University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

University is in the truly dangerous
situation of having an overly broad
code implemented by a body ready
and willing to draw any conduct,
however harness, within its ambit.

The younger generation has
been rebelling for years at having an
inflexible moral code imposed upon
it by the so-called older generation.
Yet, the hypocritical students of
this University are willing to bind
each other by an even more
inflexible moral code, one that
requires banishment where a student
dares the slightest deviation.

I submit that the conduct
leading to the initial expulsion does
not offend the moral fibre of the
community or the University
student body. The so-called
"student sentiment generated by
the case" the primary ground for
the Committee's reversal bears
this contention out. Taking a free
coke or cokes is no more morally
culpable than reaching in a
telephone coin return and taking
the extra dime or dimes that the
improperly functioning machine
has left exposed (although this
would also perhaps be an honor
offense). If conduct alleged as an
honor offense does not strike the
substantial majority of University
students as worthy of expulsion,
then the expulsion is itself a
violation of the student body's
honor.

Some first yearmen might
justify the punishment on the
grounds that they had been
informed that such conduct or
similar conduct is an honor offense.
This is no answer. Conduct should
not be declared morally wrong
because students have been
informed that it constitutes an
honor offense. Rather conduct
should be an honor offense because
it strikes most University students
as morally offensive.

Although the Honor
Committee's reversal assured a
"just" result, it also pointed up the
fallibility of the system. According
to the March 9 issue of the Cavalier
Daily it was student sentiment that
was largely responsible for the
reversal. Absent this vocal display
of student sentiment, the Honor
Committee decision would have
undoubtedly remained unchanged.

A code of justice cannot be
made to depend upon public
pressure. Had this decision been
handed down when students did
not have the time or inclination to
rise up in protest, for instance
during examinations or before a
school recess, the first year-man
would now be gone, branded as
unfit by his peers as they attempt
to play God.

I am inclined to think that Mr.
Jefferson, a just rather than rigid
man, would suggest that the Honor
System be abandoned or
overhauled to prevent the handing
out of additional morally offensive
Honor Committee decisions. How
many people have been tossed out
in the past where their misdeed was
slight, but public pressure did not
swell in their support?

The danger to this University
from additional misconduct absent
the Honor Code as presently
formulated, is far outweighed by
the danger of future decisions of
the Honor Committee that reek of
self righteousness. I urge the
student body not to drop this issue,
because of the recent reversal. A
"just" system would never have
permitted such a decision to have
been made.

Kenneth N. Fink
Law 3

Coke Case

This letter is in reference to the
"coke case" and the honor system.
I feel that the objective of the
honor system is to promote a
community characterized by the
mutual trust and integrity of all its
members in all their dealings. This
is presently accomplished by
requiring permanent dismissal of
anyone who breaches this
all-pervasive trust. This severe
penalty must necessarily be invoked
only in instances of extremely
reprehensible conduct. However,
even though this sanction is applied
to only severe violations, the
presumption is that students will
conduct themselves honorably in all
their actions within the
community.

The motive for honorable
conduct should not arise out of a
fear of the single sanction, but
rather out of a realization of the
benefits of honorable conduct to
the individual and to the
community. Thus, there will be an
overflow of honorable conduct into
those areas where the penalty of
the system is not involved. This
could be considered the spirit of
the system.

I feel that the spirit of the honor
system was broken in the "coke
case". Certainly many other acts
similar to this have been overlooked
and tolerated. This type of behavior
is clearly dishonest, but not
reprehensible enough to warrant
permanent dismissal.

Indeed, the effectiveness of the
honor system is not reflected in the
number of permanent dismissals
but rather in the amount of
honorable spirit among the
community members. The honor
system's effectiveness is lessened
when events like the "coke case"
occur. Students must perpetuate
the spirit by contributing to it in
their daily actions. This is essential
to save a tradition that makes our
University unique.

Dying Honor

I am writing in protest to the
deteriorating tradition of honor at
the University. Recent events have
led me to believe that the Honor
Committee has not been fulfilling
its obligation as director and
enforcer of honorable sentiment at
the University.

