University of Virginia Library

FACULTY SLOTH, VISITORS ELICIT REACTION

photo by Tom Duncan

The failure of the faculty to act
upon the 11 proposals of the
Student Coalition has dealt a
serious blow to those students who
have felt that the present crisis (let
there be no mistake, there is a
crisis) can be resolved by rational,
orderly means. Faculty endorsement
of the proposals (i.e., demands)
would have lent considerable
weight to the students' arguments
and would have tended to
force administration and students
toward an agreement. There are
many students who have their
doubts (real or imagined) as to the
willingness of President Shannon to
listen and act on the proposals —
proposals which the students feel
are altogether reasonable, practical,
and (God knows) long overdue. It
goes without saying that the prestige
accorded the proposals as a
result of faculty support would
have significantly enhanced the
probability of a reasonable and
satisfactory settlement among all
concerned parties.

But the faculty did not act.
They did not see fit to even debate
the issue. Their explanation — that
they debated at such length the
question of whether to allow the
press into their meetings, that they
had no time to consider the
Coalition's proposals — calls into
question the faculty's allocation of
priorities. It seems obvious that the
faculty (and we suppose the administration,
too) is under the delusion
that the students are merely filling
the air with empty platitudes in an
attempt to relieve the boredom of
everyday life and that the manifestations
of the past few days are in
reality mere indications of the
extent of a monotonous life. Let us
assure the believers of such opinions
that this is not the case. We are
dead serious and not, in fact,
playing games. Too long has this
University and this state seen fit to
tolerate (and often initiate) injustice.
Too long have we persisted in
looking the other way satisfied that
the elimination of such injustice
was no concern of ours. Too often
have we liberals talked about what
should be done. The time for
inaction has passed. The nexus is
present. Soon we shall act. We
cannot wait another month in the
hopes that the faculty will see fit to
consider our proposals. Consideration
should have come Wednesday
afternoon. It did not.

The faculty's inaction will only
result in a widening of the gap
between administration and students.
The administration, confident
it is operating from a position
of strength (an opinion reinforced
by the faculty's failure to act) will
be in no mood to "give ground."
We are confronted with a very
proud (and sometimes arrogant)
administration. It cannot lose face.
It cannot bow to the demands of
students no matter how reasonable;
no matter how imperative such
action may be.

We, too, have our pride. The
pride which allows us to stand up
for what we believe. But we have
more than pride operating with us.
We have justice, justice which will
condone and even demand of us
actions outside of the status quo.
We believe that every man should
be given an equal chance. We
believe that racism must be eliminated.
We believe individuals should
be willing to come to the aid of
their fellow men. We believe the
time has come in this University, in
this state, and in this nation to once
and for all rid ourselves of the
blight of bigotry and hatred, in all
of its forms. We must have justice.
There can be no order without
justice.

The issues before us will be
pressed. The crisis shall be resolved.
The only question is by what
manner. Unlike many of our fellow
students at other schools we are
trying the rational processes at our
disposal. We are going through the
proper channels. And we are willing
to listen and to learn. Yet, we
demand that we be listened to, that
we not be ignored, that we not be
dismissed as "mere rabble."

It is on this note that we voice
our dismay with the faculty. And
we hope that the chances of a
peaceful settlement have not been
lessened beyond reach by their
failure.

We are reasonable, but determined;
tolerant, but demanding and
impatient. And while we welcome
with outstretched arms the support
of others we shall not hesitate to
journey the course alone if need be.

Wage Petition

It seems to me that if the
various activists groups are sincerely
concerned about the inequities in
the wage scale of university employees,
they should take the
following course of action:

1) Make a study to determine
the cost of raising the
wages of these employees to a
level they consider equitable;

2) Calculate the raises in
food prices, room rents, fees
and tuition that would be
necessary to finance these raises;

3) Circulate a petition
among students to the effect
that the signers would favor
these increases in food prices,
rents, fees and tuition to effect
these wage increases.

