University of Virginia Library

Confusing Approach

Rubin Turns Off Moderates

News Analysis

By Mike Gartlan
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

It is only coincidence that William
Kunstler and Jerry Rubin visited the
University at a time when student
involvement in current political issues was
at a pinnacle. This coincidence prompted
strike leaders and followers to hope that
the words and possible actions of these
two men would provide the necessary
catalyst to bring about a complete
shutdown of the University.

Mr. Kunstler and Mr. Rubin could
have easily done just that. If they had
presented a unified and appropriate
picture of the strike and its goals, the
hopes of the strike committee would have
been satisfied. But the two speakers
addressed the strike in two different
ways. One way, Mr. Kunstler's way,
worked and worked well. Jerry Rubin's
way failed and failed miserably.

Why did one speech work and one
speech not work? Mr. Kunstler approached
the problem with a rational integrity
that appealed to the moderate and rightist
views of a great many students here. He called
for no more than a total involvement in a strike
that might possibly bring about those changes
that peaceful demonstrations have thus far been
unable to accomplish.

Jerry Rubin, however, lost sight of this and
cried the tactics of the Yippie revolution,
turning off those whom Mr. Kunstler had just
begun to reach. These moderates wanted no
part of a revolution that called for a complete
disruption of the court system and the
complete destruction of the jails that hold
political prisoners. Anarchy of this type
appealed only to the extreme left and confused
those moderates and others who were trying to
identify with the true attitudes of the strike.

As a result, many in the audience walked
out during the speech. They saw Mr. Rubin's
violent revolution as the step beyond that of a
peaceful strike. These people thought that if
they took this initial step and struck the
University, the next step would be not far in
coming, that violence would soon become the
primary instrument of change.

Many of the strike leaders realized this
during the speech. Tom Gardner, who states
flatly that he has no role in the leadership in
the strike, walked onto the stage during the
speech to talk to Mr. Rubin. It can be noted
that after this interruption Mr. Rubin switched
topics, going once again to the strike issues but
this time in a more moderate tone. He shortly
thereafter concluded his remarks. But what is
the result of all this? It can be most easily
described in the words of Bruce Wine, who
addressed a rally on the Lawn yesterday
afternoon, Mr. Wine said, "We blew it." He said
that the strike had lost sight of the goals that it
had set for itself. Mr. Wine said that diverse
opinions and technicalities were destroying the
strike movement. This type of in fighting, he
reasoned correctly, can result only in the

failure of a strike which will hopefully help
correct, not destroy, a presently misguided
governmental structure.

Mr. Rubin is clearly to blame for the
division in the strike movement. Perhaps he
should have been briefed on the situation,
instructed as to where and how he might help.
If Jerry Rubin had been briefed and nevertheless
decided to perform as he has in his other
speaking engagements previous to this one, then
the coincidence of his presence here will be
caused by those people who see the strike as a