University of Notre Dame - Dome Yearbook (Notre Dame, IN)

Page 22 text:

Rev. James T. Burtchaell. C.S.C., Provost. Administration Undergoes Transition On June 22 the executive committee of the Board of Trustees met and finalized an item that had been under discussion for more than two years when it reorganized the administration of the uni- versity by creating the office of provost to oversee the entire ace- demic enterprise of the university and indirectly student affairs. The man selected to fill the position was the Rev. James Burt- chaell, C.S.C., chairman of the theology department. To most students, the decision came as a complete surprise. Some friends of Willis Nutting had proposed that Nutting be named president in a chancellor-president situation similar to that employed on several other campuses across the country. But few thought the proposal would be taken seriously. I had to smile everytime Nutting for president came up even though I could not say anything. recounted Phillip Faccenda, who was elevated to the new office of vice-president and general counsel at the same time as Burtchaell. You ' ve got my job. Nut- ting kidded Burtchaell the first time he saw him after Burtchaell ' s appointment. The view from leaders in student government, however, was not one of amusement. Three weeks elapsed from the time that the decision was made until Burtchaell ' s selection was an- nounced. But no students were consulted about the appointment process of either Burtchaell or Vice- President for Student Affairs, the Rev. Thomas Blantz, C.S.C., even though most members of the administration were aware that Student Body President David Krashna and Student Body Vice-President Mark Winings were spending the summer in South Bend. Winings commented, At a time for critical decisions, the powerlessness of the students was demonstrated. More than any- thing the selection illustrated that the administration ' s rhetoric about equality of the elements in the university in just that, rhetoric. It was ironic, perhaps, that Burtchaell was selected without consultation by students because, as chairman of the theology department, he opened up the selection of prospective faculty members to students. He set up an appointments committee and then set up lectures and interviews after which students and fac- ulty were brought together to comment on the candidate. Final decision was not up to this group, but the recommendations of the students were considered by the appointments committee. The next time a major appointment is made, it will be harder to overlook student opinion. St. Mary ' s has included a student on its presidential search committee and Notre Dame students will demand the same. Blantz, who was appointed vice-president for student affairs, after Rev. Charles McCarragher resigned from the post he had held since June of 1 961 , had been an assistant professor of histo- ry and the university archivist. He is a capable organizer and was well liked by the students who lived in Zahm Hall while he was rector. However the office is extremely different from that which Mc- Carragher took over. When I took over. McCarragher said the job was almost all disciplinary. My office formulated the first big disciplinary change and it. was up to the dean of students to exe- cute the policies. Now the job is much more intangible. 18

Page 21 text:

JStees IKOM ISCHIWUSC ISW.CSC In 1967 the government of the University of Notre Dame was completely reorganized with control passing from what was then known as the Associate Board of Trustees to the present formal Board of Trustees The Associate Board had the primary responsi- bility of investing and advising on the use of the University endow- ment: as a lay board they had no direct responsibility concerning policy making for the University. That duty was entirely handled by a small board consisting of six priests With the changing of the University upper -structure in 1967. a new set of statutes and by- laws was drawn up for a largely secular board that was to assume the full policy-making role for the University. In the three years since the transition from clerical to secular control, the Board of Trustees has been one of the most examined and scrutinized bodies of the University. Though some attempts at communication and contact with the student body have been made by some of the committees of the board, it is a conceded fact that most students are unaware of the exact function of this board which exercises highest authority as to the direction of the Univer- sity One of the main reasons for the ambiguity is the board ' s policy of closed general meetings, which underscores the rather quiet comings and goings that characterize the board ' s functioning on the whole Actually, the full board meets only twice a year, once in the fall and once in the spring. Both general meetings are held on campus. The stated duties of the Board all com e under the broad heading of determining University policy in all matters, and this includes being charged with such duties as electing the University president (which, of course, the board has not had to do yet) and approving the University budget. In addition to its immediate duties, the board also decides on matters brought before it by Fr. Hesburgh. The various committees under the Board, such as the finance committee, the executive committee and many more, hold much more frequent meetings which usually concentrate on specific is- sues to be examined before they are brought up at general meet- ings (co-education would be a good example). The closest arm of the board to the student body would be the student affairs com- mittee, headed by Dr. Thomas Carney This committee examines all questions and issues which pertain to student life, and determines policy as to student rules and regulations. The committee has made an effort recently to try to establish a better system of communica- tion between the Board of Trustees and the students. At present the Board consists of 40 members though there is no rigid limitation as to the number of members. Of the 40 only seven are priests, leaving a vast majority of 33 lay members. Trustees are selected by the one higher body of the University, the Fellows who number 12. six priests and six lay members. This body is actually the ultimate authority, but the statutes have delegated all legal re- sponsibility for the University to the Board of Trustees The fact that there have been no startling changes in the direc- tion of the University that have come out of the restructuring of responsibility into the hands of the Trustees attests to the general assent of the Board to the original principles of the University. With the coming of co-education, however, and the possibility of a new president looming on the horizon, the true power of the Board may get a chance very soon to assert itself, and there may be clearer definition given to exactly how the Board of Trustees operates in the interests of Notre Dame. William Carter Ssatfd Mr Bernard J Voll Mr Alfred C Slepan. Mr George N Schutter. Mr John A Scheider. Mr Franklin D Schurz. Mr John T Ryan. Mr Bayard Rustin. Mr Howard V Phahn. Mr Donald F O ' Brien 17