It would seem that the administration
would consider with favor
any such petition if signed by a
majority of the students.

Simply to demand that state
taxes be raised to finance such
increases would appear to leave one
open to the criticism that we
students are in favor of "progress"
only so long as it is at someone
else's expense. After all, it is we
who would have been on the
receiving end of whatever exploitation
has taken place up to this
point.

Stunted Generation

There have been several arguments
advanced against demanding
that Mr. C. Stuart Wheatley resign
from the Board of Visitors. I would
like to address myself here to only
a couple of the illusions that prevailed
at the Student council meeting
Tuesday night.

The first is the apologetic plea
on behalf of Mr. Wheatley, that
"He was only acting as a representative
of the popular will, in accordance
with the democratic process,
when he fought for massive resistance
in the 50's and 60's." It was
most distressing to see that it was
the Southerners and Virginians on
the Council who most frequently
expressed that view. As Southerners,
we should have a more accurate
picture of our own history and the
realities of our society than these
government-text-books illusions of
how things happen. We should
know that our history has not been
one of our political leaders merely
legislating on or ratifying what just
happened (by some unexplained
phenomenon) to be the popular
view, i.e. racism. In fact, the entire
history of the South has been one
of the politicians, plant managers,
and the media they control creating
and perpetuating racism as a tool to
maintain their own power. If you
think that sounds like an unfair
conspiracy theory, I can only recommend
that you first read and
know your own history, and then
decide for yourself. Ask yourself
the following. How, in the old
South, did 400,000 slave holders
maintain total political control over
ten million other, less-well-off black
and white Southerners? How did
the "New South" Democrats divide
and defeat the Southern Populists?
What has been a major tool used by
the Yankee-owned companies and
their Southern political allies to
divide and break the Southern labor
movement? — to prevent an alliance
of poor whites and blacks, in order
to exploit both? Who finances the
activities of the Klan? Why? And

who finances schools such as Hampton
Institute and Virginia State
College for Negroes (as originally
chartered)? And why? An examination
of these and other important
questions in our history may
lead one to the conclusion that the
racist institutions of the South have
not been created by objective politicians
reluctantly responding to
the ignorant yet natural prejudices
of the "popular will."

Relevant to our discussion of
Wheatley is the recognition of one
logical tool traditionally used by
those in power to maintain the
"white supremacy" mythology —
total separation of the races. How
can you teach young whites that
they are superior, or young blacks
that they are inferior, if they play
basketball together every day at
recess? Thus, it was essential for
such "responsible leaders" as
Wheatley, Godwin, Byrd, and Gallard
Gray to fight for the maintenance
of a system that kept in
perpetuation their main avenue to
power — racism. How can you
shake the "nigger stick" in a campaign

if people have learned through
association that "niggers" don't
really exist?

The questions now become —
Who was affected by Mr. Wheatley's
actions? And Who are we? The
answer to both questions is the
same. WE ARE THE GENERATION
WHOSE GROWTH AND
EDUCATION WAS STUNTED BY
MR. C. STUART WHEATLEY!!
The lives of the black members of

our generation were harmed beyond
apology by "massive resistance."
It is impossible to comprehend
the damage done to young
black people who were denied an
education by Mr. Wheatley and his
cohorts. Having worked in Southside
Virginia with the Virginia
Students Civil Rights Committee, I
was able to learn more of the
effects of "massive resistance" than
I ever could have learned at this or
any university. As late as 1967, for
instance, black students were being
drafted in Farmville, Va., because
they were too old to receive a high
school deferment. They were too
old to be in high school because for
eight years, they had no school to
go to —thanks to the gentile Mr.
Wheatley. It is true that only black
Virginians really understand the
effects of "massive resistance," but
when two black people that broke
through enough of the barriers to
get on to the U.Va. Student Council
tried to tell what it was like and
why Wheatley must go — nobody
could hear them. They could have
shouted out their oppression — but
at least fifteen members of the
Student Council just couldn't hear
them, possibly couldn't even see
them.

