Newspaper Page Text
SPELMAN
THE VOICE OF BLACK WOMANHOOD'
SPOTLIGHT
VOL.XXXX NO.4
March, 1973
THE SYMPTOMS
AND THE DISEASE:
One faculty opinion on Spelman's problems...
By Hermon George, Jr.
Let me begin by thanking the editors
and staff of the Spotlight for offering
me the opportunity to address the stu
dents of Spelman College. Repeatedly,
much has disturbed me as I have ob
served this school for almost two years.
The occasion of this article is the mat
ter of the new Faculty Bylaws and the
implications that they have for all con
cerned with Spelman.
At the outset, when dealing with the problems
that currently beset Spelman, an attempt should
be made to distinguish the symptoms from the di
sease. That is, it should be realized that certain
problems on this campus, on close inspection, re
veal themselves to be part of a larger problem, one
that has many facets; thus, when seeking solutions,
the ultimate goal will not only be to redress second
ary grievances, but also to resolve the primary cause
of the grievances.
To illustrate: currently, there can be heard
around campus much disgruntled talk about the
sorry state of faculty /student relations—the feeling
on the part of many students that many teachers
are unapproachable, that there are far too few op
portunities for communicating and exchanging opi
nion with the faculty. I would call this a symptom.
Further, it can be candidly reported that morale,
that intangible element of cohesiveness in a group,
is low (an understatement) among the Spelman fa
culty and intra-group communication is almost non
existent. The faculty is disorganized, aimless, cowed
and largely impotent: this too is a symptom.
These distressing realities, as serious as they are,
are symptomatic of a still more serious problem.
This central problem may be identified con
cretely in perhaps its most significant form by re
viewing and analyzing the new faculty Bylaws, ef
fective September 1, 1972.
Bylaws may be defined as the rules of function
and governance that an organization or group im
poses on itself through democratic means. There
fore, the Bylaws of a college are important because
they shape the fundamental roles of the three
principal constituencies of an academic community,
faculty, administration and students.
The present Bylaws institute a revised committee
system composed of nine committees under whose
respective jurisdictions fall all important issues
(with a major exception, to be mentioned later)
pertinent to the functioning of the college, e.g.,
curriculum, student welfare, admissions, faculty,
personnel, etc. The nine committees are: Curricu
lum (13 members), Admissions (8), Appeals (7),
Awards/Scholarships/Prizes (6), Agenda for Facuity
Meetings (6), Faculty Personnel (5), Student Wel
fare (8), Public Functions (12), and the Four-Way
Committee (12). Members of these nine committees
generally can be placed in one of five categories:
students, administrators, faculty-elected by the
faculty, faculty-appointed by the President, and
other. The chart which accompanies this article
shows the distribution of the 77 membership posts
on the committees.
These committees represent the locus of de
cision-making authority and power. Every sector
of the academic community must have genuine and
effective access to this process else the school will
function in disequilibrium, losing its direction and
sense of purpose. And disequilibrium is the most
appropriate description of the current committee
system. Of the total 77 members of the nine com
mittees, only 15 are to be students; the faculty, as
a self-regulating body, fares even worse with 8
(perhaps less). By contrast, when the categories of
“administrators” and “faculty-appointed” are join
ed, they compose approximately two thirds (66.2%)
of all members of all committees.
An even clearer picture of the wholesale dis
enfranchisement of the student body and the fa
culty that has taken place under the present com
mittee system can be gained through comparison
with the previous Bylaws of March 11, 1970. In
the case of two committees'that continue under
the present system with slight name changes,
Agenda and Personnel, student representation has
been completely eliminated. On the Curriculum
Committee (formerly known as the Committee on
Academic Program) students will now have three
members whereas before they numbered nine. Only
in the case of the Public Functions and Student
Welfare committees has student representation in
creased slightly or remained unchanged.
That the last mentioned two committees, in
themselves, do not constitute primary and direct
access to power is self evident. The decisions of
real import to be made at Spelman-decisions re
lating to course structure, sequence and offering,
student rights and prerogatives, faculty hiring and
promotion, and other similar crucial issues—these
decisions will be made by the Curriculum, Admis
sions, Appeals, Agenda, Personnel, and Student
Welfare committees. In the decision-making com
mittee structure as elaborated by the present By
laws, these five committees may be singled out as
the most vital and important. On three of the five,
students have no voice whatsoever-Admissions,
Agenda and Personnel-. On a fourth, Curriculum,
student representation has been drastically cut, and
on the fifth, Student Welfare, students do not even
comprise the major portion of representation on
the committee.
Perhaps, at this point, the reader will have
grasped that in this matter of discussing the impor
tant subjects, one thing has been glaringly, inappro
priately absent—money. Under the previous Bylaws,
there existed a six-member “Committee on Faculty
Budget,” in which students and faculty participated
Continued, Page 4, Col. 1
APATHY CAN KILL
By Paula Hicks
Carl Rowan’s column, which is reprinted on page
3, should raise some serious questions in the minds
of the women at Spelman. Are we so hung up on
superficial “Blackness” which is manifested by
“Afros and cornrow braids” that we cannot deal
with the true Blackness of our minds?
Mr. Rowan does allow for the expression of
black pride through the hairstyle but he goes be
yond the hairstyle and deeper into the matter_of
education. He feels that blackness should be an ex
pression of how we prepare ourselves for the future
and what we teach our children.
Will we teach our children how to “get over” so
they will become experts at cheating on exams,
copying other people’s term papers, etc? Or, will
we teach them how to study and really become
educated men and women? Many seniors can speak
about how ignorant they felt when they took the
GRE or the LSAT. (True enough, those tests are
racist and not geared for us. But it is whitey’s world
and unless you got a game—a damn good intellec
tual game—you ain’t gonna make it.) Just think of
the waste in dollars and cents that our parents are
paying so that we can watch soap operas all day or
B.S. in the yard.
Here in Atlanta we are fortunate to be close to
King Library Institute of the Black World and so
many other places where we can expand our minds.
But how many students ever go to these places? It
seems that we are too busy chasing after some dude,
who probably studies before-fie comes over or stud
ies after he leaves. ‘There have been some interest
ing and prestigious Black scholars at the various
campuses in the city. But how many Spelman wo
men go?
What is the problem? Is it that we are so (Sack
and beautiful that we don’t need to learn anymore?
Or is it apathy?
If it is apathy, woe be unto us; because it will
destroy us as a people.
So many “sisters” think their nonchalant atti
tude toward the whole campus intellectual bag is
hipl Unfortunately, they spend only four years
here and not eternity. Those four years prepare
them for not-a-damn-thing! They leave this campus
with no more on their minds than when they came—
except a more sophisticated way to party and B.S.
But is it only the students who are at fault?
In all honesty, it cannot be. Education is a give
and take process. Not only are students guilty of
getting overcome instructors are guilty of the sarhe
thing.
Some instructors try to get over without teach
ing their course—just because they have a “Ph.D.”
They try to get over without meeting students in
conferences that might help both' faculty and stu
dents have a better understanding. They try to get
over and overlook the problems that a student
might face. They portray the attitude of being too
deep and too educated to deal with the “peons” in
their classes. They even have the nerve to not asso
ciate with their colleagues outside their depart
ments. With the faculty so untogether, who can
students look to for guidance and help?
Certainly not the administration. They are too
removed from the average student except at registra
tion or when it’s time to pay a bill.
This campus is too small for such a state to
exist. The lines of communication must be raised
Continued, Page 4, Col. 3