University of Virginia Library

Frat Replies To Brother Ed

rightly or wrongly, and change
may not come about as quickly
as Ed Saunders and other
blacks may wish. We don't
criticize his attempt to rectify
the situation, but we do
strongly condemn his extreme
rhetoric in proposing solutions
to the problem.

To make a blanket
condemnation of the whites of
the University as uncultured,
warped, and perverted is
absolutely ridiculous. We
would certainly question the
validity of Ed Saunders
labeling all fraternity parties as
bacchanal orgies and his
dubious criticism of fraternity
brothers sexual tendencies.
His completely unfounded
slurs are not only indicative of
his obvious lack of temperance,
but are libelous attacks upon
the integrity of the young men
in fraternities here on the
Grounds.

We would no more think of
condemning all blacks of being
as flippant and irresponsible as
Mr. Saunders than we would of
allowing one of our "heathen"
fraternity brothers to sit down
in the middle of a party to
masturbate while guzzling
Rebel Yell.

Possibly the reason for Mr.
Saunders' bitterly sweeping
remarks is his lack of source
information. In this vein, we
would like to urge Ed and any
other interested party to come
and discuss the racial problems
of the University with us,
particularly in regard to the
fraternity system.

We suggest that anyone
interested call us up and set a
time and date so we can get a
representative caucus of the
fraternity. Contrary to your
opinion, Ed, not all fraternity
members lead "depraved and
superficial existences," or walk
around muttering "SHIT."

The house is at 127
Chancellor Street and the door
is open. Please don't hit us at
one of our wild parties. We'd
hate to be caught with our
pants down.

The Brothers of Delta
Upsilon Fraternity

Upon reading Mr. Whitlow's
letter of December 16, I was
astonished at the inadequacy
of his arguments in support of
the Honor System. For the
most part he has simply stated
his version of the
indoctrination which all
students must suffer through
during orientation. This kind
of reaction to criticism is
totally insufficient, and it
avoids the issues at hand. Mr.
Whitlow reports that the
majority of students support
the Honor System and agree on
the types of cases it should
handle. All of this is interesting
and, I am sure, accurate; but
no one, yet, is protesting the
existence of the system.

The real issue confronting
the Honor Committee, the one
not mentioned by Mr. Whitlow
and the one indicated in the
letters of Mr. Carmona and Mr.
Henggeler, concerns the
penalty. Expulsion can be cruel
and unusual punishment. Such
was the case in the decision
reported last December 7.

In order to prevent future
repetitions of that injustice, a
system of graduated penalties,
like that of the Judiciary
Committee, should be adopted
for the Honor Committee. The
idea of graduated penalties
usually elicits the phrase:
"There are no gradations of
honor."

This argument is specious.
There are, indeed, no degrees
of honor. Lying is lying;
cheating is cheating; and
stealing is stealing-no matter
how insignificant the act. But
no legal system would sentence
a person to life imprisonment
for stealing a loaf of bread
from the local grocery store. It
is not that serious a crime.

Likewise, dishonorable
deeds committed at the
University vary in their
seriousness. Certainly, not all
are equally injurious to the
academic community. Why,
then, should each offense,
where guilt is determined,
warrant the same heavy
penalty? If the logic of this,
system were applied to the
American legal system as a
whole, there could be no
misdemeanors; and life
imprisonment would be the
only possible sentence for
every crime.

In summary, students are
demanding changes in the
present Honor System. I feel
that the adoption of graduated
penalties would satisfy these
demands. In any case if the
committee does not change in
response to this criticism, it
may soon find itself fighting
for its very existence.