University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

To A Ferocious Reviewer: Circumcise Rather Than Castrate

I attended Robert De
Gaetano's concert in University
Hall last week, when I read
your music critics (Teri
Towe's) review I was
astounded, never have I read
such a scurrilous and savage
attack in the guise of a review.
I, and many with me left that
concert having enjoyed a good,
at times moving performance.
In my opinion your critic's
review ( a collection of
vehement and scathing
scatological comments) was
rendered impotent by its
ferocity. I suggest that he try
circumcising rather than
castrating his victims.

Parting Shots

The "parting shots" of the
retiring CD staff were certainly
well-written; the right words
were in the right places and
much of what was said was
meaningful, in a depressing
sort of way. I would agree that
college is not all it is made out
to be and that, yes, there does
seem to be an impressive
number of "uncommitted
clowns" walking around (and
sleeping late).

But there is a saying that
has kept me going when I think
of my own learning experience
– "you get out what you put
in." Old, of course; trite,
maybe. Yet is it untrue? I
know what I put into college
and every once in a while, I
catch a glimpse of what I get
out. What's important,
however, is that the
uncommitted clowns don't
bother me – in fact, I like the
ones I know. They are getting
something from their four
years here, exactly what only
they can tell you. Perhaps the
academic atmosphere would be
more pervasive if they weren't
here, but I for one am glad it
isn't. College isn't all academics
nor even learning.

I think what I miss most in
these articles is the absence of
fun, of having enjoyed doing
those things only a college
student has the freedom, and
maybe the gall, to do. All very
passe, I guess, but I will never
take myself so seriously as to
disdain simple enjoyment,
especially now.

So I will continue to wear
my khakis and top-siders and
wear his (or her) jeans and will
leave the analysis of my
learning experience at UVA for
much later, when I hope to
have the sense to know exactly
what it was.

Dehumanization

Dehumanization of
individuals must, I suppose
accompany the expansion of
the University. But two
incidents last week lead me to
think that the process is more
advanced than I would have
believed. Last Wednesday, as
you remember, was cold,
slushy, and generally dreadful.
With umbrella in one hand,
books and papers in the other,
I caught a bus outside Wilson
Hall. As I was putting down
my goods and fumbling for my
pass, the driver informed me
that he expected me to show
my pass at the actual moment
of boarding. I took no
umbrage; inconsideration is
usually unintentional.

At the next stop, however,
a girl more burdened than I got
the same remark. Moved by
gallantry and spleen, I told the
driver that in such weather his
request was unreasonable.
Patiently, he explained to me
that he was not being
unreasonable, the bus pass
having been designed of plastic
to withstand all weathers. This
being unanswerable, I took it
philosophically.

The second incident I
found a little more disturbing.
This was your printing
Thursday a letter defending
certain practices at U.Va
Hospital. The writer first
caught my attention by using
the phrase "death with
dignity"– a pleasantly
alliterative phrase surely, but
one in my experience used
chiefly by persons to whom
the threat of death is remote.

The sentence that offended
me, though, was this one: "It
can be dehumanizing to a
person to be 'kept alive' with
tubes and other artificial
means." The writer has noble
enough motives perhaps, but
consider the alternatives: Who,
after all, is the more
dehumanized–someone stuck
full of tubes, or the tubeless
person who is dead?

An individual may, of
course, choose death over a life
of suffering or ignominy. But
in hospitals, as we all know
from our experiences in them,
the individual is not allowed to
decide anything, decisions rest
with the doctor and the
amorphous hospital staff
Frequently, to be sure, the
patient is unconscious and
cannot be consulted. In such
cases several arguments can be
advanced for "pulling out the
tubes," but to call this humane
is hypocrisy.

We insult anyone's
humanity when we assume that
person would prefer to be
dead. The most totalitarian
regimes hardly go so far.

My friend the bus driver
may be excused only because
his authority is very limited,
but the command of life and
death demands a better
understanding of what it means
to be human.

Aha!

I am glad to see that the
women of Mr. Jefferson's
University use the same method
of thinking as the Congress of
the United States of America.

I use this comparison with
the following logic. In order
for stricter control of guns to
be enacted (I might add that
they are far from adequate) it
was necessary to forfeit the
lives of several great men. Only
after that did the Congress say
"Aha! There is something
wrong here!" and pull their
heads from their maximus
glutimi.

The supposedly intelligent
co-eds of one of America's
truly fine universities
apparently have to see their
peers assaulted before they say
"Aha! Maybe we should take
advantage of the escort
system." Weren't the examples
at the beginning of the school
year enough to make you
females realize that we have a
problem in Charlottesville that
is here to stay and that this
wonderful service is here to
help and protect you? (I would
like to point out that I do not
work for the service sponsored
by APO and WTJU) Keep up
the good work girls; it's good
to see that you are using those
minds your S.A.T. scores
proved were so well developed.

Rebuttal

Your recent interview of
Robert A. Rutland contained
an error, an oversimplification,
and a conclusion all of which
require rebuttal. Mr. Rutland
claims that Oklahoma's Owen
Stadium was built after Bud
Wilkinson became the Sooner
head coach and had whipped
the Sooners into a mighty
football machine.

Actually the fund drive for
the stadium began in 1921.
The west section was finished
in 1925 followed by the east
section in 1928 and the north
end was filled in in 1949 to
give a present capacity of
63,000 seats. Mr. Wilkinson
was hired in 1947, and his first
big year was in 1949.

Secondly, Mr. Rutland
rightly states that faculty
salaries at OU are the lowest in
the Big Eight conference. It
should be added that OU's
salaries have always been the
lowest in their conference, but
this is partly compensated for
by the lower cost of living in
Oklahoma.

In fact, it would seem that
OU's coaches are also
underpaid. Chuck Fairbanks
left a $28,500 salary to join
the pro ranks and new head
coach Barry Switzer signed at
$24,000.

Finally, Mr. Rutland
believes that simultaneous
solicitation campaigns for an
undergraduate library at UVa
as well as for the renovation of
Scott Stadium will force a
financial squeeze in which the
"library will come out second
best." In another article, Dean
Cross realistically evaluated the
situation by indicating that
prospective donors fall into
two categories: giving-oriented
and project-oriented. Some
donors will only give money
for specific projects such as
libraries or athletic structures,
whereas other donors place no
restrictions on their gifts and
leave the decisions to those
closest to the problem. In
effect, the project-oriented
donors free (up) money from
the non-restrictive donors
which can then be applied to
the less glamorous programs.

I also share Mr. Rutland's
concern about the effect of
artificial turf on the frequency
of injuries to football players.
A member of the UVa. football
team who has played on more
than one type of artificial
surface explained to me how
the surfaces vary and why one
type may be more
injury-producing than another.

In light of this, the
University of Washington study
cited by Mr. Rutland should be
scrutinized to determine the
type of turf involved. If UVa.
is determined to have artificial
turf in Scott Stadium, the type
of turf installed should be
investigated thoroughly.