Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / Feb. 15, 1973, edition 1 / Page 6
Part of University of North Carolina at Asheville Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
march 1, 1973 campus governance Is there a future? For the past month and a half, the Chancel lors Committee on Campus Government has been meeting in closed session. Nevertheless, the RIDGERUNNER attempted to get the reac tions of the committee members as to where all campus government is headed. Dr. Gene Rainey,- Committee Chairman, has a hopeful attitude that the committee will meet a positive end. Although Rainey did not speculate on the committee’s future, he did state that the procedures used to regulate the committee permit rapid, effective movement. When asked why the committee meetings were not open to the public, Rainey replied that with a closed meeting, committee members would not be pressured by other students and faculty nor would the faculty members of the committee receive any repercussions from the administration on the opinions that they might make. Three of the possible shortcommings of the committee as seen by Rainey are, that neither the staff nor the administration, especially the Vice-Chancelloi for Academic Affairs, are represented on the committee, the fact that the committee is composed of faculty members who have been at UNC-A no more than four years, and that no member of either the science or math department is on the committee. When asked for the reason for the absence of the science and math faculty on the committee, Rainey and other faculty members on the committee re sponded that the science and math people were asked to serve andy refused. Rainey expects the final committee report to be sent to the Chancellor in a month. Committee co-chairwoman, Nancy Horak, says that in the end the Chancellor will have the final say. Ms. Horak indicated that a number of controversial issues have arisen, of which some might and some might not meet with the Chan cellor’s approval. Although drafting a campus government document is not the committees present pur pose, Ms. Horak feels that one should be brought up and discussed. Ms. Horak also has strong feelings about the meetings not being made public, for she feels as if they should. “We serve at the request of the Chancellor.” This is the view taken by Dr. George Stein, however. Dr. Stein also stated that, “The Chan cellor has not attempted to influence the com mittee in any fashion.” Stein concurred with Dr. Rainey on the de- cission to keep the meetings closed. “The com- . mittee has decided not to make any statement until a final report is made to the chancellor.” As far as what the committee is doing and where it is headed, Stein refused comment. JDr. Mechthild Cranston is of the opinion that the committee is doing what it was told. The fact that the committee is inexperienced in this area is good because the committee works at its own rate of speed. Dr. Cranston feels sorry that the science and math people and more senior faculty members are not on the committee because she feels that they are needd. The newest member of the committee, Chuck Campbell, feels the committee is a general rehash of the Curricular Reforms Committee. Two proposals which the committee has not brought up, to Campbell’s dismay, are a new constitution and the no “F’ grading system. Campbell believes the bottleneck will be the administration and hopes that if after the re port is submitted to the Chancellor that the com mittee’s work will not die there. Campbell thinks that the defeat of the Instrument of Gov ernment last fall by the students was a mis take and that the Instrument of Government would have provided a stepping stone to a better system instead of working on faith as we are presently doing. Ray Gasperson takes the opposite view in stating that the vote against the Instrument of Government put student government in the leadership role. “Student government will play a role which others on campus will listen to.” In this respect Gasperson believes that the Chancellor will not be able to stop the report but act on the resolutions that turn up. Dr. Jack Hicks thinks that, “The committee is making substantial progress concerning the objectives the committee was charged with by the Chancellor.” Hicks has no idea of how long the committee will last, possibly for the next two years considering the broad range of is sues and the fact that they are acted on one at a time. Hicks expressed that he wished that the science and math people had been on the committee, but that relatively few faculty mem bers were interested in serving on the com mittee. Bernice McNair thinks that the committee will not continue after its initial work is com plete. The committee is having good sessions according to Ms. McNair. When asked if the committee could accomplish its objectives in times Ms. McNair replied that, “The committee could work everyday and still not have enough time.”, but she does feel that the committee re port will be in the Chancellor’s hand in a month. Ms. McNair thinks the reason that there was a lack of willingness on the part of the faculty to serve on the committee is that the faculty thought the committee would not go anywhere and they did not want to be on it. The final report on the committee’s fmdings and recommendations will be made public after its submission to the Chancellor, Can the faculty relate to students? Does campus government cause innovation? In October 72, during the very tense and sometimes thrilling controversy over campus governance, somebody happened to examine the UNC-A Handbook, and more specifically the first page, where the goals and objectives of the University of North Carolina at Asheville are listed. At that time a simple descriptive term such as “innovation” was given new meaning and new life, adopted quickly as a UNC-A