University of Virginia Library

Letters: Comments On Lowell Coverage

As a conscientious reader I
would like to applaud the excellent
efforts made by The Cavalier
Daily in publicizing cultural
events at the University. The latest
example of this excellence may
be viewed (if you have good eyesight)
in the Feb. 22 issue of the
CD; Mr. Robert Lowell's reading
of his own works received the
grand total of approximately 3
inches (including headline) in the
lower left hand corner of the front
page. Without the CD's comprehensive
coverage Mr. Lowell would
certainly not have been able to
fill Cabell Auditorium.

Also I would like to commend
the writer of the above mentioned
article for his most thorough research
into the subject of Mr.
Lowell's work. He managed to list
Mr. Lowell's most notable accomplishments
as being the great
grand-nephew of James Russel
Lowell and the distant cousin of
Amy Lowell. (Mr. Lowell also
writes poetry on the side.)

With Midwinter's so near at
hand one could hardly expect America's
greatest living poet to hold
sway over the Box Tops, could
one?

Yes, Cavalier Daily there is a
Robert Lowell. (Celebrate Washington's
Birthday-go to a poetry
reading.)

Ode To Harris

Mr. E. D. David's ode to Robert
J. Harris, Dean of the Faculty
(see letter to Cavalier Daily of
February 16th), is interesting for
those who are not familiar with
that gentleman's past contributions
to the University community, but
quite irrelevant to the central issue
raised by the continuing dismemberment
of the University of Virginia
Department of Economics.
The failure to promote Mr. Tullock,
notwithstanding a departmental
recommendation,
vigorous support form his students
and a general respect for the
caliber of his scholarship (as distinct
from agreement with his
policy proposals), leads one to
question the criteria upon which
such a decision was formulated.

The revealed by Mr. David,
to wit, that Dean Harris is a fine
scholar, or even the startling revelation
that a Graduate Record
Examination once asked students
to identify him, has little to do
with whether the current controversy
stems from (a) an error in
judgment, or (b) an arbitrary act
motivated by professional jealousy
and/or bias, or (c) an overly centralized
system for faculty recruitment
and promotion. Given
the quality of the pre-purged
Economics Department and the
secrecy with which faculty promotion
and recruitment is traditionally
guarded, it does not seem unreasonable
to speculate that all
of the above three elements affected
the decision in question. Mr.
David would have us believe that
item (b) could not possibly have
influenced Mr. Harris; it will certainly
take more than a general
testimonial to convince the deprived
and unhappy Economics
students of such a view.

In any event, the results of this
episode will not bode well for
future faculty recruitment. Unfair
treatment of faculty members has
a way of being quickly known within
the academic community. And
the idea that something more is required
of professional staff at the
University of Virginia than that
they are sound scholars and excellent
teachers is not one designed
to attract prospective candidates.

Perhaps Togliatti's observation
that Stalin's excesses were less
attributable to the man than to
the system within which he
operated is applicable to current
promotional policies here at the
University. It is evident that a
restructuring of the decisional apparatus
is needed to assure that
first-rate teacher-scholars may not
only be attracted to Charlottesville,
but retained by offers of
competitive salaries and working
conditions. For Dean Harris, notwithstanding
Mr. David's ecstatic
admiration, is, alas, a mortal,
capable of errors and/or professional
biases to which all of the
human species are susceptible. It
is hoped that a new system
might be developed to assure that
extraneous factors such as political
orientation, or skin color, or
height, might not interfere with
the rather serious and sometimes
controversial task of evaluating a
man's worth qua educator.

In view of recent events, which
have rendered less effective a
once highly regarded Economics
Department, perhaps apologies are
in order, but one hesitates to suggest
from whom they should emanate.

Blasts Heretic

I realize that the Heretic can
only be writing in an effort to
stir up interest, there can be no
other excuse; but I feel there are
a number of points in his article
of February 22 which desperately
need clarifying.

