University of Virginia Library

Awareness Highlighted In U.V.M.'s 'Most Relevant' Issue

By Tom Adams
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Mike Russell, the University of
Virginia Magazine's managing editor,
wrote an article on the
importance of relevance in the last
issue of UVM. This month's issue,
which went on sale Friday, is
extremely relevant in light of the
political activism that erupted last
week at the University. God must
surely be a staff member of UVM,
because articles that were prepared
for printer's deadlines weeks ago,
seem as if they were written
yesterday.

Don Lewis begins the February
issue with his "Insights" in which
he reviews his own magazine. I
wasn't going to review the magazine,
since he had already done
such a fine job, except in his last
paragraph he writes that "we
prepare ourselves for Tom Adams'
review." Can't let all that preparation
go to waste.

Mr. Lewis writes that "this issue
of UVM is considerably different
from any preceding issues within
our recollection - because we hope
to direct our readers' awareness, to
focus their attention on often-neglected
but genuinely important
aspects of University activity." As
much as I hate to admit it (was it
Disraeli who said "it is far easier to
be critical than it is to be
correct?"). Mr. Lewis is right.

Before UVM's readers can have
their "awareness" so directed, they
must, I suppose, understand what is
meant by the term. This is what
Mike Russell attempts in "The
Dawn Approaches." He notes, in an
article spiced with quotations from
Eldridge Cleaver, Judy Collins, and
NBC, that "America is suffering
from a hardening of the arteries in
the social conscience" and furthermore,
"our society lacks awareness."

He tells us that to be aware
"you've got to open your eyes and
ears to what's happening, and
re-examine and criticize and reconstruct
everything that denies you
the human dignity you were born
with."

He describes many of the
difficulties involved in "sensitivity
awareness," but concludes that
"community, sensitivity, love;
which go towards creating awareness
will continue to spread and
gain momentum among the old (I
don't think he knows the same old
people I do) as well as the young.

"Our society is ready for a
movement that emphasizes human
values, human emotions, and
human dignity.

"Standards of 'ethics' which
demand coldness, and sustain impersonality,
whether they be
'American' or otherwise, will no
longer be tolerated."

One can either take the attitude
that Mr. Russell is either an
incredibly naive dreamer or that he
just might have some sort of insight
on the future. In either case, his
article is well worth reading.

The next article is "Alan in
Wonderland, a Modern Day Fantasy
(with few implications and fewer
subtleties) hatched from the sterile
brain of UVM editor Don Lewis."
That's the way he describes it. Once
again, he is absolutely correct.

Mr. Lewis also admits that it is a
dirty trick to lay the "culpability
for Virginia's perennial tendency
toward retrogression upon the good
Dean's (and the Dean is a good
Dean) shoulder." D. Alan Williams,
with his crew-cut, is just not the
typical administrator and thereby
the conventions for lampooning the
typical administrator do not work.

Mr. Williams needn't go running
off to Leigh Middleditch for advice
on how to file a slander suit against
Mr. Lewis. This rather pale attack is
devoid of any subtleties, wit, or
punch. It is good, in theory, to have
a light, humorous article in the
magazine to break up the more
serious stuff that precedes and
follows it. But as it turns out, Mr.
Lewis' article is the most difficult
of any to get through.

He only gives us Chapter I
("Down the Rabbit Hole") in this
issue. May he give up any ideas of
having a third or even second
chapter in some future issue.
Perhaps, like his famous road trip
to Madison is the final issue of
UVM last year, he should try and
forget it.

Following Mr. Lewis' effort is
"The Two Faces of College
Politics," a description of the
strengths and weaknesses of The
University Party and the two
political societies, Skull & Keys and
Sceptre.

Chris Thaiss has written an
honest appraisal of the successes
and failures of the University Party
in its two-year history. Its one great
weakness, he says, is that its
membership is small enough that
one fraternity or large group of
conspirators can pack a nomination
caucus and select their candidates to
run. This happened, says Mr.
Thaiss, last spring, with disastrous
results.

He also notes the fact that the
University Party has met with little
success in its attempt to reform the
Judiciary Committee, an
oft-forgotten branch of student
government that has the power of
trying any student for offenses
"unbecoming a gentleman."

Rod MacDonald, in his article
on the Caucuses, seems to be more
on the defensive. He says that the
biggest problem confronting the
two traditional political societies is
their image, which comes from
their "long history of apathy and
restraint from University politics."

He says that the two societies
should not merge because they
really haven't been given time to
adopt University Party tactics of
fully supporting the candidates
they nominate.

Neither Mr. MacDonald nor Mr.
Thaiss speak of the real problems of
student government. In spite of the
political activity of the college,
there are only nine representatives
from the college on the 22-man
Student Council. How the majority
get elected doesn't seem to concern
them.

Neither speak of the really
important election in the College:
the one for Honor Committee
Chairman.

Most of their discussion centers
around the Student Council elections.
Mr. Thaiss speaks of the
fraternity-independent split which
does exist in these elections. Mr.
MacDonald doesn't point out the
problems of getting independents
into the caucuses. Although it is a
relatively simple matter for any
person to join either Skull & Keys or
Sceptre (or even both), few students
have bothered to collect the
five signatures and dollar necessary.

The picture accompanying the
article, designed, I suppose, to show
the two sides of college politics at
the University shows Gordon Calvert
and Jim Roebuck. Mr. Calvert
is, of course, associated with the
University Party (he helped found
it). Jim Roebuck, to my knowledge,
is a member of no political
party save the Democratic. But
that's a minor technical flaw in two
articles that are interesting reading.

Continuing with its reprint
series, the February UVM has an
unsigned article that first appeared
in the April, 1875 issue. Written a
decade after the Civil War, the
unknown author tries to find the
reason why such "small additions
either to knowledge or literature
have been made by University
Alumni." He concludes that there
are many reasons, both in the