University of Virginia Library

Taking 'Peons' Seriously

Last week several University employees
expressed in a "Letter to the Editor" their
sense of outrage at being barred from using
University athletic facilities.

The crux of the problem is that there
simply is insufficient space for 13,000
students plus faculty, plus administrative
staff plus general staff to swim, play handball,
play tennis, etc. Certainly students, who are
paying rather than being paid to attend the
University, deserve the opportunity to have
adequate recreational facilities to round out
their university experience. In many areas,
such as basketball courts, there is still not
enough space for all the students who want to
play, not to mention faculty and staff.

However, in determining who among the
paid University personnel should be allowed
to obtain cards permitting them to enter
University athletic facilities, what guidelines
are legitimate? According to Mr. Evan J. Male,
Director of Athletic Facilities, there is some
tangible difference between the value of
service provided the University by, say, a
secretary, and an employee of the Printing
Office. Citing the serious overcrowding that
would occur were all staff permitted to use
the facilities, he is bound to enforce the
present guidelines which admit administrative
staff and exclude general staff.

The authors of the letter are sympathetic to
the claim that overcrowding is the problem;
however, they feel, (and it seems at least
worthy of consideration), that a system, be it
a lottery for the privilege or allocation of
specific times for specific groups, could be
devised which would not discriminate solely
against the general staff.

Surely, there is some justification for
inequality in pay, offices, and some fringe
benefits between faculty, administration, and
staff members. However, there is no doubt
that the wage scales for some of the staff are
very low and the fringe benefits insofar as
pleasant working conditions are minimal.
There is an unhealthy elitism present if,
indeed, secretaries, because they work in
"plush offices," or "assistant to the assistant
to the assistant" type of administrators are
allowed to enjoy use of athletic facilities and
other staff members, supposedly less
important, are shut out.

The complaints which emanate from staff
who self-effacing refer to themselves as
"peons" deserve to be considered equally
with complaints from any other quarters in
the University community. We urge Mr. Male
and whatever committee of individuals
determines who is to be allowed into
University athletic facilities to investigate for
any feasible plan which might allow at least
limited privileges to the general staff.