Participatory Democracy on Campus

Abstract

OLLECE students have dared to articulate a fear C which lies deep within the American society. In this age of the ultimate weapon we live with the crushing reality of individual man’s utter helplessness. Life seems to many like a stage on which the theater of the absurd is played out, the absurdity of Camus’ Sisyphus. The individual seems trapped in the technocratic. corporate structure. Students in their idealism are lashing out at a dimly lit adversary. The underlying cry of student dissent is for participation. They strike the very heart of the American society in their request for participatory, as opposed to representative, democracy. The system replies with all the reasons why this approach to governance is unrealistic; after all, we cannot have a town meeting every time a decision is to be made! Or can we? Experience on American college campuses has shown that once the attention of “the establishment” is gained many heretofore impossible changes can be made. Student movements have had a great impact on politics, civil rights, the American involvement in Vietnam, and collegiate governance. But the academy is still in the position of reacting. It is a time for action and the academic community has the potential to create a new approach to governance. The academic community has an identifiable membership. Within the boundaries of the local campus it is possible to create units in which the individual members can participate. Parallel to the structure of the disciplines the academy can create a participatory governing structure. There is a general agreement as to the task of the academy although goals would have to be outlined more clearly than is currently the case. Certain affairs transcend the boundaries of disciplines and are rightly the concern of the entire community. Corson suggests six broad categories : “educational and research program, student affairs, faculty affairs, external relations (alumni, legislative, general), finance (current and capital), physical development.’ Size seems to be the major enemy of participatory government. The task is to define a structure which allows for the greatest individual input. Feldman and Newcomb completed their survey of resexch in higher education with this view to the future: “The size, in itself, of an institution devoted to higher education matters little if its internal organization is appropriate.”* They suggested a horizontal structure as cppDsed to our current hierarchical structure. Based on the categories which Corson has described it is possible to create a series of community councils. These councils must be of a size optimal to group discussion and to interest group representation. Their task must be definable. Access to their deliberdons must be open to the total community. The current practice on the Americin campus is to attach the work of the institution to (committees of either the academic or the student senate. What is suggested is a structure which combines these committees into community agencies. Initially the community councils would be composed of members selected by the academic and the student senates. If the model is successful something on the order of a community committee on committees would likely evolve as the appropriate appointing agency. Corson describes governance as the p-ocess or art with which scholars, students, teachers, i dministrators, and trustees associated together in a colltge or university establish and carry out the rules and regulations that minimize conflict, facilitate their collaboration, and preserve essential individual f r e e d ~ m . ~ In cader to bring the community councils into a beneficial governing association it is appropriate to establish a community senate. The community senate should be composed of representatives of students, faculty, admintstration, and trustees. Such a body should be of a size which facilitates discussion. The chief administrative officers of the institution should be ex officio members for it is during the deliberations of the community senate that they will obtain the consensus necessary to theifunctioning. The community councils would relate to the senate through their chairmen; the meetings should be open to all members of the total community. If meeting space becomes a problem this open deliberation could be provided by closed circuit television. Thus the community councils would be combined in a manner described by Henderson as interrelated circles: “Intcrrelated, they denote interaction, two-way communication, and conensu us.^ The majority of the members of the college campus are transient; at best they remain at one institution for four years. During that time students are active in campus affairs for approximately two years. In order to encourage the participation of the majority of the campus population it is advisable to limit the term of membership on the community councils and the com-