University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Art Department Puts Improvement Where It Belongs

May I comment briefly on the very
thoughtful article by Jere Abrams and
Jackson Lears which appeared in The
Cavalier Daily for Wednesday, May 14?

My colleagues and I read with dismay the
remarks of the students at the close of last
semester in Art 1A. We immediately
resolved that, insofar as we could manage,
criticisms of this sort would never again be
justified. In Art 2A, the second semester of
the course, dates and other factual information
have been reduced to an absolute
minimum. The emphasis has been placed
where it belongs, on the quality of the
individual works of art and on the broad
patterns of historical development. This
change brought about a striking increase in
student enrollment and student attention.

In 1969-70 more radical changes will take
place. The two lectures weekly, reduced to
fifty minutes each, will be supplemented by
discussion sections taught by graduate
assistants, under the general guidance of the
lecturers for each section of the course. In
these sections students will be invited to
explore ideas related to the lectures, ask
questions, argue, make new observations
and proposals. The discussion sections will
be as lively and as valuable as the attitudes
brought to them by all concerned. They
should go a long way toward providing the
continuity and the personal participation
the course still urgently needs.

On the other hand, my colleagues, both
the creative artists and the art historians,
feel that not all the faults lie with us,
particularly in the advanced courses. We
have much more to give than some students
are willing to accept. It is not encouraging
to see vacant seats in the classrooms or the
department library - until just before
examinations. Art, both practice and history,
is a means for intellectual and spiritual
enrichment, not merely for the attainment
of grades.

Ironic Edsel

I found it very ironic to read in the May
14 issue of the Cavalier Daily that the anti
ABM group at this University has adopted as
one of its slogans "The ABM Is An Edsel."
To see why this is so, let us review some
recent history.

On January 23, 1967, Mr. R.S. McNamara,
then Secretary of Defense explained
his position against the deployment of an
American ABM system before the relevant
Senate Committee on the American defence
budget for 1967-68, although there have
been a host of similar echoes in other
quarters, McNamara was the fountainhead
of the ABM opposition and most of the
arguments presented by our own anti ABM
group can trace their roots to this seminal
statement of McNamara on this matter. But
why should this be relevant to their use of
the slogan "The ABM is an Edsel?" Let us
see.

In 1946, the Ford Motor Company
"bought" as a package an entire team of
management control specialists who had
worked together in the Pentagon during
World War II. The No. 2 man on this team
was Robert Strange McNamara, whose job
was to modernize the statistical systems of
Ford's Planning Division. It was McNamara
who designed and installed the computer
system which led in time to the greatest
financial disaster of automotive history, the
350 million dollar loss on the Edsel.
McNamara's Public Relations men made a
valiant attempt to play down his role in the
Edsel affair. But the fact remains that
McNamara, as Controller, and Manager of
Planning, was directly responsible for the
creation of the computer system that
analyzed the automobile market and established
the design requirements for the Edsel.

By the summer of 1960 McNamara was
again employing his computers in the design
of another dream car, known as the
"Cardinal." Bu with the sour taste of his last
"Edsel" still strong, the executives of Ford
were not so eager to come up with several
more hundreds of millions of dollars, and
instead, arranged for McNamara to become
Secretary of Defense.

During his long stay at the Pentagon
McNamara was very active and a list of his
decisions and their consequences makes
interesting reading. But let us single out one
of his pet projects, the TFX (renamed
F-111). The TFX, a supposedly all-purpose
fighter and bomber, was to replace the
multitude of special-purpose planes McNamara
was scrapping - all in the name of
economy. Despite unanimous advice from
the top military brass that this project was
unfeasible and in the long run would cost
more than could possibly be saved, he went
ahead with the project. The result was
"McNamara's Flying Edsel" which turned
out to be virtually useless since it is too
heavy to be used on aircraft carriers, and its
speed and range are less than those for
presently existing aircraft.

When the matter of ABM deployment
came up, McNamara, despite evidence to the
contrary from many quarters, took the
anti-ABM position on the grounds that it is
unfeasible, too costly, dangerous, useless,
etc. Are we in for another "Edsel" in the
form of an "anti-ABM decision?" An "Edsel
Car" may be a financial disaster; an "Edsel
Plane" may be a military impairment; but
an "Edsel" in the form of a lack of adequate
anti missile protection for America may
very well be national suicide.

There are conflicting opinions among the
experts and the public in general about the
value of an ABM system. The anti-ABM
group currently active among us seems to
think that "deployment" rather than "lack"
of an ABM system would be detrimental to
America. Since their argumentation is
derived from the ideas of precisely "the"
man who has produced not one, but an
entire string of "Edsel's" in his career, I find
it very ironic that they should choose as
their slogan "The ABM is an Edsel" in
supporting another of his pet projects, the
"non deployment of the ABM." If the
anti-ABM group were consistent in what
they were doing, their slogan should
logically read "Support the anti-ABM -
another Edsel."

Ridiculous Action

The recent action of the Honor Committee
borders on the ridiculous. The "gentlemen"
of the University are now going to be
given the chance to lie for their liquor. We
hate to be trite, but a lie is a lie, whether
given to a Dean or a local merchant - and
our "moral sense" does not agree that lying
about one's age is not a lie.

