University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

A Defense Of Concrete And Chaos At Columbia

"What god-given message
from the gold-studded shrine
of Mr. Jefferson comes to our
glorious Gotham!" (Our
apologies to Mr. Sophocles.)
We wish to commend your
editors for an acute insight, but
to take issue with its
implication.

In your October 12 issue,
you end your editorial with the
comment, "This is the
University of Virginia-not
Columbia or Northwestern;
tear gas pens should not have
to be in hand as women cross
the Grounds." It must have
taken several hours of cerebral
gymnastics for your able staff
to discover that Virginia does
not equal New York.
Congratulations.

However, we fear you paint
us a picture by implication of
sweet old ladies with hat pins
and parasols fending off the
depredations of roving bands
of knife-wielding ghetto
hooligans and cherubic
blond-haired,
strawberry-checked innocents
being whisked away to serve
the barbarous lusts of
drug-crazed Northern liberals.
Come now. These stock
charges of the urban jungle
may be satisfying to smug but
progressive bucolics of
Sybaris-on-the-Styx, but do
not stand up well under the
scrutiny of jaded urbanites.

Far be it from us to aver
that there is no crime in New
York; however, even the
particularly cynical Belles of
Barnard would admit that they
do not cross the Morningside
Campus of Columbia in
continual apprehension of
atrocious assault. (Yes,
Virginia, there is a night life on
Columbia's Campus.)

The Columbia Campus,
unlike the Grounds, is more
than adequately illuminated,
both electrically and
intellectually-but we digress.
And surprise, Columbia's
security force patrols day and
night both on foot and on
motor scooters, and does not
exist solely to give out traffic
tickets or advice on
self-defense.

It might shatter your dearly
held notions about the
nocturnal Evil City to know
that people attend concerts,
film festivals, lectures, or just
study in the library at night,
every night. People even play
Frisbee at night on Low Library
Plaza or South Field! By the
graves of Hamilton, Livingston,
and Jay! Frisbee, and in a city
that is two hundred times the
size of the one you write from,
and you would have us think,
two hundred times as
dangerous.

But we fear that we have
become overly zealous in
defense of that amalgam of
concrete and chaos that is
Columbia. So be it. (But never
let it be said that Columbia
University students are less
solicitous of the honor of their
school or the security of the
fairer sex than courtly Virginia
Gentlemen in the finest
traditions of the antebellum
South.)

Yet Columbia has withstood
the assaults of time since 1754,
and we are inclined to look
with tolerance upon the
brashness of a younger
institution.

Miami Mess

I am writing in response to
the article "Democrats Gamble
on 'Magic City"' which
appeared in the December 6th
edition of your paper.

Let me say from the outset
that I was dismayed to find
that The Cavalier Daily
published scurrilous and
unfounded essays of this sort.
It is the duty of any
responsible newspaper to verify
the basic accuracy and
objectivity of its articles-The
C.D. clearly has failed to meet
this test.

The article itself, authored
by Mr. Heblich, is truly a
demagogical masterpiece. In
one sweeping indictment,
Heblich manages to combine
the rantings of a right-wing
paranoid distraught with the
lawlessness or crime in society
(eg: Rizzo of Philadelphia,
Daley of Chicago), and the
ravings of a two-year old
radical who fears that his
favorite past time may be
taken away. (The author's
favorite past time seems to be
the violent disruption of
political conventions). The
number of deceptions and
half-truths contained in the
article is monumental (Joe
McCarthy are you really
dead?), nevertheless an attempt
should be made to clarify a few
points.

Mr. Heblich pontificates at
great length on the allegedly
reactionary nature of
metropolitan Miami; the city is
portrayed as a political bastion
of the Elks, VFW, and KKK.
The reader is told furthermore,
that Miami blacks are
"incredibly repressed," that
rioting has occurred, and that
slums-adjacent to fenced
expressways have not been
eradicated.

A large body of data shows
the one-sided and extremely
shallow nature of these
arguments. For instance, one
may compare election results
in Miami over the past two
years with those in "liberal"
New York City and Los
Angeles. While rank
conservatives won 58% of the
mayoralty vote in L.A., Miami
has continued to elect
philosophical proteges of the
late Mayor Robert King High.
(High was long recognized as
the most progressive of big-city
mayors throughout the South.)
And while metropolitan Miami
was giving 70.1% of its vote to
a liberal Democrat who
opposed Claude Kirk for the
governor's office, New York
City could muster only 48.1%
for the liberal Democrat who
opposed Nelson Rockefeller.
(Rockefeller and Kirk ran very
similar campaigns:
well-financed and blatantly
conservative.)

