University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

'Radicals For Capitalism' Group Formed

We, the members of the Radicals
for Capitalism, would like to
introduce our society to the University
community as an alternative to
the fuzzy, irrational thinking and
mindless, violent actions which
have disrupted universities across
the country.

The Radicals for Capitalism was
formed for the purpose of studying
Objectivism, the philosophy originated
by novelist-philosopher
Ayn Rand. In addition to studying
her works, the society also exists in
order to apply the principles of
Objectivism to concrete issues of
interest to the University community.
The society has no official
relationship with Ayn Rand or to
any organization; we exist as an
independent group who see in her
ideas the formulation of the principles
necessary to live the life proper
to a rational being.

The name "Radicals for Capitalism"
was chosen because the political
principles of laissez-faire capitalism
follow as the ultimate practical
application of the fundamental
principles of Objectivism. Thus the
society advocates capitalism on
moral and rational grounds. The
word "radical" was chosen because
radical means "fundamental" and
we advocate capitalism as the result
of fundamental principles. In addition
it implies thoroughgoing or
extreme change from accepted
norms; it emphasizes going to the
heart of a matter. The word "radical"
does not imply militancy or
change by violent methods. We
hold that a man's actions should be
guided exclusively by reason and,
therefore, in the present political
context we stand for rational persuasion
to change the laws with
which we disagree. Consequently,
we stand firmly opposed to all
groups, regardless of their views,
who attempt to establish violence
as a substitute for the ballot box.

Within due process of law, the
Radicals for Capitalism advocate
extreme change from the accepted
mode of anti-principled, pragmatic
expediency to the only social system
compatible with the life of a
rational being - capitalism.

If you would like to inquire
about membership to the society
write the Chairman of the Membership
Committee, Box 76, Newcomb
Hall Station.

Co-Education

The following is the text or a
letter sent to Dean Woody last year
(12 February 1968) at his invitation.
It expresses my views on
co-education at the University, a
controversial issue calling for major
decisions this year.

"This letter is prompted by
your kind invitation of 26 January
to state my views regarding the
admission of women to the College.

"As I understand it, the only
apparently viable argument against
the inclusion of women is that it
has always been that way, that it is
tradition. But, to my mind, there
are two kinds of traditions, those
which encourage the retention of
certain valuable practices established
over the years, and those
which inhibit progress and blunt
the reality of twentieth-century engagement.
Clearly, the tradition
which excludes women from the
College belongs to the latter type.

"Moreover, how long can a publicly-supported
institution like the
University continue to flout all
recent legislation regarding equal
rights for all Americans, regardless
of sex? I do not question our right
to discriminate against ignorant, under-achieving
students or applicants,
but we cannot legally refuse
admission to a whole group
simply because they differ from
males. I am indeed surprised that
this issue has not yet been raised,
for the basic right of education
does in fact extend now to women.
The University has a special obligation
to qualified women, if only
those in Virginia, to raise them
from a position of inferiority to
one of equality.

"I will leave to your committee[1]
the technicalities of implementing
a program which will allow
women to partake of the facilities
at our disposal in the University.
Perhaps the recent project at Sarah
Lawrence, mutatis mutandis, could
serve as a model for us.

"It is to be hoped that, with a
quality education afforded to
women by this University, they will
be enabled to work side by side
with man to transform, for tomorrow,
into a harmonious and humane
striving for."

Grape Clarification

I would like to respond to a
letter written by a Mr. Kramm and
appearing in this paper on October
15th.

I first wish to clarify the situation
somewhat. The Cavalier Daily
seems to have given many of its
readers the impression that the local
chapter of SSOC is spearheading
the California grape boycott here in
Charlottesville (Oct. 10 issue). It is
actually the Human Relations
Council which is pushing the boycott.
The chairman of SSOC has
informed me that at the time The
Cavalier Daily article came out his
organization hadn't even discussed
the boycott, much less endorsed it.

As for Mr. Kramm. The notion
that farm workers are not underpaid
is ludicrous. According to the
Monthly Labor Review put out by
the U.S. Department of Labor the
average farm worker was paid $1.23
an hour in 1966. Add to this the
fact that only 30% of all farm
workers work year round and it
becomes apparent that annual
wages for farm workers are, on the
average, drastically low. And the
state of California is no exception
to such statistics.

Mr. Kramm states that farm
workers in the San Joaquin Valley
earn a base pay of $1.50 an hour.
Under recent contracts the two
biggest growers in this area (Schenley
and DiGiorgio) have actually
raised their minimum hourly wages
higher than this - to $1.75 and
$1.70 respectively. The new contracts
did not just happen, however.
They were brought about by the
persistent efforts of the United
Farm Workers Organizing Committee
(UFWOC). It was only through
a national boycott of Schenley's
products and the threat of the same
against DiGiorgio that the workers
were guaranteed pay raises.

