University of Virginia Library

Student Council Backs May Action,
Questions CD Editorial Policy

By Ann Brown
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

The Student Council voted Tuesday
night to endorse the May Action, planned
as massive civil disobedience for
Washington, D.C., and approved a
statement of endorsement written by
Maryann McDermott.

Ken Lewis, representing the Virginia
Mobilization Committee, presented a
three-point proposal for consideration by
Council. The items included endorsement
of the May action, support of those
students from Charlottesville going to
Washington to participate, and support of the
organizing efforts here.

Mr. Lewis stated. "I don't know whether
we're going to strike. I don't even care whether
we're going to strike. What's important is
what's going on in Washington." In
commenting on action taken in protest to
Cambodia and Kent State, Mr. Lewis added,
"This time we're going to D.C. to act instead of
react."

Russ Palmore, Law School representative,
said he felt that the May action "could be
counter-productive." He further stated that
approving the proposals would not be voting
the opinions of the majority of students.

Tom Collier, Council Secretary, responded
to Mr. Palmore's comments. He stated that
although he thought the possibilities of the May
action were frightening, "there's only one thing
I can think of that would be more frightening
and that would be for this war to drag on for
five more years."

The Council voted to adopt Mr. Lewis's
three-point proposal; and Miss McDermott,
Graduate Arts and Sciences representative,
drafted a statement.

Council Statement

The statement approved by the group reads:
"The Student Council of the University of
Virginia endorses the nonviolent Mayday civil
disobedience planned for May 1-5 in
Washington D.C. and supports the efforts of
those Virginia students who will participate.
Council sees the action of trying to stop the
activities of those governmental agencies which
prosecute the war in Southeast Asia as perhaps
the only remaining option open to the people
of this country to display the vehemence with
which they oppose the war. While each council
member may not support the efficacy of the
action, Council, as a whole, offers moral
backing to those who will subject themselves to
arrest for their belief in the tactic."

Constitution Charge

Robin Lind, an organizer of the New
Constitution Party, confronted Council
president Kevin Mannix with the accusation
that he had used Council funds to print copies
of the current constitution to oppose the
proposed new constitution. He also protested
his group's not being allowed to use Council
machines to print copies of the proposed
document.

Mr. Mannix admitted that a part of his
reason for reprinting 500 copies of the present
constitution and distributing 150 copies of it
was that he was opposed to the new one being
presented in the election referendum. Mr.
Mannix added that he felt that voters should
have access to both constitutions in order to
make an informed decision. Since the supply in
the Council office has run out, he felt that
more copies should be printed.

Hugh Antrim, Council Vice President, stated
that he had refused the New Constitution
Party's request to use mimeograph equipment
in the Council office because a petition had not
yet been submitted to place the constitution
question on the ballot.

Mr. Collier proposed a motion calling for
further distribution of copies of the current
constitution. He then recommended that
Council members vote down the motion so that
no more copies could be distributed. The
motion was defeated.

A proposal made by Mr. Lind was then
discussed which would have forced the political
parties involved in the printing and Mr. Mannix
to pay the printing costs. Mr. Lind stated, "I
ask that if the President of Student Council
wants to oppose this issue, that you ask him to
pay for it out of his own pocket." This motion
did not carry.

In other business, Larry Williams, College
representative, proposed a motion which was
later approved, reading, "Student Council
seriously questions the editorial policy
expressed in Tuesday's Cavalier Daily that
voiced support of a candidate for Student
Council president." Mr. Williams criticized the
newspaper for taking a stand on this issue
because the paper was owned by students
through funding by Student Activities Fees.

Mike Cohen, Law School representative
stated that he felt that the Cavalier Daily
strongest point had always been its
independence. He added that it was the
newspaper's right to make editorial statements
of that sort.