Also in recent years, several
"incredibly repressed" blacks
have been elected to the state
legislature from metropolitan
Miami-by at-large election, in
which blacks constituted less
than 15% of the voters; black
city and county commissioners
and school board members
have been selected by the same
86% white electorate;
furthermore, a former black
Miami city commissioner
(Athalie Range) has been
propelled into a cabinet post in
Tallahassee.

Certainly slums have always
existed in Miami, and probably
they always will exist unless
the federal government decides
to commit more funds to the
cities. I would seem that any
sensible person would realize
that no urban area can solve
this problem alone; until
additional assistance is
forthcoming, it is grossly
irrational and unreasonable to
expect any area to suddenly
eradicate its ghetto. Poor black
areas are not enclosed or
entrapped by expressways in the
Miami area. Of the four
high-speed arteries in Miami,
three pass partially through
black areas-they do not form
boundaries, while a fourth
neither penetrates nor bounds
such an area. (Since the issue
appears relevant to Mr.
Heblich, it should be noted
that these roadways are fenced,
just as expressways and
interstates throughout the
entire country are fenced!)

Mr. Heblich discusses at
great length the nature of
government in the City of
Miami and its alleged relation
to convention law
enforcement. Nevertheless, Mr.
Heblich fails to realize (or
conveniently forgets) that the
operations of the convention
will be exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the City of
Miami Beach-an entirely
separate political entity
Notably, the Mayor of Miami
Beach, Jay Dermer, is a former
supporter of Gene McCarthy;
he presently maintains close
contacts with the McGovern
and Muskie camps.

Senator Bayh was subjected
to the indicated insults in the
most conservative urban area in
the state of Florida, Orlando
(more than 200 miles from
Miami). In fact, Senator Bayh
always enjoyed his greatest
political strength in the Miami
area.

As for George Wallace, no
authoritative source currently
gives him more than 20% of
the vote in the entire state, and
no more than 10% in the
Miami area. A Wallace victory
is not "probable" in any sense
of the word; furthermore, only
the supporters of Henry
Jackson fear the entry of
Wallace into the race
(competition for the same
votes is never welcomed).

In the final analysis, Mr.
Heblich seems unable to decide
whether Miami needs a
generous application of good
old "law and order," or a
"liberation" by Jerry Rubin
and the Yippies. I would
submit that it needs neither.
Along with every other city in
the United States, Miami faces
a myriad of problems;
nevertheless, if we become
content with half-truths and
simplistic solutions, the "shit"
may really "hit the fan."

Honor And Impulse

I am writing this letter with
regard to a recent case that
came up before the Honor
Committee. I am specifically
writing against a power that
the Honor Committee has
exercised in this recent case as
well as in numerous cases in
the past. I will take this case as
a standard for the type of case
in which the Honor Committee
exercises such a power.

The power I am referring to
is expulsion. The power to
dismiss or "kick out" a student
from the University due to a
"dishonorable act." Someone
who I knew very well was
brought up before the Honor
Committee due to an act of
shoplifting (I can of oil - $2.00)
which was entirely on impulse.
It was not a premeditated act,
in fact, he was going to buy it,
but by some freakish impulse
he decided to just walk out
with it. Unfortunately, he was
caught and prosecuted as if he
had performed a fantastic
robbery.

This person is no more
dishonorable than any other
man at the University.
Everyone does dishonest little
things all the time, and it is
good most of them don't get
caught, otherwise the infamous
Honor Committee would be
setting examples of their
hallowed authority right and
left. This person is also fourth
year in the College with a
standing 3.6 average or better!
Now the stupidity that the
Honor Committee has shown
to me is in their "wise, fair,
and reasonable" decision. All I
can say here is what a joke! To
kick out a person who is just
about to graduate, just as
trustworthy as anyone else that
you will find, and with an
extremely successful academic
career which could very well be
ended sooner than expected is
hardly a wise, fair and
reasonable decision. The Honor
Committee is supposed to
represent the views of the
student body. Would you
personally endorse a decision
like this

In the past, as a matter of
fact, last year, a person was
pardoned on a very similar
case, a small, insignificant
incident in which the Honor
Committee is not supposed to
concern itself with. My guess is
that the Honor Committee has
taken upon itself to make an
example of certain people
periodically in order to keep
the student body scared and
aware of its God-like power in
the cases which involve "major
decisions."

My gripe with the "Honor
Committee" in this case is their
decision and the way they
came about it! They made a
decision which is normally
exercised in a very serious case.
A person who has been
dismissed from the University,
as quoted from the
Colonnades, is "one who
engages in disruptive conduct
or in any other prohibited
conduct which poses a
substantial threat to the health
or safety of other members of
the University.' This quote is
taken from a less severe
sentence in the Colonnades
which is known as Interim
Suspension. The next step is
expulsion. Since expulsion is
the most severe sentence, it
seems one would practically
have to be a murderer or an
espionage agent to be conflicted
of such a sentence. I say this
because of the basis for the
judgement used in making the
Interim Suspension decision.

