University of Virginia Library

Charles Weir

'Free Bobby — Free Paul'

In America, when a law has
been broken, a fair and speedy trial
is a right that the accused posses. If
that right is abridged, then injustice
is done. It does not matter if the
accused is guilty or not, if he
cannot be found guilty through
legitimate procedures, then he
should not be found guilty.

The University of Virginia is
presently facing a situation in
which two University students are
accused of violating a ban on the
display of all flags and banners at
University athletic events.

Case Facts

There are several concomitant
facts which must be discussed in
this case. They are: the ban and its
background, the legality of the ban,
the defendants, selective
enforcement, the possibility of a
fair and speedy trial, ramifications
of a decision by the Judiciary
Committee, and the role of the
Cavalier Daily and other
organizations and publications in
pretrial publicity.

To ban all flags and banners at
athletic contests is in effect merely
a ban on the Confederate flag. The
Confederate flag is the one that is
brought to football games. The Viet
Cong flag is the one brought to
demonstrations and rock concerts.
Subsequently, the Confederate flag
is the one that is banned. The
argument raised by Tom Collier,
President of the Student Council, is
that it is up to the sponsors of the
individual events to ask people not
to wave flags that may be offensive
to many in the crowd. In an
emotion filled demonstration
against the war and in support of
the solidarity of the people of
North Vietnam, one has as much
chance of solving the
problem by asking someone not to
wave the Viet Cong flag, which is
quite legal to do, as one would have
asking people not to smoke
marijuana at the B.B. King concert,
which is quite illegal to do.

The ban is presently being
challenged in the courts by the
American Civil Liberties Union.
Meanwhile, two students await trial
on a violation of that ban. Few if
any of the legal debates that I have
heard have been won by the
defenders of the ban.

While those of us who are
affected by the law may debate the
issue, two University students who
may be afflicted by the law are
solemnly awaiting their trial. They
are Paul Trouche, a fourth-year
History major and Echols Scholar
and Robert Sheeder, a
third-yearman and also an Echols
Scholar and Honors student in the
Department of Government and
Foreign Affairs. At this time in the
history of the University, it will be
grand and glorious to try such
students. And why not? The
concerned students here at the
University are in a minority.

The liberals attack President
Nixon for attempting to pit one
segment of America against the
other, as long as he maintains an
Electoral majority of one-half plus
one.

Crashing Down

The administration in control of
the University of Virginia are trying
to provoke the concerned students
into some irrational action so that
they can come crashing down on
their heads. I do not consider the
waving of the "Stop Expansion"
banner as a totally rational act, but
it was far from an irrational act. To
have brought a Confederate flag to
the Vanderbilt game and waved it
would have been an irrational act.

While only two men are being
tried for the offense, five men were
involved. To prosecute only two is
selective enforcement and an
abortion of the law. Mr. Corrigan,
who conveniently filed the complaint
as a private citizen and not as the
Director of Intercollegiate
Athletics, knew the names of all
five of those involved and still only
filed a complaint against two.

A look at the other three is
needed. First, Douglas Hamm, a
fourth-year Commerce School
student and Vietnam War Veteran,
secondly, John Wood, a fourth-year
Echols Scholar and resident of the
Lawn, thirdly, Perry Mandaleris a
fourth-year English major. So with
what are we left? The selective
enforcement of a ban that is
directed against two students that
do not have much of a chance of a
fair trial, since they are the ones
singled out of a crowd of five.

Two Accused

The two students who are
accused of violating the ban are
now awaiting their trial. It took
over a week for Mr. Corrigan to file
his complaint. Why didn't he do it
sooner? Mr. Corrigan said that he
was not pressured, and he filed the
complaint against two students
only, since those were the only
names that he had. Where did he
got those two names? Anyone who
knew those two should have known
the other three, since they are all
good friends. Also, their names
were publicized in The Cavalier
Daily on Tuesday, October 12. And
it was on the front page at that.

Howard Gorden, Chairman of
the Judiciary Committee has said
over and over again that nothing
severe would be done to the
accused. That in itself should
disqualify him from sitting in on
the trial. But, if you talk to most of
the judges or the investigators, they
will be only too happy to offer
their opinions. There is no such
publicity involved in an Honor trial.
Unfortunately, the trial cannot be
moved to a nearby court where the
case is not widely known and
without judges having already
having formed opinions.

Pitiful Sight

Pretrial publicity on this case
has been widespread. The
Richmond Times-Dispatch and the
Washington Post have covered the story
in their papers, as has the Daily
Progress. The "Virginia Five", as
they like to be known, have sent
out a flier publicizing their fate.
The University Young Republicans
have sent out a newsletter (1,000
copies) to their members and
handed out the rest on the eve of
"University Tuesday" to those
present on the Lawn. They are
attempting to link this action with
their club to further their own
cause against expansion, at the
expense of the two students. The
American Civil Liberties Union had
to take the ban to court to save
face in this area. They admit that it
is a ban directed at the Confederate
flag.

Where we stand now is a pitiful
sight. Two students are being tried
for an offense because they are
opposed to expansion. They were
singled out because of their views.
Pretrial publicity has made all of
those directly involved in the
adjudication of the ban aware of the
facts and the misrepresentations
before they were brought out in
trial and have gone so far as to
publicly state their opinions of
the penalty that will be handed
down.