University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Counselors Sidestep Questions On Titus Plan

Mr. Titus was too smooth
in his answers the other night,
that is, he was very ambiguous.
One repeatedly got the
impression that he was being
less than totally honest in his
answers. Of course, the fact
that he has been very secretive,
that he consulted no one
except his staff must weigh
very heavily. He said that he
had input from all those
concerned throughout the
year, but it is clear that he
never bothered to ask anyone
concerned (counselors, etc.) if
his specific solutions were
correct.

The tremendous uproar by
counselors, resident advisors
and students make one tend to
think that his solutions were
not all the good. If the only
problem was that he stepped
on some toes, his plan would
stand on its merit. It cannot
do so. The plan will provide
more enforcement (through
less opposition) of Terms and
Conditions and anything else
the Student Affairs Office
might want to promulgate. As
of now, no one has thought of
that possibility with much
relish except Mr. Main and Mr.
Titus.

Mr. Titus's dictatorial
actions have excited no
admiration in the University
and I believe that they have no
place in the tradition of Mr.
Jefferson's University. Even
though the plans have been
put into effect, the way in
which it was done has not
precluded an effort to
overturn them. As students we
cannot allow the quality of life
at the University to
deteriorate. Let's destroy this
plan before it has a chance to
hurt us

Propagandism

The appearance of
Yevtugeny Yevtushenko at this
campus brings to mind the old
story of the Russian and the
American who met on a train
in Europe. The Russian
expressed his sympathy that
the American lived in such an
oppressive country. "What do
you mean"? He American said,
incredulously. "In America, I
can stand in front of the White
House and call Richard Nixon
every vile name I can think of,
and nothing will happen to me.
I'll bet you couldn't do that in
your country." The Russian
said: "Of course we can,
Tovarisch." And the American
said: "Like hell you could. I
know about Siberia, and the
mental hospitals, and all that
stuff. You'd be locked up in a
flash." "Oh, no, no indeed,"
the Russian replied, "in truth, I
too can stand in front of the
very Kremlin, and can also call
Richard Nixon every vile name
I can think of!"

If so much human misery
did not underlie the premise of
this story, it might be funny.
Like the Russian on the train,
Yevtushenko is coming to
America to display how free he
and his society are by casting
aspersions at us and our
society. In the half-dozen or so
trips he has made here, he has
never once passed up an
opportunity to discomfit the
host country.

Most recently, he has
castigated the United States for
Kent State; for Bob Hope and
John Wayne; for the Jewish
Defense League's alleged
excesses; and for a host of
social ills that exist, as
everywhere else, in America. I
do not wish to defend all those
things that Yevtushenko
doesn't like about our country:
yet, if anyone should be
entitled to comment upon
them, it should not be the
cultural ambassador of the
greatest slave-pen in human
history.

After all, being accused of
"oppression" by a Russian is
similar to being accused of
wooden-headedness by Charlie
McCarthy: not only is the
charge specious, but the real
talking is being done by the
ventriloquist behind him.

So, should you decide to see
Yevtushenko, keep in mind
that it is entirely possible that
there is a hole in his back, into
which is inserted the hand of
the Kremlin. Sure, his jaw will
move, his eyes will blink, his
head will bob, but think to
yourself: "Who is doing the
talking?"

Remember, Yevtushenko is
one of the few Russians that is
allowed to travel abroad
without a KGB escort. The
reasons for that are precisely
the reasons why he should be
ignored by us.

Not Snowed

In an earlier Pressure
Cooker Article, I depict
President Shannon as a keen
political observer with a State
point of view, yet I concluded
that he was blind to student
academic and social needs.
Since that writing, I have come
to see him as a shrewd
politician in his own right and
it is of the worst kind. Many
will applaud him for cutting
back next year's entering class.
Indeed, if it was accomplished
by setting higher standards, I
too would have praise for The
Man. But the entire reduction
will be made in the number of
out-of-state students to be
admitted.

This heinous decision is
not a moot point even though
the 1972-73 quotas are
presently being filled. The issue
is very much alive because how
Mr. Shannon got the
endorsement of the Enrollment
Projections Subcommittee of
the Committee on the Future
of the University is indicative
of his ruthless, undemocratic
style. We cannot afford to
tolerate his tyranny any longer.

Mr. Shannon, at a surprise
appearance before the
Subcommittee, sought its
blessing on the admission's
policy for next year. The
"proposal" required immediate
consideration (i e. approval).
After all, it was time for
Admissions to get rolling. I
asked one student member
why the Subcommittee
endorsed the fiat without
objection. He replied that he,
like the others, had been
"snowed" by Mr. Shannon. If I
am exaggerating that the
Subcommittee is composed of
invertebrates, I stand to be
corrected.