Having the power of
expulsion is like having the
power of life and death. The
power to wreck someone's
college career, to disgrace
someone to such an extent is a
power nobody or no
organization should have!
Especially when such a
decision is handed down on
such a trivial and
misinterpreted case. One of the
various reprimands listed in the
Colonnades is ample measure
to restore the 'level of honor"
as exemplified in the
University community to its
distinguishable level. But no,
the Honor Committee instead
gets another chance to play
God, and hands down another
"honorable decision' which
only serves to discredit itself
and show how ridiculous its
valuable principles of fair
judgement are. The Honor
Committee has only two
decisions or to expel him
permanently. No leniency or
flexibility is allowed for. The
expulsion power of the Honor
Committee is being challenged
more and more simply because
any system which does not
allow for flexibility is bound to
be destroyed by dissentful
action.

My only regret is that it has
taken a case involving a man of
excellent character who I know
very well to bring my personal
attention to an organization
which has frightening power
without the ability to exercise
it properly. Such an
organizational power and
misuse should not be tolerated
in a supposedly "honorable
community".

A petition of support for
this victim of the Honor
Committee may be coming
around soon. Please give him
your support and fight against
authority in misuse!

More Politics

With respect to Mr.
Gleischman's letter of
December 9, I believe it
necessary to present some
other considerations than those
he presents as a means of
providing the public some
measure of determining the
truth of his charges.

I should first point out that
Mr. Gleischman was contacted
by all parties concerned before
Thanksgiving vacation. His
silence until the day of election
is, in this respect, curious in
view of his apparent moral
virtue, and I fear that the
passage of time has somewhat
clouded his recollection.

It should be confessed that
at that stage of the election
nearly everyone who was not a
member of the December
Coalition was reeling from the
apparent inevitable onslaught
of machine politics. As to
whether or not this was, in
fact, what later occurred, an
open public is the best judge.

It seems, however, that in
seeing no distinction from Mr.
Horan and myself between the
December Coalition, Mr.
Gleischman overlooks the
obvious: we were two, they
were five. True, we were both,
in the literal sense,
coalitions-but there is a major
difference in the presumptions
made between the two groups
in question simply on the
number of candidates offered
and the manner in which their
selection was made.

As for Mr. Collier's support
of the Coalition we were not
troubled in the least-he may
support whom he wishes. It
should be noted, however, that
that support came prior to,
rather than after the coalition
itself was formed.

As to which of us most
respected the individual
integrity of voters, I submit the
following:

From a December Coalition
letter to fraternities: "Until
now candidates for Student
Council have almost
exclusively catered to
First-Year men in the dorms
because they are easily
accessible, and inexperienced-and
as such easily
impressed by bullshit."

Mr. Chris Kerr: "...the
December coalition would not
have formed if they knew that
this motion (removing party
names from the ballot) would
be passed.'

And, from Mr. Tom Collier:
"If the uninformed students do
not vote along party lines,
what do they vote along?"

Mr. Horan and myself have
not only never said such things,
we do not subscribe to them.
Such is not, I submit, the
definition of hypocrisy. The
record is long and clear in this
affair. I believe that a careful
reading of that record
will despite the fact that truth
is the casualty not only in war
but in politics, as well make
plain where the hypocrisy,
falsehood, and mal intent lies.

Squash

It is high time that
something be said about the
deplorable conditions of the
squash courts here at the
University. Not only are they
overcrowded and poorly lit,
but it seems as though they
have not been cleaned since
September. The balls of dust
are now approaching 6 inches
in diameter and the walls are so
dirty that one might as well use
a white ball.

Furthermore, with demand
for the courts at its highest
level ever, the Athletic
Department has decided to
encourage further use of the
courts in PE programs, at, of
course, peak periods during the
day. As if the above were not
poor enough, numerous thieves
during the week who cannot
find a court for which to sign
up have initiated a program of
stealing the sign-up lists in the
hopes that they may later be
able to sign up on newly
posted list. This has only
served to aggravate the
situation especially during the
current intramural squash
tournament. Perhaps the
Athletic Department feels that
with the four new squash
courts in the U. Hall complex
in their final stages of
development, they can write
off the old courts. If that is the
case, and it runs true to form,
we can all expect that the new
courts, when finished, will be
as poorly maintained as in the
past.

Hell, squash isn't a varsity
sport, why build the new ones
at all? Maybe at the last minute
they can be saved for use by
our fine football team. As the
soccer team knows, this is all
part of a general pattern of
state U. disregard for sports
other than the biggies.