![]() | The Cavalier daily Wednesday, May 13, 1970 | ![]() |
Reactionary Views
Reprinted from the Richmond Times-Dispatch,
Tuesday, May 12, 1970.
Almost exactly two years ago, Dr. Edgar F.
Shannon Jr., president of the University of Virginia,
issued a statement vowing that the school would not
tolerate disorderly student demonstrations.
An "admirable statement," we called it then, and
so it was. For it offered an encouraging contrast to
the policies of appeasement prevailing on numerous
American campuses. Radicals might disrupt other
colleges and get away with it, but at the University
of Virginia they would be dealt with firmly and
promptly. Students at some colleges might find
violence and threats of violence profitable, but at the
University of Virginia unlawful disputers would get
nothing but the boot.
After all, didn't Shannon's statement outline
procedures students would have to follow if they
wanted to stage demonstrations? Wouldn't they have
to get permission? Wouldn't they have to refrain
from picketing inside buildings and from blocking
streets if they picketed outside? Wouldn't they have
to "conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen,
both within the University and "elsewhere"? The
statement said they would have to do all these
things, and it sternly warned:
"Any student found guilty or participating in or
inciting a riot or an unauthorized or disorderly
assembly is subject to suspension."
To underscore its determination not to be pushed
around, the University pledged, in the Shannon
statement, "not to negotiate with such groups
(demonstrators) under conditions of duress, such as
unauthorized occupation of University property."
Shannon issued his statement in May, 1968. It is
now May, 1970. A few days ago, students
demonstrated without permission. They blocked
traffic. They invaded college buildings, and tried to
break into Shannon's home. In short, a group of
irresponsible activists have thumbed their noses at
Shannon and dared him to enforce the policy he so
forcefully announced two years ago.
At this point, sad to say, Shannon acts very much
like a man who is prepared to back down, to tear up
his strong statement and allow it to flutter away, bit
by tiny bit, with the winds of dissent.
To be sure, recent events at the University have
imposed a strain on President Shannon. But that
does not justify his strange response to the clearly
illegal behavior of the anti-war demonstrators.
Shannon promised firmness, but he appears to be
practicing appeasement. He has virtually apologized
for having called in the police to quell student
disruptions that clearly threatened the peace and
property of the University and the community. He
has praised the demonstrators, who tried to burn
down the ROTC building and who engaged in other
disgraceful and illegal acts, for their "magnificent"
spirit. And he is negotiating with them "under
conditions of duress," suggesting, in one concession,
that they be allowed to drop out of classes to strike
against the war in Southeast Asia.
But the most shocking illustration of Shannon's
eagerness to appease the irresponsible radicals on his
campus was his quick willingness to sign a
maliciously warped letter that seems to suggest
President Nixon launched the Cambodian campaign
for personal and political reasons. Addressed to
Senators Harry F. Byrd Jr. and William B. Spong Jr.
the letter contains this sentence:
"The recent announcement of the invasion of
Cambodia - a critical decision vitally affecting the
lives and futures of all our young men - was used to
reflect personal and political credit upon the
President."
Though the sentence does not state specifically
who "used" the announcement to "reflect personal
and political credit upon the President," the
implication is clear: it was the President himself.
If this is not the meaning of the sentence,
Shannon should have rewritten it before he signed
the letter. But if the sentence is indeed an accusation
that Mr. Nixon ordered troops into Cambodia for his
own political and personal glory, then Shannon and
others who signed it stand guilty of a viciousness
totally unjustified by fact. Political realists know
that by sending troops into Cambodia, Mr. Nixon
jeopardized his own career and imperiled the
immediate future of the Republican party.
Speaking to a student group Sunday, Shannon
said he had been subjected to unbelievable
"vilification and abuse" in defense of freedom of
speech. How sad it is that he had reacted by signing a
letter that vilifies and abuses the President of the
United States for actions he has taken in defense of
thousands of American men in Vietnam.
![]() | The Cavalier daily Wednesday, May 13, 1970 | ![]() |