First of all, he claims that the
University is not a good university,
but that it is a good state university.
Are we to believe that
the word "state" makes the University
of Virginia any less of a
university? His authority on the
low standards of state universities
is a "Northern prep school acquaintance."
I know a northern
prep school graduate who says,
"....your University of Virginia is
to be heartily commended on maintaining
such a high degree of academic
excellence and yet not neglecting
honor and gentility, whose
true value can best be appreciated
from the context of an environment
in which they are not known.
For all our nose thumbing, our
Ivy boast only of a surfeit
of corrupt brick and mortar."

The Heretic calls the University
second-rate, but his criteria for this
judgement are not clear. He says
we did not score high on a two-year-old
rating of colleges, but he
does not explain how high one
must score to be considered a
first-rate school. He uses such
scientific and discriminating ratings
in his observations as "laughable,"
which, one must assume,
is just a smirk above "pitiable."
And what award could he expect
the CD might win, a marble
bust of Horace Greely, perhaps?
The point is that these ratings are
arbitrary, giving no valid indication
as to where the University
actually stands in comparison to
other schools.

The Heretic bases his criticism
of the library budget on some
secret information that he is unable
or unwilling to divulge. And
is the library such a disgrace?

Finally, I find myself in agreement
with the Heretic on one point.
The CD is lacking in "...exciting,
important or even accurate
journalism," if the Heretic's article
is at all representative. The article
is headed by a quote from Mr.
Jefferson that is either a misprint
or wrenched out of context, setting
the mood for the undefined mass
of gobbledegook which follows.

Explains Riots

Judging from Mr. Ogden's
article in Friday's The Cavalier
Daily, I would say that he has
learned well his Marxism. Needless
to say, when one adheres to
the extreme left-wing of political
philosophy, a thorough knowledge
of Marxism or communism in the
necessary result. I wish to comment
briefly on two points discussed
in his article, namely the
murders in Orangeburg and the
ineptness of the American capitalist
system.

A group of black militants,
after having aroused several groups
of students at the colored colleges
in Orangeburg, decided with the
aid of their recruits to storm a
privately owned bolling (sic) alley
which was being legally operated
as a private club. Even after using
the storm-trooper tactics in which
these militants are so versed, they
were unable to gain entry. Because
they had been rebuked which
to them is the cardinal sin, they
decided to cause additional furor
in the city. This they accomplished
by starting several fires
at one of the colleges and at
the home of an elderly lady who
lived near the college.

While the fire department, being
protected by local police, was extinguishing
the fire, they were fired
upon by the militants. Under the

The Cavalier Daily welcomes
all letters from students, faculty,
and members of the Charlottesville
community.

All letters submitted for publication
should be addressed to
the editor, typewritten, triple
spaced, and signed by the writer.
Authors' names will be withheld
upon request, but no anonymous
letters will be published,
circumstances the police had but
one alternative and that was to
shoot back. It is indeed unfortunate
that three students were
shot but by taking part in such
illegal and debased activities, they
must accept the consequences.

Mr. Ogden must believe that
any tactic may be employed to
correct any situation which he
deems to be immoral. The privately
owned club was believed to
be acting on an immoral doctrine
-discrimination according to race.
This might be true, but to infringe
upon the private freedom
of an individual in an illegal manner
is as great a moral sin. No
man, whether he be white or black,
has the right or the duty to mercilessly
destroy other peoples'
property or endanger their lives.

The capitalist system operates
on the premise of a free market
in which decisions are made as to
the allocation of scarce resources.
These decisions are made according
to the votes cast by consumers
via their purchases in the market
place. The capitalist system, by
far, is the best device ever devised
to satisfy the economic desires of
man. It works much better than the
communist system. Just compare
the economic well-being in this
country with that in the USSR!

It does not oppress the poor.
To say they are oppressed is to
say that the capitalist system will
not allow them to improve their
well-being. This is false in so far
that under a capitalist system everyone
has the opportunity to work
to improve himself. All it takes is
initiative and diligence. The
capitalist system rewards the rich
in proportion to their work and
their contribution to the capital
stock of the economy. The capitalist
system is not partial to any
individual. Each one "reaps where
he has sown."

