University of Virginia Library

Letters: Blood Drive Here Again

Due to the rather scarce response
to the University Blood
Drive last semester, I would like
to announce that there will be a
second semester Blood Drive to
begin on March 13 and continue
through May 3. There will be
no "scheduling" of fraternities
as there was last semester and
again the University Union will
offer an award of a free keg
of beer to any organization or
dormitory hall or a pair of suites
which manages to contribute 100
percent, hopefully by Easters'
Weekend so that they can enjoy
it.

There is a much increased
need in this area for blood, because
Washington, D.C., which
used to supply most of the area's
blood, has now ceased sending
it. The hospital here, as well as
the other institutions supplied by
the Central Virginia Chapter of
the American Red Cross in Charlottesville,
is counting heavily on
local support, which means heavy
student support. To date, only
two organizations have received
awards for 100 per cent participation
as opposed to such
organizations last year, a considerable
decline.

There will be a blood mobile
at Westminster Presbyterian
Church on Rugby Road at the
Beta Bridge on March 20, and we
are hoping for a good turnout.
The Blood Bank in the Barringer
Wing of the University Hospital
opposite the East Range is open
from 8:30 A.M. — 4:30 P.M.,
Monday through Friday. Those
under 21 years of age must have
a permission slip signed by their
parents; these may be obtained
from the Union office, fraternities,
and dorm counselors. Each
donor receives credit from any
Red Cross Center to meet the
blood needs of any of his immediate
family for a year.

It is very important that the
University share in the responsibility
of the local blood needs
and earnestly support this semester's
drive. Thank you.

Arms And Police

It was with interest that I read
your paper's articles concerning
the Student Council's request to
the Department of Security that
the Department "instruct its
patrolmen to end the practice
of carrying firearms." This is an
absurd suggestion to be advanced
by the University Student Council,
but in an era when the open
use of marijuana is proposed,
nothing surprises me at this University
any more.

Since being graduated from
the University, I have seen, in
an increasing percentage of the
student body, the fall of the
"tradition" of the coat and tie,
not to mention the normal habits
of wearing socks, personal cleanliness,
and traditional haircuts.
In fact, as I hear and see more,
I am with reservation beginning
to lose pride in the fact that I
was graduated from the University.

The Maryland incident is cited
as a reason for disarming the
Security Force. If you are so
concerned about the students'
safety, do away with the alcohol
and cars; they appear to be
slightly more dangerous. The incident
in Orange County a couple
of weeks ago may be reason
enough to be armed — a trooper
was shot as he got out of his
car. The facts are that a law
enforcement officer never knows
when the need for a firearm may
arise, and neither do you nor the
Student Council.

The Department of Security
has the primary responsibilities of
protecting the student body and
the University facilities from any
form of destructive violence. As
the University is located in an
urban area at the intersection of
two major U.S. Highways, there
can be no effective exclusion of
undesirable individuals from the
University grounds. This alone
should be sufficient reason for
the Security Department to be
armed and adequately trained in
the use of firearms.

I would hate to see the University
become another Berkeley
because of the misguided efforts
of inexperienced youngsters or
the selfish interests of publicity
seeking "intellectuals" or
"pseudo-intellectuals." In the last
analysis, a law enforcement officer,
either at a University or
outside of a University, must be
prepared for any eventuality,
whether it be smiling at a harmless
panty raid or coping with a
University of Texas sniping
slaughter.

Anti-Coed

Concerning the CD's most recent
editorial attempts to agitate
the co-education question, I would
like to make the following observations:

Those who find the social limitations
of an all-male school unbearably
frustrating should never elect
to attend such a school. Conversely,
those, including myself, who
find day-to-day contact with the
opposite sex inhibiting to full
academic involvement, should constitute
the student bodies of all-male
schools. The distressing outlook
is that those over-zealous exponents
of full nationwide coeducation
may soon deprive the
students in the latter category of
a school they can attend in "happiness."

Second, the March 6 article related
to this subject states, "American
colleges and universities
are yielding... to the pressure
of women eager to assert their
rights to equal education, to dispel
the myth of intellectual inferiority
-and to find the best husbands
they can." The women can assert
these rights at a preponderance of
American colleges. The intellectual
capabilities of women have never
seriously been questioned by all-male
schools and, in fact, the
women's schools themselves-the
"Seven Sisters" being the prime
example-radiate an aura of intellectual
superiority. And I doubt
that by going to school with men
the young ladies can find the best
marriageable material. For to say,
in support of this, that "80 per
cent of the Cliffies marry Harvard
men" is only to point out
the facility, not the desirability,
of such marriages.

Co-education, contrary to your
editorial pronouncement, is still
very much debatable.

For Rockefeller

Alan Bromberg's rather inflammatory
letter about the Governor
of his and my home state of New
York requires a rebuttal to give a
clear picture of the truth. Mr.
Bromberg seems to think that his
ideas represent those of most New
Yorkers, and since New Yorkers
are a small minority at U. Va.,
he is in danger of actually convincing
students that this is the case.
In fact, his views seem to me to
have been refuted by the fact that in
1966, running against not only a
Democrat, but a Conservative and
a Liberal (and a few socialists of
various kinds) he received a
larger percentage of the New York
City vote (which ought to be extremely
hostile according to Mr.
Bromberg's thesis) than any Republican
in this century with the
exception of Jacob Javits.

The City University of New
York tuition controversy was, I
admit, a mistake on the part of
Gov. Rockefeller. I remember it
vividly because I was an undergraduate
there at the time and
wrote a letter to the Governor. It
might be noted, however, that
when he had a chance subsequently
to force the imposition of tuition
by withholding State aid, he
did not do so. As to the review
board issue, it might be noted that
the referendum was a purely city
issue which the Governor was not
required to have any part in, and
while he did not actively campaign
for it, he did support the
review board; in fact, however,
there was a vital transportation
bond referendum on the ballot the
same year, and the governor felt
that the bond referendum (which
was statewide, but would help New
York's subway system as one facet)
was important enough to require
his total attention.

The question of reapportionment
and districting is one about
which books could be written, but
Mr. Bromberg feels it "viciously"
partisan for Rockefeller to advocate
plans that aid the Republicans
against the Democrats. Can
he show me one politician who
would be so altruistic as to favor
a plan which would not over represent
his own party, if one
was available?

Finally, there is the garbage
strike. That was a mistake, but
I do not know of any man who,
in 10 years of high office, has not
done some things that were wrong.
John Kennedy is idolized by
thousands, maybe millions, but
let us not forget that in a term
of three years he made worse mistakes,
such as releasing a band of
Cuban exiles with the promise of
air support and then withholding
the support (having the effect that
Cuba was made angry but not
freed, and thus a worse enemy
than before) Nothing that Nelson
Rockefeller has ever done has come
near that.

On Negro Students

As a graduate of the College,
1965, and as a former City Editor
of The Cavalier Daily, I was
aware that the Negro at the University
would never become a
subject for editorial comment in
your newspaper. I was also aware
that out-of-state Negroes were
not being accepted at the University.

Nevertheless, I read with surprise
in the UVM that both
policies are being continued. I
feel that the CD, the faculty, and
the students should protest this
policy of token integration and
try to make the Administration
change it. It is not only illegal,
it is immoral.

Standards for admission for
Negroes should be "can they do
the work," not "are they equal
to a graduate of a typical suburban
high school?" I am proud
of the University; I am not proud
of its policy vis-a-vis 10% of
our Nation's population.