George Washington University - Cherry Tree Yearbook (Washington, DC)

Page 25 text:

The Office of Vice President for Student Affairs has two main functions. One is to coordinate the development and application of student life pol- icies on campus. The other is to oversee student services offered through the Marvin Center, Coun- seling Center, Housing Office, Student Health Serv- ice, Career Services, Educational Opportunity Pro- gram, International Students’ Advisor, and an office directly related to the theme of this Cherry Tree issue, Student Activities. I think of student activities on campus in a broad sense, not limited to centrally-programmed social, cultural and recreational events, but also involving student participation in campus policy committees, in community service projects, campus political organizations, religious activities, leadership train- ing programs, intramural sports, campus publica- tions, and so on through the entire span of group activities out of class. Student activities take place here among a very diverse student population. G.W. students range from full-time resident undergraduates in Thurston Hall to mid-career government executives commu- ting parttime to Building C for a Master’s degree; from public school students from the inner city to private prep school graduates from suburbia; from students from more than a hundred foreign coun- tries, to hundreds of housewives from Beltway homes commuting in for career re-entry programs. For some of these diverse students, campus ac- tivities outside the classrooms clearly have little relevance. For others, campus life represents an interesting and valued aspect of college attendance. A few of these latter are graduate or professional students, but in the main they are undergraduates, and most often, full-time resident undergraduates. Many of these report both intellectual and social rewards from a portion of time invested in campus activities. If I were asked what particular out-of-class activ- ity seems to bring the most substantial rewards both to the participants and the University commu- nity, it would be service on one of the numerous student faculty committees that shape campus poli- cy. In the give-and-take of such committees, where issues can range from equality of educational op- portunity to student records access policies, stu- dent participants can develop, through the process of debate, committee skills useful for a lifetime. In committee service, opportunities arise to test intellectual concepts from the classroom. The feel- ing of anonymity experienced by undergraduates new to any large university (I remember it vividly!) disappears quickly for students involved in com- mittee efforts. The debate of issues by those who know they will be directly affected by the outcome brings both intellect and emotion into play ... a combination that reinforces learning to a degree not ordinarily reachable through reflection alone. As for the overall activities picture, there are those who still lament the passing of an earlier-day campus life. Activities in most major urban univer- sities no longer involve the elaborate home- comings, winter weekends, and massive parades and concerts of those times. The student bodies of institutions like ours have become far too hetero- geneous to support such events. Then as soon as the military draft ceased, that other notable feature of past campus life, the mass demonstration, dis- appeared as well. Today’s student bodies support a style of campus life that suits their own needs. They have devel- oped a greatly-expanded variety of smaller-scale, more-specialized activities. One of these can now be found on this campus to match almost any student ' s out-of-class interest, whether that interest lies in campus policy development, German liter- ature, hospital volunteer work, cross-country ski- ing, or support of a candidate for public office. To me the G.W. campus life of the Seventies is much the richer for this new variety in student activities. 21

Page 24 text:

VICE PRESIDENT WILLIAM P. SMITH “People say that students are not involved any- more. 1 do not believe it. I think the type of involvement is just different. Vice-President Smith 20

Page 26 text:

MARVIN CENTER STAFF Boris Bell, Director The role of the Marvin Center ' s director and supportive staff is charted in the building use policies which state the Center ' s purpose and related functions. These policies view the Center as providing a wide variety of services important to the daily needs of all members of the University community and affording an atmosphere for the encour- agement, development and support of a cultural, intellectual, recrea- tional and social program. In effect, the Center might best be regarded as an all purpose community center, bringing together approximately 10,000 people per school day — representative of both the campus and Washington communities — and providing a backdrop for multiple forms of interaction. In this interface, the Center staff finds itself working with the Program Board in the implementation of campus programming, coordi- nating the efforts of the various management teams responsible for building services, advising students, faculty, administrators, alumni, and non-University groups in the planning of their activities in the building — and in the process, servicing same — and keeping the building properly maintained and comfortable for the building users. Included, also, among these accommodations is a function unique to college centers around the country; one which has placed the Center in the role of a library-like facility despite the recent emergence on campus of an excellent library, The continuing student use of Center areas for study purposes has had the effect of limiting the building’s versatility and has complicated the Center ' s effort to more successfully address its original- ly stated goals and purposes, While the work of the Center staff is largely geared to facilitating building activities and administering the policies governing building usage, a large role entails an important coordinating effort with the Center’s broadly representative, policy making, Governing Board. In this regard, opportunities are provided for the student-dominated Board to review the effectiveness of the Center, recommend budget and building use policies to the University President, assign office space, and update and improve upon the building ' s services. Staff contribu- tions to this role entail the provision of resource information important to the development of such recommendations and actions, keeping the Board informed of the Center ' s changing use requirements and oper- ating patterns, and implementation of approved policies and service developments. These involvements with the Governing Board have represented a special challenge to the staff and have clearly indicated that the various constituencies of the University can work productively and amicably together on matters important to the quality of life on the campus. 22 Boris Bell