University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Student Complains Of Misrepresentation

In Tuesday's attempt at
journalism you people ran a
page one article concerning
coeducation at the Jefferson
Society. It seems strange to me
that the student newspaper at
Mr. Jefferson's University
should print an article erring in
almost every other paragraph.

To begin with, the headline
suggests that we amended our
"By-Laws". Actually, what was
changed was Article 1, Section
1, part b of the Constitution,
not the By-Laws.

Secondly, the vote on the
amendment is incorrectly
stated to be "35-7". The vote
was in truth 39-7-1, not that it
is any public concern.

In the list of speakers
against the issue the name of
Mr. Benjamin F. Shaw, III
(College IV) was omitted,
leaving the impression that less
people were willing to defend
"chauvinism" than
"Liberalism". Also in that
paragraph, my name is spelled
incorrectly.

In the summary of the
critical side, the article leaves
the impression that the issue
rested solely on "chauvinistic"
and "raucous" arguments. I am
neither a beer-swilling drunk,
nor a social anarchist at our
meetings, and I resent the
inference.

The real question was the
desirability of voting for our
long-haunting issue of
coeducation at that time.
Naturally the force of
enlightened social opinion
would have shortly brought
about Hall coeducation on its
own, without arbitrary outside
pressure.

The article also stated that
"five women" were "under
consideration" for
probationary membership. This
too is in accurate, the actual
number is a matter only for an
executive meeting of the
Regular Membership.

Finally, the last paragraph
says that "all applicants
approved for probationary
membership must present a
speech passed by four-fifths
vote". According to Article VII
of the By-Laws, the speech
must muster at least a
two-thirds vote.

Whether or not these
inaccuracies are intentional,
I'm sure I speak for the Society
as a whole when I resent the
misrepresentation of our
organization to the student
body. Therefore, I must
request that corrections and an
apology be made in conformity
with the Jeffersonian quote
reprinted daily on your editorial
page:

"For here we are not
afraid to follow the truth
wherever it may lead, nor
to tolerate any error so
long as reason is left free
to combat it."

Howard MacRae
College 3

Photo By John Buescher

Retraction

Last week I published a
colloquium which censured
Yevgeny Yevtushenko for a
hypocritical attitude towards
the repression that exists in the
Soviet Union. The information
I used for this article had been
drawn from interviews and
from two articles on repression
in Russia by I.F. Stone. New
information has come to light
which may force me to rescind
my censure.

By some means,
Yevtushenko's interpreter
found me on campus, and in
the course of a discussion I was
told that Yevtushenko has
indeed protested the treatment
of Solzhenitsyn at least twelve
times in the Soviet Union.
Further, he had made a strong
protest against the invasion of
Czechoslovakia.

His interpreter, an
extraordinarily adroit and slick
conversationalist, said that
Yevtushenko has been and is a
very, outspoken figure for
human rights against the
stifling conservatism of the
Soviet Union. His silence in the
United States was politically
necessary because of the
delicate situation in Russia
vis-a-vis the dissidents. The
Soviet government is
fragmented and divided
between right-wing
neo-Stalinists and liberal
reformers.

Any statement that
Yevtushenko could have made
here in the United States
would have grave consequences
for the Soviet Civil. Rights
movement. Thus, he remained
silent here. Within Russia, the
struggle continues for
democratic socialism, and
silence is not justifiable. And
Yevtushenko has not been
silent. If this is true, I owe
Yevgeny Yevtushenko my
deepest apologies.

Nevertheless, there are still
some questions on my mind.
Should Yevtushenko have gone
on this tour? Would it have
been more consistent for him
morally to have remained in
Russia? Why hasn't
Yevtushenko been as militant
as Bukovsky in devoting all his
energies and risking his career
to change the Soviet system?
All of this may be a matter of
strategy rather than ethics.
And the latter question may
well have been answered.