The Honor Committee's ruling becomes
more questionable when it is realized that it
directly contradicts the former "clarification"
of the Honor System. On May 8 the
Honor Committee published an article
stating: "As a guideline in connection with
the foregoing statement [that the Honor
System "properly applies only to activities
related to the student life of the University"],
the Committee wished to make clear
that student life includes all actions of
students in Charlottesville and Albemarle
County . . ." The statement of May 14,
however, distinctly implies a difference
where liquor is concerned. According to this
latest statement, one can "honestly" lie for
one's likker.

As gentleman of the University, we
resent the implication that we do not
condemn lying in any form, and we call
upon thy Committee to rescind this action.
If it is allowed to prevail, much of the
Honor Code's application to "student life"
will become a farce.

Game Playing

I can readily understand the desire of the
Honor Committee to tailor the Honor Code
in such a way as to render it more
meaningful to the life of the University
student. However, in so doing they are
creating a system to which it will be
impossible to relate; more a set of rules for
playing a game than a framework to remind
each one of his own obligation to himself.
In allowing the Honor System to descend to
a lower plane, that of do's and don't's, we
are admitting to a lack of strength. It is far
easier to give in than to withstand
temptation. In the name of improvement we
have categorized this Code to such an extent
that there is no end to its definition.

One does admit that the Honor System is
somewhat unique. It is perhaps something
that makes the University unique, something
which isolates it from the norm.
Without it we would be just another
university.

It is interesting to note that in the past,
attacks against the Honor System have
centered on either personalities or on the
individual's inability to cope with the rigors
of the system. To label Dean Woody as
apoplectic (although sincere or moved is
probably a better term) cannot help but
turn the Honor System in ridicule, so
closely is he identified with it: however the
fact remains that honor can only be a
personal sentiment and that rejection of a
certain standard of conduct reflects only
our own lack of courage and can in no way
be related to the distaste of a faculty
member's "apoplexy."

Liquor Lies

This year has seen the demise of many
traditions at the University: coats and ties
are seen less often on the grounds, "Dixie"
is no longer considered a desirable song by
Student Council. However, none of these
events has so saddened us as the unfortunate
decision by the Honor Committee to allow
lying when one is asked his age for the
purpose of buying alcoholic beverages. Last
week we were saddened by the restriction of
the Honor System to Albemarle Co., now
we are shocked and angered by this latest
announcement.

As first year men we have heard much
about "a living Honor System" and a "spirit
of honor." We liked to believe what we were
told. Now, however, it is impossible to feel
that we are truly living in a community
where honor is a way of life. We are now
allowed to lie. It matters not what was
believed before 1956; the fact is that a lie is
a lie. We cannot call ourselves honorable as
long as such acts are permissible. Therefore,
we respectively request that the Honor
Committee reconsider its decision.

Honor Dead?

Is Honor dead? Maybe, The Honor
Council has determined by means of a poll
that about 50 of today's students believe
that lying about one's age is not lying. A
person can now misrepresent his age to
obtain liquor as a University student
without committing an Honor violation.

The Committee for Preserving the Honor
System takes issue with this ruling and will
be circulating a petition that states: "We, as
members of this student generation, believe
that deliberate misrepresentation of one's
age to obtain alcohol in the Charlottesville-Albemarle
area is a dishonorable act and,
therefore, should constitute an Honor
offense."

Four hundred petitions have been
printed. A table has been contracted in
Newcomb Hall. A table will be on the Lawn.
All the ground work has been laid. All that
is now needed is volunteers, and signatures.

If you care about the Honor System and
believe in working for it come to the South
Meeting Room of Newcomb Hall at 8:00
tonight. If you are concerned but can not
make the meeting call Ext. 3031.

Retold Story

I would like to make two brief
comments in response to Captain James
Moore's letter printed last week concerning
Paul Larsen's article entitled "It's Alright
Mom, I'm Only Bleeding."

First of all, any inaccuracies that the
story may have contained were not due to
Mr. Larsen's reporting. The article was
merely an account of an actual event, and so
any errors concerning the military can be
attributed to the soldier and not to the
author. Mr. Larsen was only retelling what
was told to him by the soldier.

And second, the Captain's claim that
"Mr. Larsen, you have been had. You are
the recipient of what is known as a "War
Story," and not a very convincing one at
that" is a statement that is completely
untrue, for nowhere in the article does the
author profess belief in anything the soldier
says. Again, he is only relating an
experience.

And so, it seems that the Captain has
missed the point of the article. His last
paragraph concerning his brother's "mere
convincing" war story is exactly the point
of Mr. Larsen's account: what is it in the
military and war that so twists a man's mind
that he behaves in a manner such as the
soldier did?

Perhaps if Captain Moore were to reread
the article he would see that his criticism is
both ill-founded and unfair.

Finals Speaker

Since 1969 is the Sesquicentennial of the
University of Virginia, it would seem that
the University could obtain someone other
than the President of the University for the
commencement speaker.

Although this seems appropriate, it
would be preferable to have someone from
outside the University community to
address our commencement. An eminent or
renowned person such as President Nixon,
Al Capp, Gene McCarthy, Ethel Kennedy,
or astronaut Frank Borman might have been
considered, or some other person who
would be an interesting, noted, and publicly
relevant speaker for the guests as well as for
the graduates.