Due to the seeming irrelevance
of gentlemanly (or womanly) honor
in our revolutionary student
generation, the Honor Committee
has been under constant pressure to
adjust its stance on our most
revered student institution. In
general the Honor System has for
the last 3 years been adjusting and
bending to pressures for
"relevance" beginning with the
unfortunate decision to allow lying
for know.

I view the recent example of
impotence on the part of the Honor
Committee as another giant stride
toward the eventual destruction of
the Honor System. How can a
system remain intact after ignoring
a blatant offense against the spirit
of honor which it hopes to uphold?
What is the worth of an Honor
System which excuses every human
weakness that flaunts its precepts?
How can respect for our Honor
System be maintained among the
student body if our Honor
Committee reacts to an obvious
challenge with irresolution and
ambiguity?

Admittedly the Committee
should adjust to the times and not
remain completely stagnant in its
viewpoints. But I find it difficult to
believe that in three years time the
climate of student opinion has
degenerated from a faith in a viable
spirit of honor to an unconcerned
acceptance of glaring dishonor
stealing. Where is the evidence of
this dramatic shift in student
opinion?

If the Honor Committee
continues to reverse itself on most
basic notions of honor and
dishonor, the long life of this noble
institution will quickly end.
Likewise, if student opposition to
these irresponsible acts in confined
to vague mutterings, such decisions
will remain as further precedents
for deteriorating honor.

There is no reason why bigness
or pressures for relevance should
destroy a very basic spirit of honor.
Everyone must voice his opinion on
the duty of the Committee and
these recent outrageous events if
honor is to remain a force in
University life.

'Write Hanoi'

Regarding the mild controversy
over the CD's lack of support of the
"write Hanoi" campaign: I offer
the following arguments. Have
these people considered that the
integrated management flexibility
of the editor's decisions does not
allow him to print all news that is
good news. The CD is a 'First Class'
college paper and as such, has no
need to compete with other news
media over the "write
Hanoi" campaign. If a person wishes
news on this matter be should listen
to the radio, write a major
newspaper, or "Tell Doug."

The CD has already taxed its
responsive organizational
capabilities by covering the
abundant news about college life
around campus. Then again,
perhaps these people just wish a
letter count from the CD each day,
because if they were really
interested in the 'write Hanoi'
campaign they would quit griping
and donate the information
themselves! And if they were really
interested, they would help the
Americans still fighting over there
by donating to some useful
organization such as the USO.

But the fact remains, that the
CD is a College newspaper and as
such has no business printing
political or semi-potitical national
issues.

False Bust

To many students, including the
management of WUVA, a false bust
is as abhorrent as a bomb scare. It is
a dangerous practical joke with
large implications - ranging from
the loss of one's hard-earned dope
to the threat of reprisals.

In service to its University
audience last Tuesday at 12:27
a.m., WUVA reported the
information it had ascertained
concerning a "reported bust" in
Fitzhugh. Students in that dorm
called WUVA and reported hearing
loudspeaker announcements saying
a bust was in progress, as well as
reporting the sighting of a police
car outside the dorm. Information
about the students' report was
aired, while it was mentioned that
WUVA was checking out the story.

Unlike the bomb scare analogy,
the false bust had no precedent.
Especially on such a grand, and
apparently thorough, scale. At
12:35 a.m. WUVA stated that the
bust was a hoax. What happened in
that eight minutes is now a part of
history's harsher reality. In this
period a half-dozen Fitzhugh
residents made inquiries at the
radio station in person.

The details of the "joke" were
reported on the air. Not reported
on the air was the fact that a
member of the Judiciary
Committee and a counselor were
aware of the prank and took no
action to prevent it. They blamed
WUVA for inciting panic and not
purporting the facts.

Mass drug raids on dorms are
not ruled out. On Tuesday, Chester
Titus. Associate Dean of Student
Affairs, released a statement that
dormitories cannot be drug
"sanctuaries" when and if action is
taken by police. WUVA refuses to
abdicate its right to broadcast the
facts concerning busts, real of
staged.

