The Cavalier daily. :: Friday, February 14, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

"Responsibility for all major
decisions at the University rests with
the Board of Visitors, who base their
decisions upon the
recommendations of the
administration. At the upcoming
Visitors meeting, February 13-15,
the Board is going to have to react
to several recommendations made
by members of SDS and SSOC,"
Steve Squire, a spokesman for the
two groups, said yesterday.

"Throughout the early part of
this academic year SDS and SSOC
have been researching the
membership of the Board of
Visitors in order "to ascertain the
type of people that are serving on
the decision-making body of this
University," continued Mr. Squire.
The results of the research have
been drawn up in a statement that
has been sent by registered mail to
the members of the Board for their
consideration.

First Finding

The first finding of the research
group was allegedly that the Board
consists primarily of white
upper-middle-class business and
professional people. The statement
reads, "In a state that is one-fourth
black, there are no black members
of the Board of Visitors of the
leading university, nor are there any
poor or working class members,
black or white; there are no young
people on the Board, and only two
women."

Because of the "elitist" nature
of the Board, the statement
demands that the Board of Visitors
request Governor Godwin to
appoint future members of the
Board so that the membership
becomes representative of the
ethnic, economic, and social nature
of the state.

"Racial Justice"

The next demand concerns the
University's "commitment to and
desire for racial justice within its
walls." The demand is based again
upon the research of the two
groups, which contend that the
Board of Visitors has members
"who have led Virginia's resistance
to even the most elementary forms
of racial justice.

"Board member C. Stuart
Wheatley" the statement asserts,
"when he was in the Virginia House
of Delegates in 1959, was one of
the men who offered House Joint
Resolution member No. 8,
'Reaffirming the opposition of the
General Assembly with reference to
the mixing of the white and colored
races in the public schools.' He also
offered House Joint Resolution,
number 24, which established
Virginia's tuition grant system
under which the state has for ten
years been paying white students to
attend segregated private schools.
Finally, he was a patron of House
Bill number 21, which would have
made it illegal to mix children of
different sexes in public schools
that have been integrated by
Federal law, the purpose being, of
course, to avoid having white
womenhood subjected to contact
with colored males at an early age."

Wheatley Resignation

On the basis of these allegations,
the statement demands the
resignation of Mr. Wheatley. The
third demand is founded on the
history of another Board member,
William Samuel Potter.

The statement concerning Mr.
Potter reads: "The black
community of Wilmington,
Delaware, has just undergone nine
months of military occupation by
the National Guard. During that
nine months, freedom of speech,
association, and assembly was
denied anyone who opposed the
National Guard occupation.

Behind everything that
happened was the DuPont family
and its corporations, who have
absolute control over the state of
Delaware and the city of
Wilmington, the major employers,
the banks, the government, the
news media - all are controlled by
DuPont. Among the most powerful
DuPont in-laws and business
partners is William Samuel Potter, a
member of the Board of Visitors.
Mr. Potter is a director of a
DuPont-owned bank, a lawyer for
DuPont corporations, a member of
the Democratic National
Committee, and president of a
foundation that distributes DuPont
money. Despite his influential
position in the Wilmington power
structure and in the DuPont family,
Mr. Potter remained silent during
the political repression, during the
illegal and unwarranted arrests, and
during the occupation of
Wilmington's black community by
a white army."

The paper demands that Mr.
Potter publicly oppose the
repression in Wilmington as well as
support and agree with the
demands of the White Coalition for
Justice Without Repression, which
insists that:

1) blacks being held for political
reasons or under unreasonable
conditions be released;

2) corporation control of ghetto
programs, white community
agencies, public offices, and those
areas of jurisdiction which should
be held by people through the
governments be severed."

Finally, the statement considers
University wage policies. "It has
recently become evident that much
of the hardship and injustice
suffered by the black and poor
white population of Charlottesville
is a direct result of the University's
hiring practices.

The series of contentions are
concluded with the following
statement: "We will assemble on
the Lawn at 11 a.m. on Saturday,
February 15, to receive the Board's
response to these demands. If
favorable response to these
demands is not given on that date,
we will take appropriate action."