University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Apology For 'Embarrassing Mistakes'

here, including those who
couldn't get in at all, was the
most understanding and
cooperative of any he had ever
dealt with on a college campus
under similar circumstances.

The brief explanation above
is not intended to answer all
questions, and I realize it won't
be satisfactory for all who were
inconvenienced. It is offered
only as an apology to those
who were incensed (and
especially to those who weren't,
but had reason to be), and an
admission that, in spite of a
great deal of prior planning and
effort, we can still make some
very embarrassing mistakes. We
have learned more by our
mistakes than by our successes
and we will try to pass on this
wisdom to our successors.

Public Complaint

As one of the many
hundreds of people who waited
in line and failed to gain
admittance to Mr. Agnew's
speech on Tuesday evening, I
would like to register a public
complaint about provisions
made by the Student Legal
Forum and its president Mr.
Chuck Robb for the seating of
the audience.

It is my understanding that
the Vice President's platform
was placed in the middle of U
Hall instead of at the far end,
thus needlessly eliminating
many seats. Many people had
to be turned away when
Senator Kennedy came to
speak; surely it could have
been anticipated that the Vice
least as large a crowd at this
university. And judging from
reports of those who were
admitted, the reason for the
limited size of the audience
was not an insufficient number
of Secret Service agents.

I feel that it was a gross
mistake on the part of those
who sponsored this talk to fail
to make available all of the
possible seats, and I was both
disappointed and angered by it.

More Questions

I went to hear Spiro Agnew
speak, but the next day after
reading the article in the CD, I
wondered if I had heard the
same Spiro Agnew that Tom
Tanton reported on. The
crowd I was in was not openly
hostile, of course there were a
few boos, but Spiro was not
"Harassed by catcalls,
questions and boos by a largely
hostile audience," as described
by Mr. Tanton.

The "Spiro in '76" and
"Watergate" banners were
blown up into a major incident
and placed near the front of
the article. Still more baffling
to me was how the editorial on
the second page contradicted
the comments made in the
front page article.

The writer of the editorial
remarked that Agnew "kept his
audience as well as himself
remarkably composed and
attentive. Those of us who
came anticipating a prize fight
left a bit disappointed."

Obviously, both of these
views cannot be right. I would
like to suggest that in the
future Mr. Tanton either report
what actually happened or
confine his comments to the
editorial page.