed constitution, because
1) it is a very positive step towards fuller
communication in our academic community
and a fuller participation by its members in its
governance 2) an endorsement would have
put more weight behind the proposal. The
College faculty's action should not be
interpreted as a rejection of the constitution
but a call for reform on a University Faculty
level.

It was not too many years ago that this
University was small enough for all elements
to communicate with little difficulty. But
times have changed and the need for a
University Senate has never been so great.

We are afraid that the current Senate,
which is not a very active group, will take
their time in establishing the new Senate. We
would hope that they could give immediate
attention to the formation of the new group,
and set up a Committee composed of all the
elements - students, faculty, and
administrators - who will eventually make up
the new Senate to formulate a final proposal.
We would like to see the machinery for the
new Senate established by the end of this
academic year, with the group having its first
meeting no later than the fall of 1971.

The idea of a revitalized University Senate
has been battered around the Grounds for
some years now. Now that there is a concrete
proposal, it should not be allowed to gather
dust or die for lack of interest and action.