Page 23 text:

The toughest problems that Blantz will have to deal with, ac- cording to McCarragher. concern the direction and thrust that stu- dent government will take and resolution of the student press problems He also felt that the proposed renovation of the student center and the arts center will be a major concern to Blantz as well as the need to adapt Whole new social events change. I broke my neck for big dances. But students seem to want some- thing different today Burtchaell. commonly sporting a pastel shirt during working hours on the second floor of the administration building, has made an advance at Notre Dame parallel to that of Father Hesburgh He graduated magna cum laude from Notre Dame in 1956 and was ordained a priest in the Congregation of the Holy Cross in 1960 In the next six years he studied at the Ecole Biblique et Archeolo- gique Franchise (Jerusalem) and at Cambridge University. He re- turned to Notre Dame in 1966 to teach in the theology depart- ment and two years later was named chairman of the department Father Hesburgh attended Notre Dame as an undergraduate and returned to teach theology in 1945. Three years later he was named chairman of the department. After only one year as chair- man. Father Hesburgh was appointed executive vice-president, at the time the second highest position in the University, under the Rev John J. Cavanaugh. C.S C In 1952. at the age of 35. Father Hesburgh was appointed President Despite the manner in which the appointment was made, the reorganization appears to be ac- complishing its purpose. In a day when the average tenure of those who hold the top job on America ' s campuses has slipped to four years. Father Hesburgh is in his nineteenth year as the univer- sity ' s fifteenth president When Father Hesburgh retires, there is little doubt that Father Burtchaell will have the inside track on the presidency, especially if he performs well a provost. In the short time he was chairman of the theology department he enacted major changes, especially on the graduate level. He established chairmen for the three major fields of liturgical, bibli- cal, and systematic theology studies so that the burden would be spread out. He also organized a steering committee for the depart- ment to revise the general thinking on policy. It was his rule that fundamental policies must be presented to the faculty before it was enacted. On the undergaduate level, he reduced the number of required courses and the number of required hours, allowing the majors a chance to take a double major. But above all. it was his ability to listen, to seek out advice, and then to act decisively which made the theology department function. As a result, he was very forceful. If he wanted something done, one faculty member said, he only asked once Everyone knew he meant business He was also pop- ular as a teacher and counselor. His evening masses consistently drew overflow crowds while he was assistant rector of Dillon Hall. He still lives in Dillon, but his all-hours counseling services and evening masses have been reduced because of the new demand of his office. The most frequent complaint that is heard about Fa- ther Burtchaell also involves his decisiveness. Some students are intimidated by his overwhelming command of the situation. They call it arrogance. They call it competence They call it charisma. Whatever description is employed about James Burtchaell it is seldom neutral. He invokes great confidence and respect or cre- ates resistance. But usually there is no in-between The appointment seems to be working out for the purpose for Student Life Council, assistant secretary of the University and as- sistant secretary of the Fellows of the University ' if Rev Theodore M Hesburgh. CSC. President