University of Virginia Library

Mandatory Student Fees Overlooked

refute his claim that "no
student should have to support
organizations opposed to his
political or moral beliefs." Just
who is properly libertarian?

Under the fees system,
students are required to
contribute a certain amount of
money to the Student
Council's Activities Fund, which
the Council later parcels out to
student organizations. But
what assurance is there that the
end result is fair to everybody?

How can the Council judge
objectively which group is
more needy or worthy of
funds? Isn't it clear that,
indirectly, some students will
be subsidizing other students'
organizations?

Why, why does the money
have to go to the Council in
the first place? Is it because
some groups can't raise enough
funds on their own? And, if so,
is it right to force others most
of whom have their own
special groups (also, I'm sure,
in need of further funds) to
chip in?

It is unfortunate that the
dream of utopia must
sometimes be broken by the
bitter realization that
occasionally everything just
doesn't work out. But we must
finally face the fact that the
present system is nothing more
than planned inequity, forced
subsiding!!

Every student group must
vie more and more for a share
in the kitty, for the money
that may well make it or break
it. But, as the pressure on the
Council members themselves
grows, so, too, the risk becomes
greater that, increasingly,
self-interest and personal
preference will determine the
final gifts of that all-sustaining
money.

The solution can only be to
begin cutting back on the fees
from the very start! The recent
allocation to the Gay Student
Union of a paltry $45 is but
the focal point of a much more
significant issue. Mandatory
Student Fees must be
reformed.

Priorities

Is it true that University Hall
has the capacity for an
addition of several thousand
seats?

If this assumption is correct,
then, with the demand for
basketball tickets far
outstripping supply, why is
the facility not enlarged?
Perhaps I am myopic, and I
readily admit an inability to
grasp the subtleties of Athletic
Department economics;
nevertheless I see the plan to
renovate and enlarge Scott
Stadium with no corresponding
efforts to increase the seating
capacity of U-Hall as a classic
example of misplaced
priorities.

However, even if it is
physically impossible to
enlarge the number of seats, it
would seem that the Athletic
Department should feel
obligated to insure live
television coverage, either
closed-circuit or cable, for the
unfortunate mass of students
who will be unable to obtain
basketball tickets. Though far
from ideal, especially with the
realization that Dave Sparks'
loathsome carcass will
undoubtedly be seated in the
building for every game, only
with the greatest callousness
and injustice could the monguls
of the Athletic Department
deny this simple service to
ticketless students.

I close with a blast at the
new, improved, streamlined
ticket pick-up policy. I can
appreciate the necessity of
disallowing one man pick-ups
for entire dormitories,
fraternity houses, or vast
hordes of independents.
However, many students live in
groups of three or four. Last
year's ticket policy
accommodated perfectly just
such an arrangement. This
system was restrictive enough
to restrain an immediate
depletion of the tickets by a
well organized few, yet flexible
enough to allow small groups
to obtain seats together
without an inordinate amount
of waiting for anyone in each
group.

Good luck Wahoos and long
live Chris Cramer!

Honesty

I am glad to see that Bill
Hurd has finally come out in
support of those people who
see fit not to pay taxes to
support the Vietnam War and
those who fled to Canada to
escape the draft.

Of course Mr. Hurd has not
come right out and said it. But
what else can we believe when
he says, "No one should ever
be forced to contribute to an
organization whose activities
violate his moral, religious or
political beliefs."

Instead of dealing with the
Mickey-Mouse squabble of $45
contributed to the Gay
Student Union, perhaps Mr.
Hurd should devote his time
and energy working to secure
amnesty for people who went
to Canada to escape the draft. I
am sure Steve Squire could
find work for him. This is only
reasonable, since they only
refused "to contribute to an
organization whose activities
violate their moral, religious or
political beliefs."

Now perhaps Mr. Hurd
doesn't think bombing North
and South Vietnam into the
Stone Age or frying children is
immoral or irreligious,
however, if he truly believes
what he says, he should defend
draft resistors for the principle
involved. This should be very
clear to Mr. Hurd if he is an
honest person, and we all know
that Bill Hurd is an honest
person and not a hypocrite.