University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Negro Admission Standards

Often we compare ourselves to
Harvard, Princeton, etc. However
there is one thing which we definitely
do not compare in—the
admission of Negroes to the student
body. (The following clipping
will explicate my view.)

"This year, admissions officials
have been particularly zealous in
seeking out Negro students—and
no longer just those from middle-class
homes. In their eagerness to
attract Negroes from disadvantaged
backgrounds, many
schools have relaxed their admissions
standards. The University of
Chicago has accepted Charles
Jones, 18, a Negro from Chicago's
Marshall High School whose
College Board test scores were
far below those of most incoming
freshmen. But Dean of Admissions
Anthony Pallett is confident that
Jones, who has worked 40 hours
a week as a dishwasher to help
support his family, 'knows where
he's going, and he's determined
to get there.'

"Stanford, in addition to the
71 Negroes already accepted for
next year (against 52 years ago),
this month said it planned to admit
and provide special tutoring
for ten 'marginal minority-group
students' who do not meet normal
academic requirements.
Brown, in a freshman class of 720,
expects to have 25 Negroes next
year, up from 13 last year. Princeton,
which accepted 23 Negroes a
year ago, has tapped more
than three times as many, 76,
for its incoming freshman class
of 810."

This source for this comparison
is Time Magazine so each may
weigh its credibility for himself.
However in any event, does anyone
believe that relaxed admission
standards for Negroes will lower
the academic standards of those
institutions? I doubt that it could
lower the standards of the University
of Virginia, either.

Alvin Schensier

We referred this letter to Paul Saunier,
director of University relations, so
that he might supply corresponding
figures for the University. Following
are his comments:

The spring, 1968 Princeton Quarterly,
'University,' states that about
40 Negroes were enrolled there in
1966-67, (when the University of Virginia
enrolled 69) and that in 1967'68
Princeton has a 'somewhat larger
total (the University of Virginia enrolled
71 last fall). No figures are
available on the number of Negro
first-year students accepted at Virginia
in 1967, (when Princeton reportedly
accepted 23). Virginia has accepted
more than 18 for 1968, while Princeton
reports 76. How many of the 18 or 76
actually will enroll will not be known
until September. The University of
Virginia has not released any comparisons
of College Board scores by
race or color; Dean Ern states that
although Negroes admitted here have
high class rank and strong recommendation,
their College Board averages
are well under the University's
class averages, in most cases rejecting
directly on their lack of educational
opportunity."—Ed.

Editorial Refuted

Although not a member of the
University Party, I was somewhat
surprised and mystified by the
editorial in Wednesday's Cavalier
Daily regarding the University
Party's recently released Progress
Report. It seems the editorial completely
misses the point in two
ways.

First, it was made quite clear
by the University Party candidates
last semester when they were
campaigning that they realized
that several of the planks on their
platform advocated change in areas
where neither they, if elected, nor
the Student Council as a whole,
had any real power or authority.
As I understood it, their aim was
dual with respect to these planks:
(1) to get a strong showing of
student support for these proposals
in the election, in order to let
University administrators see the
student sentiment on these issues
and (2) to seek to have the proper
bodies implement the desired
courses of action by presenting
studies and making recommendations
through the Student Council.
The editorial seems to imply that
in areas where the Student Council
has no immediate power or
authority, it should simply avoid
issues altogether. I certainly can't
agree with this philosophy.

Second, I never heard the University
Party or its Councilmen
claim that they would be able to
do, by themselves, all the work
necessary to implement their platform.
It was made very clear to
me in the Progress Report exactly
what planks the University Party
and its Councilmen have been
working on and those which other
Councilmen have been pursuing.

The University Party Progress
Report indicates to me that the
University Party Councilmen have
been very active in pursuing and
in having others pursue the planks
of the platform they ran on. I, for
one, am very appreciative, both of
the work which they have done
on the Council, and for the high
degree of responsibility they have
shown in reporting to the student
body the progress that has been
made on their platform.

This is the first such follow-up
on campaign proposals and promises
which I have seen since coming
to the University. And I find
it quite regrettable that the C.D.
would choose to criticize, what
I believe is a much needed step
in the direction of making our
Councilmen more responsible to
us, as students, AFTER they
are elected.