University of Virginia Library

Walker Chandler: A Few Thoughts

Mr. Chandler, a third-year man,
is a member, of the Student
Council. He was the Anarchist
candidate who swept to victory by
an unprecedented majority in last
spring's election.-ed.

October is upon us, bringing
with it an impending storm of
student protest and activism.

La Rochefoucauld once said,
"Youth is a perpetual intoxication;
it is the fever of reason." Am I, the
youngest member of the Student
Council, unreasonable when I
acknowledge the fact that students
will inevitably have control over
visitation policies in the dormitories
and fraternities, policies concerning
car operation in the community,
and the government of their private
lives? Shall we not have a greater
say on committees that deal with
academic affairs and institutional
matters? Of course we shall. Can
anyone dispute the cold fact that
we shall?

We follow logically to the next
question - why not now? This was
the question posed at Mountain
Lake by those with the courage to
press it. An answer was not given,
nor was one expected of those so
unaccustomed to giving answers.
This we expected, and in a sense of
courtesy and fair play, we were
willing to wait. We have waited. We
have waited for many years.

Those who elected me often ask
why nothing is happening or what
are we doing. One gets the
impression that we, like all of our
predecessors, have sold out. During
the month of September, we have
been operating: in the spirit of
Mountain Lake, which is to say that
we have been willing to take the
cool approach to the problems
facing us. The Student Council,
when it left that conference,
seemed to be functioning
reasonably well for this type of
approach. This week's meeting,
however, revealed the Council as
having no sense of degree
whatsoever. To be "cool" (with all
that implies at THE University) to
them is to be frozen. Issues that
should have been brought before
the Board of Visitors this weekend
were shelved for further
consideration. Statements
concerning policy-making
procedures in the barracks,
operation of motor vehicles, and
the like had to be "worked on,"
presumably to be presented in
December. Will the students wait?
The Council will. That which is
done in the name of circumspection
is naught but timidity. How often
they agree with us basically! How
seldom the vote goes our way!
What could be easier than saying
exactly how the students feel about
these issues? I would suggest to
them that the only thing easier than
taking such straight-forward stands
would be for them to just stay
home.

The Council may suffer from
the following interpretation of its
composition from one who has
observed it first-hand for some
time, but perhaps such pain as this
article may evoke will prove to be
but the labor pains preceding the
birth of a truly Students' Council.
At the head of the Council are two
men who from their Olympian
heights seek to spread over the
lesser of us the aura of their
intellectual attainments and their
truly greater wisdom and maturity.
They are "in the lead;" one being
the incarnation of Right Order, the
other being the timid and impotent
oracle of Virginia's New Left. This,
of course, is a farce. They are not in
the Vanguard of History, they are
pushed by it. Filling up the
overwhelming Middle of the
Council are a number of otherwise
very qualified student leaders who
almost invariably throw their
support in favor of Right Order and
Wisdom. In this way, they emulate
their predecessors of past years. But
the time is past when time can pass
gracefully, shamelessly by and mark
no change. Will the Middle rise to
the challenge?

On the opposite end of the
spectrum from Right Order one
finds, logically enough, Anarchy,
whose principles rest upon the
integrity of the individual. Ours is
the generation in which everything
is relative - nobody has a
monopoly on the truth. If one
attempts to impose ethical or social
standards in such a climate,
contradictions arise. The only
answer to illogical rules in the Era
of the Individual is the abolition of
those rules. For instance, why do
we have visitation rules? If the
administration could be confronted
and forced to reply, the answer
would be "Antiquated moral
reasons in which even we do not
believe." Then we would have
them. Therefore, there is no
answer. Some will contend that the
University has an obligation to the
State. Right, but the purpose of the
University is to lead the society,
not reflect its redneck morals.
"Everybody" already knows that
Virginia is a pit of sin where
drinking and wenching are the
favorite pastimes. So what? Perhaps
the students at Bobby Jones
University and Hampton-Sydney
are more upright than we, but does
that gather unto them the respect
and admiration of the academic
world? Let Virginia stand or fall on
her academic record! Paternalism is
dead. If a student thinks that he
should be told when to study,
exercise in the gym, go down the
road, and so forth, let that man go
to some nice, little, holy school or
military college that will take good
care of him but not educate him -
he needs them, and, God knows,
they need him. But let this
university be based on the
illimitable freedom of the human
mind, as it were.

Woodrow Wilson once said,
"The use of a University is to make
young gentlemen as unlike their
fathers as possible." If we accept
this definition, the University is
trying to be useless. It will change.
We will change it.

Mr. Robert Rosen, in his
"Prospectus for the University,"
gave a well thought-out appraisal of
our community, its needs and its
future. His detractors were mostly
reacting to the proposition that
"active" measures would figure into
any changes that will take place in
the near future. They were the
types who call for "meaningful
dialogues" and the like and who are
blind to the fact that a dialogue
requires two parties. What we have
at Virginia is most often a
meaningless monologue. A
phenomenon that I watch with
great interest each year is the
awakening of the first-year men to
the realities of life at Virginia that
are not covered during Orientation.
Each year this general awareness
comes at an earlier date as each
entering class is more critical than
its predecessor. This year's class will
not long be fooled by phrases such
as "meaningful dialogue." This
year's students want changes this
year.

Mr. Murdock and I came into
office with a clear mandate for
change from the students of the
College. We proposed to destroy
the supplicant style of student
government and to replace it with
one using political methods and
open dialogue. I cannot sit upon a
council that is the joke of the
Student Body. I have a mandate to
destroy such a Council.

Can the Council lead those
whom it purports to represent, or
must other groups take its place?