University of Virginia Library

Lawn Party

University Party Purpose Questioned

By David Cox

The University Party has been
betrayed. Not intentionally, nor
by any one in particular, but betrayed
nonetheless.

No longer can it be considered
a fresh breeze over the "stagnant"
political wastes. No longer can it
be hailed as the party of principles
as well as of personalities. And
if it so remains, not much longer
will it be considered any force
of any significance in student politics.

Founded eight months ago on
egalitarian ideals of "one man—
one vote" and "issues, not just
personalities" in campaigns, it ran
—and won—on a platform of "Student
Responsibility for Student
Life." It attempted the near impossible:
involving the average student
in affairs concerning him. Its
promise glittered: reform of present
political procedures.

In this campaign, things will be
different. Its slogan, even some
of the names might be the same
as last spring, but it does not
hold the same promise, or at
least the hope of change, that it
did last year.

ITS DEMISE was all too apparent
in its meeting a week ago
Monday. During the ridiculously
long session, party unity disintegrated
into factions; a fairly
strong, progressive platform became
near-dishwater; idealists were
thoroughly disillusioned, their
ideals shattered. But most importantly,
party principles were
completely forgotten in the fracas.

The Party was founded as a reaction
to the most evident abuses
and shortcomings of the society
system of nomination. Use of fraternity
delegations and the dominance
thereof led to block voting,
and to the feeling that the independent
was somehow left out.
The caucuses offer nominees no
really concrete program of support,
other than posters. And in
spite of the fact that they have
nominated many able, often outstanding
students, the societies,
after all, have no platform of ideas;
that is left to the individual candidate.
By name, they are not political
parties, but societies, a clearing
house of candidates.

IN THE HOPE of offering a
better system, the University Party
was created. But Monday night,
democratic, egalitarian ideals—
fundamental to its founding—were
lost in the pile of proxy votes.
One gentleman held the votes of
no fewer than eleven absentee
members; his vote was, in effect,
worth twelve times that of the
average student. Thus, by the end
of the meeting, as members left
their proxies with those that stayed
on, veritable block voting resulted,
far worse than any society caucus
as its worst. In the societies, at
least one must be present to vote.

It had been hoped by some inside
the Party that factionalism
could be avoided and party unity
maintained. It wasn't, and the
Party split into conservative and
liberal blocs. From the beginning
on vote after vote, all the hands
on one side would go up; then
everyone on the other side of the
aisle would vote "nay." On many
occasions, one side-astutely
armed with proxies—could defeat
the wishes of the majority who
were interested enough to attend
the meeting. Thus, the platform,
rent by the left-right warfare, represented
entirely neither the views
of one side or the other, or even
of the Party in general.

EVEN THE GLITTERING
PROSPECT of "issues, not personalities"
went by the board,
thanks to a procedure of candidate
selection adopted (without
objection) by the chairman. In
theory, the Party chooses its
nominees after it approves a platform;
idealistically, the candidates'
support for it is thus assured.
However, on Monday, the "budding
politicos" gave their speeches
and were then individually
approved or rejected by the Party
—all before discussion of the platform.
Since only three of eight
were approved to run, these
were automatically nominated. As
qualified as they might be, the
candidates do not necessarily hold
the views of the Party, since they
were chosen before those views
were officially expressed. That
basic philosophy, then, unnecessarily
went out the window.

THE UNIVERSITY PARTY,
people used to say, was going
to bring about changes. It might
have, too. Last spring, it forced
new rules in local politics: issues
were more prominent then than
at any time in recent history.
And its candidate won.

Will the same be said this year?
The outlook is not promising.
Membership may be up, but unity
is almost non-existent, and morale
is shot. The Party no longer plays
by the new rules, it seems, but
instead by the old. It has lost its
principles. Will it lose its appeal?

This is not to say that it serves
no purpose in the coming election.
By its very existence, and the
existence of a platform, it offers
a choice. It remains, as always,
for the voter to consider each
candidate—society or UP—and to
decide conscientiously. But within
the party, profound changes in
its direction may alter its course,
and its fate.

BY ITS VERY NATURE, the
Party is one of change. Founded in
the hope of reform, composed of
people looking for something
better, and located so far from its
expressed goals, it should hold
liberal tendencies—or so common
sense dictates. In its existence it
is in opposition to the old way
of electing officials and, further,
of managing student affairs. Yet
the split that divided it was a
liberal-conservative one.

Pieter Schenkkan spoke of the
noiseless revolution the University
is even now undergoing, and cited
the position of leadership the Party
could—and should—assume.

Whether it can, in its degenerated
condition, and whether it will,
or whether it will recuperate, remain
to be seen.