battlecry. The word “innovation” is now heard constantly on this campus and is used to label everything from bathroom commodes to student and faculty governments. The campus governance issue raised a lot of questions in the minds of many and certainly among those questions is one concerning what role the “governmental” agencies on this campus play in establishing UNC-A as innovative. No one denies that such organized agencies are in volved in the detailed workings of this campus, but can what they accomplish and the procedures that they follow enhance innovation? To find answers one should examine the whole subject of system and organization., In a nutshell, it may be that, ironically, UNC-A is using archaic methods and traditional rules for striving of something new. by Donna Click Although SGA and faculty government and all subset organizations may work vigor ously at fulfilling their prospective goals, they are limited in what they may accomplish be cause of the fact that all organized bodies are in some way tied to the system’ simply because organization demands this. Such bodies may be tied to something as simple as paper, while others are tied to images stamped upon the brains reOecting someone, or something, some where more powerful. These factors can prove to be difficult obstacles or limiting agents. Yet, organization has been around for a long time, therefore, I assume that it also has merit. Certainly organization aids in overcoming the time factor which is one of our strongest enemies. Organization will provide a base from which to work from so that the greatest amount of work can be done in a minimum a- mount of time. But, perhaps it is not the struct ural element itself that proves weakening, byi the fact, (I am told) that humans, sincerely try ing to work effectively within these structures. Common knowledge exists that humans do not always work according to sincerity or effect iveness. I know from first hand experience in working continued - page 3 UNC-A students have mixed emotions on the relationship of faculty members to students. In a spot sampling conducted by the RIDGERUNNER last week student opinions ranged from “good” to “superficial.” “I think the student, faculty relationship is this college’s greatest asset,” states Millie Vance, a sophomore from Way- nesville. North Carolina. “Because UNC-A is small, it has a good student, faculty re lationship and this makes for a better learning process,” She said. “You are able to discuss pro blems with professors here and you couldn’t do this at larger schools. As the result of this you get more out of the course,” she concluded. Ms. Vance’s attitude is not shared by everyone though, case in point is Gail Noland, a junior from Crabtree, North Carolina. “I think the faculty could be improved,” she states. “Teachers are too super ficial. They are not personally involved with their students,” she said. “They do not empha size the importance of class at tendance,” she said. Ms. Noland also indicated that it is much easier to get to know a professor outside of class rather than inside. “1 think student-faculty re lations are very good,” states Richard Beard, a sophomore from North Caldwell, New Jer sey. “In small classes you get to know the professors and after class they are easy to meet and talk with. I think the profes sors are more interested in you as a person rather than as a student,” he said. Beard goes on to state, “there is a need for more meetings between the members of the fa culty and the students that have declared majors, not between the individual majors and the de partment heads but rather every one together in one meeting.” “There are about as many different faculty-student rela tionships as there are professors,” states Dean Miller a junior from Asheville, North Carolina. “All relations between faculty and students are different. Some professors relate to students and others don’t” he said. “Overall I think the faculty- student relationship here is good. Most professors are able to realize the importance of each individual and is able to relate to the individual,” he said. “But there’s still room for im provement,” Miller adds. “This school is too PhD oriented, just because he has a doctors degree doesn’t mean that he will get along all that much better with the students,” states Sandra Banks, a senior from Hendersonville, North Carolina. “The professors that I have liked the best have been the ones that weren’t PhD’s,” she said. “I think because of the small ness of the student body, pro fessors are able to have better relations with the students,” she said. “Students in a small school become persons and not just names or numbers. I think for the most part the faculty is pretty good, or at least the one’s I’ve had were,” she adds. From the consensus of opin ion these students feel that fa culty and students have a good working relationship. However, in some instances there is still room for improvement. In the way of improvement the students questioned indicated the desire for faculty members to become more personally involved with the needs of each of their students. In doing this they will help break down the barriers that have existed between students and faculty in the past. Univertity ol North Cirolin* >1 Aiheville-Aihevillt. N.C. 28804 zollie stevenson, editor, pat gainey, managing editor, lynn hyde, busi ness manager, daudette gilreath, ad sales person, theresa el-khouri, circulation editor, also • gilchrist white, michael hawkins, lillian John son, karen klutz, paul koza, donna glick and linda edwards artwork by david cohen dr. robert trullinger- advisor typeset by haga commercial typesetters printed by groves printing co. volume 8 no. 12
University of North Carolina at Asheville Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 15, 1973, edition 1
6
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75