University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Sterile Outlook Not Germain

Messrs. Falvery and Muddiman's
letter, while being a remarkably
sterile and at least partly correct
description of the Biafran political
situation, is not Germaine to Thursday
night's fast. What is pertinent is
that the food drive is a people to
people effort. It is seldom indeed in
this age that we can offer aid as
individual Americans to such a
cause, rather than have those in
Washington decide our commitment.
Their hands may be tied by
political considerations, but ours
are not.

In regard to the food on the
island of Fernando Pao, we do not
feel that Mr. Falvey or Mr. Muddiman
have the right to judge what
is "absurd" in such a time of strife
for the Biafrans. As to their point
on the well being of the lbos, who
stayed behind in Nigeria, we would
only ask why the Tories faired
better than the Patriots with the
English during the Revolutionary
War? Furthermore, Messrs. Falvey
and Muddiman, as well as anyone,
should realize that the action of a
government doesn't always reflect
the wishes of its people. Millions of
innocent people caught in between
the warring parties are now
starving. The fact that the Biafran
government has made some rush (if
they were rush) decisions in time of
stress should not condemn the
Biafran people at the rate of 25,000
per day (figures for December).
Finally, to say that the Biafran
army is "well fed," while they are
better off than those innocents
trapped between, is a denial of
reality.

It is ironic that the authors
attack "bleeding heart" liberals
when slightly over a century ago,
the "conservative" South of the
United States found itself in a
similar blockade. The spirit with
which the Southerners fought has
become a heritage for many, but
obviously some have forgotten, or
never have known, such spirit.

We do not argue with the need
for more help to our own suffering.
Christmas should be a time of
deeper personal commitment to all
the suffering of this world.

Co-Education

Mr. Earl Glosser's article of
Monday last was well received, at
least in this quarter. As an alumnus
of the University, I have conveyed
my thoughts to Mr. Shannon's
study committee on co-education,
and I hope it will respond to the
needs of the time. For the most
part, complaints on this subject
generally involve some "tradition"
or another; I've heard people actually
say "it would be a violation
of Jeffersonian principle..." My immediate
reaction: Nonsense! It
seems students and former students
are always attributing to Jefferson
those things which were of minor
importance while conveniently disposing
of his more fruitful concepts.
How is it possible for one to
say "For here we are not afraid to
follow the truth, wherever it may
lead us, nor to tolerate error, so
long as reason is left free to combat
it"... and also hold that women are
not educable. More to the point,
the quote seems to bear up even
under the tremendous pressure of
an industrial society...the latter
thought on women quite obviously
does not...which would you
imagine Jefferson might hold more
dear as he did the Bill of Rights,
Virginia's Statute on Religious
Freedom, and the University?

The Committee on Coeducation
of the Virginia Council on Human
Relations urges all students to vote
"yes" on the question of the desirability
of coeducation at the University.
This question will appear
on the ballot in the upcoming
Student Council elections in all
schools.

The Committee believes that
there are four advantages which will
be derived from coeducation.

1) The University will become
academically superior, because a
coeducational university has a
larger pool of highly qualified applicants
from which to select.

2) The unhealthy social atmosphere
at the University will be
improved.

3) The University will not have
to face the possibility of a law suit
challenging its sexually segregated
educational facilities.

4) A coeducational university
will be more attractive to potential
black students.

The Committee also reminds
students in the School of Nursing,
Graduate School of Business Administration,
School of Commerce,
and School of Education that they
will also have the opportunity to
vote on this most important question.
Even though these schools do
not elect a Student Council representative
in the upcoming elections,
the students in these schools can
vote on this referendum on December
17 and 18.

Vote For Progress

On December 16 and 17, the
students of this University are going
to be faced with choosing between
a feasible solution to a pressing
problem or a course of apathetic
withdrawal. The problem of First-Year
representation may not be of
vital importance to some, but, the
outcome of this proposed amendment
will not only affect the attempts
for equal representation on
our Student Council, but also determine
if our Constitution is susceptible
to progress. The First-Year
Committee through various debates
and weeks of deliberation has proposed
to the students that one
First-year man serve on the Student
Council as a voting member and
representative of the First-year class
with an election to be held within
the class as a whole. They have
taken the first step, but, only the
students can determine the outcome
of this proposed amendment.

Some may ask why the First-year
class is in need of any special
representation or privilege. The
answer to that is fairly obvious.
They have their own special problems.
To begin with, a first-year
man is new to the University and is
faced with the problems of orienting
himself into student affairs, the
most important being student
government. As the system stands
now this is virtually impossible. (An
interesting note: With the passage
of the latest By-law change the
first-year man is the only undergraduate
not duly represented by
one of its own members on the
Student Council.)

The first-year man is also set
apart in the fact that they are all
required to live in the dormitories
and in doing so have been set upon
with a barrage of housing regulations,
the most apparent being the
blatant discrimination observed in
rules applying to Girls-in-the-dorms.
(Ironic that a second-year man residing
in Mapin has been afforded
the privilege of female visitation
while a first-year man residing some
30 yards away in Watson is not
given the same privilege.)

The list of discriminatory practices
are numerous, to mention a
few; driving regulations, class attendance
requirements, "Caucus"
participation and governmental participation;
housing regulations, and
required course enrollment. Rather
than list the entire set of special
regulations, it must be fairly obvious
with only those practices
mentioned above that the first-year
class as a whole is in a very unique
situation. They have special problems
and therefore, need not only
representation, but, special representation.

One voting member is the
answer to this problem of representation.
Some have suggested
lowering the residency requirements
to one semester and letting
first-year men run in the school-wide
elections, First of all this does
not assure the first-year class a seat.
More importantly the representatives
elected, if any, could not
speak for the first-year class as a
whole and could not effectively
represent their opinions and solutions
to the problems facing this
class. Some even fear the other
extreme of "packing" the Council
with first-year men. Being as the
first-year class has the largest single
voting block it is conceivable that
there would be 9 first-year men on
the Council. This would completely
destroy the effectiveness of our
Council. Weighing all arguments
fairly, the only acceptable and
feasible solution to this problem is
the one proposed.

Your vote is disparately needed.
We must have the largest voting
turn-out in the University's history
in order to have this amendment
put into our Constitution. The facts
are before you, the rest is up to you
as a responsible voting member of
this University. Vote for first-year
representation....VOTE FOR
PROGRESS'