But what about us? — the white
students — Didn't Mr. Wheatley and
his friends have an affect on us?
Apparently so. One of the most
important reasons for the validity
of Mr. Ogle's oft-quoted statement
that "We are all racists," is that we
grew up and were socialized in a
segregated school system established
by Mr. C. Stuart Wheatley, et
al. Okay, so we grew up in this
guy's racist training institutions.
But we are here now. We are
mature and we have now found out
who at least one of the people was
who deprived us of a meaningful
social education in secondary
school. So what do we do? Do we
let the man who presided over our
miseducation from age 6 to 18
continue to preside over our education
from age 18 to 25? I hope that
we would have a little more sense
than that.

The man is a criminal. He has
violated the 1871 law against conspiring
to deny equal protection of
the laws, and he has committed a
crime against us. He has contributed
to our own cultural deprivation
by pushing us through a segregated
school system. He has helped
to make us racists.

Neither the post-facto promises
of a murderer "not to do it again"
nor the fact that other people
commit the crime alters our attitudes
toward preventive measures
regarding that kind of criminal. Nor
does the state fail to prosecute
because it took a couple of years to
gather the convicting evidence.

The issues are clear enough. We
are the generation that Mr. Wheatley,
through his actions, screwed
up. We are now older and wiser
members of a university community.
We have found this man out. We
no longer want to be ruled by
"gentlemen" such as him. And we
therefore demand that Mr. C.
Stuart Wheatley resign from our
Board of Visitors.

For a Free University in a Free
South,

Bigoted
Demonstrators

"Bigotry" is an excellent word
to use in the demonstration statement,
having a strong pejorative
connotation. The word has a denotation
as well, "the state of mind of
a bigot" that is "one intolerantly
devoted to his own...belief or
opinion. My leaders suggest that I
"cannot afford to tolerate bigotry"
which I understand to be represented
by the opinions of Mr. C.
Stuart Wheatley. I would suggest in
turn that becoming a bigot in order
to abolish bigotry might be a futile
project indeed.

SDS-SSOC Cited

Gee, it just warmed the cockles
of mah heart to see all those folks
in their coats and ties, beards and
beads, and yes may be even a skirt
and blouse (or two) marching
around The Lawn Monday. Twas
real togetherness like we haven't
seen at U.Va. in oh so many years.
And besides that, it was for a good
cause!

But how many people really give
a damn about the cause? How
many people would have been out
there doing their thing if it hadn't
been for a lot of posters saying,
"backed by student leaders?" How
many people would have felt
obligated to express their moral
conviction had they not known
that this was "not a radical event"
and that those moral degenerates,
SSOC and SDS, had "dissociated"
themselves from said event? Unfortunately,
it seems that without this
knowledge precious few would have
ever shown up.

And just who are the real
student leaders? Who researched
the Board of Visitors in the first
place? Who was first to present to
them the very demands on which
this demonstration is based?
Shipley, Schenkkan, Gwathmey,
Hayes, etc.? NO! Rather, they are
those very SDS and SSOC members
who have been conveniently swept
aside by the on-rushing demonstrators.
Without people like Steve
Squire and Al Long, the University
community would probably never
have even heard of C. Stuart
Wheatley.

I do not wish to condemn the
above-mentioned Big Men on Campus,
for it is gratifying to see their
active support of an important issue
such as this. Neither do I criticize
Monday's demonstration, for it was
equally gratifying to see representatives
of all parts of the Student
Body pushing together to end
racism at U.Va. I only ask that the
organizers of the demonstration
give credit where credit is due and
stop treating a display of moral
conviction and demand as "their
baby." It's everybody's baby. Stop
pushing who's behind the thing,
and start pushing what the thing is
all about.