University of Virginia Library

A Parting Shot

Student Activism, Blacks, Women, Signal End Of 'Old-Uism'

It is perhaps appropriate to
dedicate the final column and
collection of my experiences at
the University to those people
who have turned myself and
many of the people in the class
of 1972 to student activism:
L.B.J., Tricky Dick Nixon,
Spiro, John Mitchell, 'Gar
Shannon, D. Alan Williams,
and those reactionaries and
inept administrators who have
not had the foresight to see a
new day coming.

Now you are probably
saying that my senses must
have taken leave of me to say
that the University student is
either radical or activist.
Apathy is still alive and well at
the University. But it was not
like it is now in Charlottesville
just a few years ago....

I remember when my class
first came to the University.
An, the feeling of warmth and
security that accompanied us
as we made our first small steps
into academia. Here, we felt,
was a true moderate and
rational society.

But then my classmates and
I began to look around us. We
saw everyone wearing coats
and the Honor System
was granted by God and could
never be questioned except by
some student radicals and
fellow-travelers. Dope was
non-existent. So were girls and
blacks. The University was
what it always had been: a
sleepy little Southern
university composed of
middle-class whites with short
hair and middle class
prejudices. All the boys joined
their fraternities and everyone
was content.

But people like Gar
Shannon and his cohorts had
miscalculated. The entering
classes of 1967 and 1968 were
not like those of 1956 and
1935. These people weren't
going to accept things they
didn't like. They were going to
change this University, perhaps
unconsciously, but they were
going to change it just the
same.

Slowly the traditions were
stripped away. Fewer and
fewer people wore coats and
ties because they didn't want
to. The push for black
recruitment and not black
tokenism began. There were
demonstrations on the Lawn.
On the Lawn!!!!! Fewer and
fewer people went to the
fraternities on Rugby Road.
And then came the women!
The University was surely
changing.

The students of the senior
class remember. They
remember the symbolic end of
the old University. A student
attended a Board of Visitors
meeting and as a gesture of
Old-Uism presented them with
an over-sized bottle of liquor.
It signaled the end. His fellow
students laughed at the former
self of the university and
consciously turned to a new
day.

But there were those who
did not like the way the
University was moving. Not
that they were wrong or right
but they refused to accept the
different types of people that
were entering the college and
the other schools in
Charlottesville. They reacted.

They harassed black
students. After all, they hinted,
all black students look alike, so
if a crime is committed and a
black student is suspected, all
black students are suspect.

There were others that went
further than the security force.
There were teachers that
insulted blacks and women in
their classes. But worst of all
there were those students who
had come to the University to
continue their "all-white, male,
middle-class education" and
resented the presence of blacks
and women. Theirs was the
bigotry of silence, the ignoring
of black students, and the
oppression of women.

Slowly, however, these
students were rejected by the
masses of new students - the
students who reacted against
the bigotry and prejudices of
their homes and schools. The
students that looked upon all
men and women as being
equal.

Unfortunately, many
administrators have still not
seen that the old days of
paternalism and "in loco
parentis" are over. They still
believe that they can pull the
wool over the students' eyes
with little reaction.

Recent examples back up
the idea that these
administrators are wrong. The
Board of Visitors felt that it
could enact new conduct rules
for students and have the
students enforce rules that
were restrictive and hinted of
"preventive detention."
Student protest proved the
Visitors wrong.

Photo By Saxon Holt

Chester Titus and his
lackeys believed that they
could push through the new
counseling program without
student approval. The
opposition from students and
some administrators proved
him wrong.

There are many of us,
however, who will point to the
"cooling of student activism."
There haven't been major
college protests on the
campuses since May 1970. The
"cooling" exists. But there are
reasons for this superficial
"cooling."

The major reason is that the
students have finally realized
their position in the University
power structure. They have
realized that they have no
independent power but only
dependent, reactive power.
They cannot initiate major
reforms because the
administration doesn't want to
listen.

They have realized the sham
of the University committees
and how they rarely meet and
when they do are controlled by
manipulative administrators
who control and guide the
meeting whatever way they
wish.

Again, examples back this
assertion up. The Library
Committee, despite
overwhelming student
opposition and a special report
by the dean of University
librarians, voted to approve
'Gar Shannon's order to place
an undergraduate library in the
Law School.

The Future of the
University was looked to stop
expansion. Yet, without
consulting the committee, 'Gar
Shannon reaffirmed the
enrollment projection of
18,000 students by 1980 by
slightly cutting back on next
year's enrollment to meet with
these projections.

Indeed, the students are
correct. They have no
independent power. They are
only left to react against the
injustices of the institution.
And even here they are
hampered. They stay at the
University for four years. The
administrators were here
before the students arrived and
will be here after the students
have left. With each new set of
students they can tell the same
lies and put off student
demands for change.

The University will go on
without daily student activism.
The faculty will approve
University senates without
student representation. The
student affairs office will
finally institute its new
counseling program with or
without student opposition.
And blacks will be harassed by
a racist institution.

The administrators and
certain members of the faculty
who think they can finally put
anything over on the students
must take heed, however. You
can only push the students so
far. — Even now, although
students are seemingly less
activist than just a few years
ago, the undercurrent of
student hatred of rules and
administrators is climbing.

Talk to first-year students.
They will accept another
invasion of Cambodia. They
will accept laws against busing.
But they will not accept any
infringements on their own
private lives. They will not lie
down and let petty
administrators and politicians
regulate their private lives.

Perhaps in dedicating this
column to those administrators
and politicians who will not
accept the new day, we should
advise them to wake up and
beware. Go too far and people
will react. Push the students
too far and they'll push back.