Since I disagree with Marxism,
I disagree with Mr. Ogden's stand
on the capitalist system. His attack
on the capitalist system is
identical to that of Marx as presented
in Book I of "Das Kapital."
If Mr. Ogden dislikes our
capitalist system, perhaps his
talents can be better employed
by his moving to Havana. Judging
from the reception received by
Stockly (sic) Carmichael, he should
get a warm and red welcome.

Answers Mr. Bines

I would like an opportunity to
answer the letter of Mr. Bines
which appeared in Saturday's CD.
For his sake, I hope that he reads
his law school assignments with
more care than he apparently gave
my original letter.

First, I do not deny the connection
between morality and law.
Certainly many laws and regulations
are passed because of moral
considerations. My point was
simply that when an act is done for
no reason other than compulsion,
it is not a moral act. Morality
is possible only where choice exists.

Second, I did not address my
discussion to the power of the University
to make a segregation regulation,
but the wisdom and propriety
of doing so. Certainly the
University has such power; it has
power to make any rule of conduct
it chooses, so long as it does
not conflict with rules made by a
higher authority. I need not repeat
the reasons why I feel that
the Council's action was unwise.

Mr. Bines carefully misquotes
my letter, a thing I would have
thought he was taught not do before
entering law school. I expressly
stated that the University
may properly regulate conduct
other than simply that which the
law already prohibits. Most such
regulations deal with private action
relating to the demeanor of students,
and the major question in
determining whether to pass such
a regulation is whether it is wise.
By turning the discussion into one
of power, Mr. Bines avoids the
issues, which is convenient but not
particularly helpful. Finally, Mr.
Bines makes an additional point,
that the regulation is justified because
the organizations affected
are entitled to use the name of
the University and are assisted by
University funds. I submit that
this is no distinction.

Every student at this University
carries its name with him wherever
he goes, and by his conduct either
enhances or demeans that name.
That name goes into a segregated
establishment when carried by an
individual student just as when it
is carried by an organization, and
the applicable principles in determining
appropriate regulation are
the same. Furthermore, every student
receives financial assistance
from the University, whether it is
institutionalized in the form of a
grant or not. There is no one so
naive as to think that his tuition
and fees come close to covering
the entire cost of his education
here; the legislature makes massive
appropriations each session to
cover the deficit.

There is, therefore, no difference,
under that analysis, between
the reasons supposed to justify this
regulation of organizations and
those which would justify its extension
to individual students. I
dare say that Mr. Bines would
be shocked if he were told that
he was forbidden to enter an
establishment because it supported
a political or social policy of which
the University community disapproved.

On Conveyor Belts

May I suggest that the next
construction project at the University
be the installation of a conveyor
belt-escalator in Cabell Hall
Auditorium for the convenience of
the transient majority of the spectators.
In a democracy, their rights
should not be ignored. Why should
the latecomers be forced to cross
half the auditorium, then climb over
multitudes of people, to find a
seat which they may well occupy
for only 10 or 15 minutes? And
why should the early leavers have
to accomplish the same task in
reverse?

If they merely stood on the conveyor
belt, admittedly the continuity
of the performance might
be somewhat broken for them,
but their overall participation
would be unchanged. I feel that this
system would be greatly appreciated
by the transient and
stationary audience alike, with the
possible exception of those in the
front row balcony and those who
take this occasion for their daily
health walk. (Perhaps one aisle
could be left open for them).

Should this scheme prove too
costly, an alternative plan would
be to schedule only musical events
there. The school could save vast
sums by having the transients supply
the percussive element.

They might need a pre-performance
rehearsal, but I think the
sprightly click-click-click of high
heels on the floor, the stately
baroom-baroom of climbing over
knees, the climactic plop into the
seat, and the ternary flip of the
seat at leave-taking could effectively
be orchestrated into most compositions.