Should such tasteless student
action as occurred early last
Tuesday morning take place again
WUVA might be forced to delay
reports of drug raids until they are
over and can be checked out with
the proper authorities.

The consequences of a drug raid
under these conditions could be
much worse than the loss of a lid
down the toilet.

Lib Retorts

The recent column by Robert
Gillmore on Women's Liberation
was a finely woven tissue of cynical
condescension, misguided advice
and ignorance of several themes
central to the Women's Liberation
Movement. It need hardly be noted
that references to "whimpering
little bitches," "Hebraic toughs,"
and "Gloria dears" add little to the
lucidity of his analysis.

Gillmore's assertion that the
value of individuality must have
nothing to do with a group is
inappropriate in view of prevailing
social conditions. His naive liberal
reliance on individual initiative is
reminiscent of nineteenth century
capitalists and twentieth century
racists. When the prevailing
ideology and social structure assigns
roles to individuals, regardless of
their unique talents and aspirations.
it is useless to advise an individual
solution to a group problem.

One of women's greatest
handicaps today is that they are
isolated from one another, shut
away alone with children in young
adulthood with little opportunity
to share their common experiences
and feelings. Without organization.
both for consciousness-raising and
social action, the vast majority of
women have no choice but to
accept the dearth of alternative life
styles available to them. The vast
heroic inner-direction advised by
Gillmore is liberal pablum. Sexism
is institutionalized.

Gillmore's comments on
male/female relationships, the
family and sexuality reveal only his
own problems with regard to these
areas of human existence and have
nothing to do with Women's
Liberation. Individual women, of
course, all make their own decisions
with regard to the question of
marriage and children.

However, the goal of most
women in the movement is not to
pay "maids" - no doubt black and
female to free them from the
"horribly ordinary stuff" which
goes along with human survival, nor
to overcome "feminine sexual
reticence." Rather, our orientation
is to modify attitudes, social
structural conditions and parental
roles so that children grow up
sensing the full range of human
potentialities rather than being
caged into stereotyped sexual roles
and so that adults may truly enjoy
children.

With regard to sexuality, women
are not panting after the trustful
experiences Gillmore attributes to
men, but are trying to put an end
to sexual relationships in which
women are more objects for others'
satisfaction and attempting to
relate to other human beings in
ways that express and satisfy their
own sexuality.

In short, Bobby dear, we do not
seek a society comprised of
intellectual elites living off the
labor of those they pay to handle
aspects of existence. Rather, it is a
society in which individuals can
relate to one another as unique and
valuable human beings, regardless
of their sex, toward which we
aspire.

Charlottesville Women's
Liberation

Mr. Gillmore replies: You
good-hearted ladies. I am afraid,
have done little more but to beg my
question. Your several goals
especially that of "relating" - are
much too specific and thus limiting.
The highest value must remain
individuality - and, a society which
nourishes and sustains it. Women's
Lib must be big enough to include
both you and, say, the modern likes
of Harriet Taylor Mill.

Kanter Rebuttal

I am writing in response to the
review, (March 2) of "Jefferson
Starship." Paul Kanter offered his
album "Particularly (to) people
who don't have any idea what
they're all about." As I have
admitted to myself that I quite
qualify under that warm
dedication, I feel that perhaps I
have been able to understand what
the album is saying.

I think it is imperative to realize
that records have been for some
time doctrines of our generation's
beliefs. They represent, in my
opinion, a more enjoyable medium
of expressing an idea, a belief, or
simply a glimpse of something so
momentary as reality.

Paul Kantner's album asks as to
look within ourselves, to be
genuinely honest in analyzing what
we are filling our days with, and to
realize that perhaps America is not
the morally righteous country it
once believed it was. There are a lot
of things wrong with America, and
I believe that there are a lot of
people who are not convinced it is
worth saving, if that means the
perpetuation of the existing state.
In a more positive way, it is
necessary to realize that the
problems exist, before they can be
dealt with.

It is a beautiful album that has
many honest things to say if only
you can and will be honest with
yourself about yourself and about
America.