The Subcommittee met on
numerous occasions and came
to the foregone conclusion of
the need to temporarily
stabilize or slightly decrease
the enrollment—to stop
expansion—until the facilities
are available. Such curtailment
is proper if we assume a
homogeneous pool of
applicants. But in-state
students are accorded
preferential treatment, both
financially and in terms of
selection. I don't have a
Sources and Uses Statement to
tell whether the double tuition
fee for out-of-state students
offsets the state's subsidy—but
this equalizing argument is
insignificant to the
Administration.

What is important to Mr.
Shannon is that his University
is a State U and, therefore, he
has to let all qualified high
school graduates into his village
(without ever defining the term
qualified). This is justified, in
his view, because the state
benefits most by educating
those most likely to remain in
the state after taking their
degrees.

Should there be a quota on
the number of out-of-state
students? Or should
Admissions base its selection
solely on academic merit?
Without rehashing the subject
of elitism, I take academic
excellence to the goal ascribed
to this university. It is hindered
by the former and fostered by
the latter.

I have great disdain for the
Subcommittee's non-judicious
deliberation caused by Mr.
Shannon's steam-rolling tactics.
He talks out of the side of his
mouth about academic
excellence and chooses
specious statistics to prove that
his policy of State U-ism (for
graduate and professorial
recruitment) is achieving its
goal.

The true measure of
academic excellence is not a
computer analysis of the
entering class but a barometer
reading of the student spirit of
those already attending the
University. A number of
students have told me that the
University is a dead place:
"There is so little going on." It
is as if the U is an Old Folks
Home or a bench in Central
Park where minds and bodies
rot passing the time away.
Student's don't respond to
irrelevancies.

We need a President who
demonstrates leadership in
promoting liberal education.
This term is often
misunderstood because we are
apt to accept the parochial
definition of the
Administration: study, study
and study some more. Properly
speaking, it includes both the
academic and social aspects of
a student's life, that is, life en
toto. Mr. Shannon, when asked
about the University's
contribution towards
developing the complete
student, said that the
University is building a fine
arts center and theory is a lot
students can do without much
money.

Thus, the consumer and
private enterprise have the
primary burden of meeting the
student's needs. This man is
more than callous—he is a
disparaging word to be erased
of the rank of University of
Virginia President.

More Honor

Under the headline
"Expulsion Justified" in The
Cavalier Daily for January 7,
Messrs. James M. Guinivan,
David Borinsky, Robert
Goldberg and Gordon Smith
quote. Mr. Carmona's statement
that his friend "is not more
dishonorable than any other
man at the university", and
argue that "this is not only
unfounded in fact but is also
insulting to a large number of
students at the university."

They also maintain that
"Mr. Carmona and the student
who was expelled realize as
well as we do that lying,
cheating and stealing are honor
offenses which are punished by
dismissal from the University."

I want to make some
comments on these statements.
Some years ago a criminal law
professor at the University of
Oslo made an inquiry into the
moral standards of his
students. He told the students
that he wanted them to tell
him anonymously of whatever
offense or crime they might
have committed—that they had
nothing to fear by telling him
about their errors no matter
how serious, because he was
not going to tell anybody else
about their confessions, and
that no action would be taken
against them. It turned out
that a large number of the
students had committee all
sorts of crimes—from serious
ones such as rape and stealing
to minor offenses such as
illegal parking.

In my opinion this
demonstrates that Mr.
Carmona is far more close to
the realities of life in his
statement than are Messrs.
Guinivan, Borinsky, Goldberg
and Smith, unless you would
suggest that Norwegian
students have lower moral
standards than the
American—which I don't think
they have.

I think that Messrs.
Guinivan, Borinsky, Goldberg
and Smith demonstrate a lack
of knowledge of human nature
and in fact the very existence
of the Honor System is a
demonstration of lack of
knowledge of human nature.
After all—what is honor? In my
opinion not much more than a
superficial cover under which
your crimes—big or small—are
hidden.

Of course I don't mean to
say that stealing, cheating and
lying shouldn't be punished at
all, but in considering what
action should be taken against
a student who happens to be
caught in shoplifting
merchandise worth two dollars,
you ought to have in mind that
the other students not
necessarily are much better,
and that the signing of the
Honor card does not improve
their moral standards.

If the Honor System had
been based on simple realities
of life, I think such a serious
step as expulsion of a young
student from the University as
an action for a small offense
like the one in question, would
never have occurred.