University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

By Ed Hayes

The Virginia Progressives reply,
the infamous blue sheet, was a
personal attack that was in poor
taste. It was written by one man
and not widely passed around in
the party before distribution. They,
at least, had the decency to
apologize for it.

No such action came from the
individuals who precipitated the
exchange. Their letter was factually
incorrect, distorted and an indirect
but clear personal attack on the
VPP candidates.

It is particularly disturbing that
it was given support by the
individuals on the cover letter. The
originators of the letter saw fit to
convince some individuals, notably
Bick Cardwell, who is a fine person
and above such tactics, that they
were only protesting the Cavalier
Daily's action, not endorsing the
letter.

One of the primary political
gimmicks at the University is
non-partisanship. The letter was
signed by the Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee and the "Past
President" of the College who is
still serving as Honor Committee
Chairman. If the myth of
non-partisanship ever dies, it ought
to die now. They act to protect the
status quo and, as Pete Grey did
last year when he spoke against
recognition of the SDS, act when it
is in danger.

The status quo got a decisive no
vote and reform a decisive yes vote
in this election. With the increase in
issue orientation, comes a decrease
in the fraternity-independent split.
While both sides fuel it, it is
probably mainly perpetuated by
some of the more conservative
fraternity leaders.

They do so to protect their
interest, the status quo (or their
perception of the status quo which
is forty years out of date,) and their
own power. There is not one thing
about the VPP which is
incompatible with fraternity
membership. It is certain that
fraternity men will continue to go
down in defeat if they stay in line
behind conservative leaders.

There is a serious need for
reform at the University. The VPP
is dedicated to these reforms. Their
proposals are based on a
open-minded and perceptive
analysis of the problems. The party
contains a broad spectrum of
membership, that is all the more
reason for the progressive, but not
radical, to get involved so that they
may have a voice in how these
reforms are achieved.

The election just ended was the
most significant of the last four
years. Earlier actions had been
largely determined by the
individual attractiveness of the
candidates. Issues are now,
however, more visible and
important in the campaigns.

Elections are no longer settled in
the dormitories. Cabell Hall is the
center of off-grounds voting. It was
there that the Virginia Progressives
built up decisive leads. Off-ground
voters have little personal contact
with the candidates. They were
attracted by the party and its
widely-publicized platform.

The extremely high tum out, I
feel, was the result of voters taking
the opportunity to choose among
ideological alternatives. The choice
was between the Virginia
Progressives who were perceived as
liberals and the caucus candidates
who, except for Steve Hayes and
Bill Fryer, were billed as
conservatives.

One new, and totally
unjustifiable addition to the
campaign was the smear letter
distributed by supporters of the
conservative candidates the night
before the election.