Disgust
In response to your editorial
about the Virginia domicile
requirement for in-state
tuition: it may interest you to
learn that having been in
Virginia for a full year, having
been paid each month of that
year by a Virginia employer
and having filed a 1971 tax
return, etc., I was informed in
response to my application for
reduced tuition that while I
was undoubtedly a Virginia
resident, I was not to be
classified as an in-state student
because I had not shown
"sufficient objective evidence"
of an intention to remain in
Virginia, even though in my
letter I had clearly stated that I
had no intention of leaving the
state when I graduated in
1974.
With this as background,
allow me to make my point: an
intention is an opinion or
belief in one's future course of
action. It exists in the mind of
the intention-holder. If we live
in a society in which 1) a man
is presumed to be telling the
truth until it is proven that he
has lied (the honor system),
and 2) the burden of such
proof ledges with the state (the
committee on state residency),
then it follows that being told
to show "objective proof of an
intention" is a denial of all that
that system supposedly stands
for.
I am not surprised that such
illogic and hypocrisy should
exist. I am surprised that
nowhere in this honorable
institution does sufficient
self-respect exist to say either
that a belief in the system must
entail taking a chance on
occasional financial loss, at the
bursar's office or in the
cafeteria, so that the system of
belief may be worthy of belief,
or that the system itself is
based on an unwarrantable
assumption and should be
thrown out. The honor system
assumes a man's honesty but
belies that assumption with
every book check, every pledge
on an exam, and every
requirement for "objective"
proof of a declared intention.
No, I am not surprised, but I
am disgusted.