One grower which has repeatedly
refused to recognize the UFWOC
as a rightful bargaining agent has
been the Guimarra Vineyards
Corp., California's biggest producer
of grapes. The present boycott originally
covered only grapes of this
company, the other growers having
agreed to bargain with the UFWOC.
The boycott was extended to cover
all California table grapes when it
was discovered that Guimarra was
marketing its grapes under the labels
of the other growers, Schenley
and DiGiorgio among them.

Supporters of the strike and
boycott do not necessarily think of
the farm growers as oppressive,
insensitive, or money-hungry as Mr.
Kramm implies they do. They are
simply being realistic. Seldom does
a man choose to improve another's
lot at the expense of his own. To
expect the growers to willingly upgrade
the conditions of the workers
at their own expense is to expect
more of the growers than one normally
expects of himself. The sad
truth of the matter is that men
usually must be forced to settle for
less in order that the lives of those
not so fortunate may be improved.
Unfortunately, there presently
exists no way in which the growers
can be forced to bargain with the
workers. Farm workers are specifically
excluded from the National
Labor Relations Act and are therefore
not guaranteed the right of
collective bargaining by law as are
workers in non-agricultural industries.

The real issue, then, is not
whether the AFL-CIO will be able
to "get its paws on millions of

Mr. Kramm claims. Nor is the real
issue that of poor working conditions.
The issue here is far more
basic than that. What is at stake
here is whether or not farm workers
- not just in California, but
throughout the country - are going
to have a very fundamental right,
the right to bargain with their
employers. That's what all the
shouting's about. And it's going to
continue until that right is secured.

Pickers Strike

I found your article on the
California grape pickers' strike to
be extremely misleading. It
displayed a lack of knowledge
concerning the facts of the issue.

California grape pickers are
probably among the highest paid
farm workers in this country,
averaging over $2 an hour. They
have disability insurance, minimum
wage laws, child labor laws, and
several laws regulating farm housing
and labor camps. There is also
substantial reason to doubt that the
present union is favored by a
majority of the workers. A rival
organization, Agricultural Workers
Freedom to Work Committee,
claims that union support has
dropped to a small minority of the
workers. There were not sufficient
union workers last fall at the three
farms holding union contracts to
harvest the grapes. Non-union
workers had to be hired to salvage
part of the crop.

Union leader Cesar Chavez and
his followers have tried to
intimidate workers by threatening
the safety of their families. There
are several reports of threats being
carried out.

I hope the University
community will not be deceived as
many people around the country
have been by Chavez's propaganda
and that it will reflect the proposed
boycott.

McCarthy Nostalgia

Upon reading Mr. Larry Fuller's
letter of October 15, praising Sen.
Eugene McCarthy, I experienced a
tremendous surge of nostalgia. I
remember fondly six months of an
exciting, challenging campaign for a
candidate in whom I truly believed.

Like Mr. Fuller I was a part of
Sen. McCarthy's campaign, but the
Democratic Party chose Mr.
Humphrey as its candidate. I did
not feel this was the end of the
road, but merely a new stage of an

believe then, as I do now, that Mr.
Humphrey holds many of Sen.
McCarthy's views, and that he is the
candidate who promises to carry out
the ideas expressed by the majority
of Americans. I feel sorry for the
Republican followers of Gov.
Rockefeller, for their efforts have
resulted only in the nomination of
Messrs. Nixon and Agnew, neither
of whom give the least hope of
carrying forth any worthwhile
reform. On the other hand, Hubert
Humphrey has for twenty years
been the outspoken leader of civil
rights and far-sighted reform. He
has also presented a plan to end the
war in Vietnam. Of the three
Presidential candidates, only Mr.
Humphrey has given any indication
that he plans to rectify the
mistakes of past administrations.
Mr. Nixon seems content to merely
continue in the path of the very
Johnson administration he
condemns. While Mr. Nixon cries
for a change, he promises only
more of the same in foreign policy.

In domestic affairs, especially
on civil rights, Mr. Nixon differs
strongly with Mr. Humphrey and
President Johnson. The past eight
years will be remembered as the
greatest era of social reform and
civil rights legislation in our history,
yet a Nixon administration would
negate these laws by intentionally
ignoring them and accompanying
Supreme Court decisions, and by
refusing to enforce them.

Therefore, while I share Mr.
Fuller's admiration for Sen.
McCarthy, I see little purpose in
sitting back and complaining. Sen.
McCarthy has made his mark, but it
is now up to all Americans sharing
his beliefs to work for the
realization of his ideas. The way to
carry out these beliefs and other
enlightened ideas held by the
majority of Americans is to get
behind Hubert Humphrey and work
to get him elected. Those of us who
admire Gene McCarthy can only
trust that he will soon wake up and
lead this crusade. For otherwise,
the dedication and efforts of
millions of enthusiastic Americans
will truly have been in vain.