The most important theme of
the album is that as secure
American children we have adopted
and played certain expected roles
all our lives. The social structure of
America has to some extent turned
us into machines, who are no longer
aware of our true identity and of
the meaning of free will. Kantner is
devoted to this belief.

He offers, as a method of self
awareness and of awareness of
social inconsistencies and
incongruities in America the, usage
of drugs. The potential of drugs as a
means of critically objective
analysis of reality has been
experimented with by a good
percentage of pioneers in out
generation. It may one day become
common phenomenon and that is
the reality we should be preparing
for today.

Roger Mifflin
Alan Milne
College 3

Ed.

On Castro Regime

I wish to make some remarks in
reference to the comments of M. C.
Gaarder concerning my letter of
Feb. 18.

From Mr. Gaarder's letter it
seems to me that he admits that the
Castro Regime is a murderous
tyranny. I certainly do not have
any thing to add to that admission,
but there are a couple of statements
in his letter about which I do have
something to say. One is that in my
letter I suggest that Cuba was better
off before Communism "which",
says Mr. Gaarder, "is simply not the
case". For one thing, I do not
suggest that Cuba was better off
before Communism. I state that
emphatically. On the other hand, I
don't see how any body can be
better off under a regime that,
according to Mr. Gaarder's own
admission, is a murderous tyranny.
Even if we refer only to the
economic situation, without
considering anything else, my
statement is still true.

I do not know how Mr. Gaarder
reaches the conclusion that the
Cuban people are better off today,
because he doesn't say. I know that
they are not better off because I
was there, before and after the
establishment of Communism. I
said that Cuba was one of the most
prosperous countries of Latin
American and I can back it up.
According to a comprehensive scale
of the socio-economic progress of
Latin America countries in the
fifties, prepared by Roger
Vekemans, and J.L.Segunda. Cuba
ranked fourth after Argentina,
Uruguay and Chile. According to a
similar although more limited scale
prepared by the Economic
Commission for Latin America of
the United Nations, Cuba ranked
third after Argentina and Chile.
Today practically everything is
rationed in Cuba. I don't think that
this is the place to go into details,
but it should be enough to say that,
since 1969, even sugar is rationed.
In his speech of July 26, 1970.
Fidel admitted what everybody
already knew - everybody who has
some idea of what is happening in
Cuba: that the sugar crop was a
failure, that the whole economy is a
big mess, nd that there is no hope
for improvement in the near future.

The other statement that I want
to comment concerns the relations
between Cuba and the United
States. It is true, as Mr. Gaarder
says that it was the Eisenhower
Administration who broke
diplomatic relations with the Castro
Regime and not the other way
around, and I certainly have never
said otherwise, but it is also true
that it was the Castro Regime who
initiated and consistently pursued a
course of action intent on changing
the country into a totalitarian state
dependent on the Soviet Union. On
several occasions I have heard or
read that Fidel was practically
forced towards Communism and
into the hands of the Soviet Union
by the antagonism of the United
States.

I am not sure if this is what Mr.
Gaarder implies in his letter, but I
want to take advantage of this
opportunity to dispel any doubts in
this respect. Fidel Castro denied
that he was a Communist before
and after seizing power, he stated
that accusing him of being a
Communist was a
"counter-revolutionary slander",
and when in 1959 Major Hubert
Matos, who had distinguished
himself in the fight against Batista,
resigned as military commander of
Camaguey Province, charging that
there was Communist infiltration in
the government. Castro had him
arrested, the prosecution asked for
the death penalty, and Matos was
finally sentenced to twenty years in
jail, where he still is. However,
when Castro felt that his position
was secure, on December 22, 1961,
after almost three years in power,
he admitted that he had been a
Marxist-Leninist all the time, that
he had intentionally concealed his
political ideology, and that he had
lied for "revolutionary
opportunism."

I realize how extremely difficult
it is for any one living in an open
free society, even to imagine what a
totalitarian Communist tyranny is.
Perhaps it can only be fully realized
through a personal experience,
Unfortunately, I know.