University of Virginia Library

Math Professor Asks...

Should ROTC Drills Disrupt Classes?

I am a tolerant man, and I have
been able to tolerate many things
from the military establishment at
this University. I have been able to
politely ignore the fact that students
are receiving credit for such
courses as "The Art of War." I have
accepted being on the same faculty
with "professors" appointed by the
Pentagon, not by the faculty. I have
managed to turn my head when I
see young men walking around
wearing the uniforms of war and
carrying the implements of destruction.
But, gentlemen, how can I
tolerate the military's disruption of
my class? My Tuesday afternoon
class and I are each week interrupted
by the tramping of young
feet and the harsh notes of some
tune composed in the midst of
some insignificant war during some
forgotten battle by some dying
soldier. Should the ROTC troops be
allowed to interrupt the business of
this academic community?

The impetus for severing the
connections of our University with
the military establishment must
come from the students. We have
all been reading of the expulsion of
ROTC courses and instructors from
many universities. From personal
experience, I can tell you that the
action that is occurring in universities
arises out of the efforts of
students.

The time has come when tolerant
men must act.

Welcome Comments

I appreciate your devoting your
editorial space on Tuesday to a
discussion of the required comprehensive
examinations in the College,
and I am sure that the
members of the Curriculum Evaluation
Committee will carefully consider
your suggestion to abolish
them. As you know, any recommendation
that the Committee may
wish to make must be approved by
the College Faculty.

Your comments - and others
like them - are welcomed by the
Curriculum Evaluation Committee.
Others, both Faculty and students,
will be given an opportunity to let
their opinions be known to the
Committee by a questionnaire that
will be distributed to all Faculty
and all fourth-year students within
the next few weeks. We hope that
all the recipients of the questionnaire
will complete it and return it
to us within a week.

Number Two

An important discovery felt to
be of great importance to the entire
University community has recently
been made by a group of graduate
students in Emmet House. Contrary
to all indications and beliefs (yes,
beliefs!) the rooms on the Lawns
and Ranges are no longer recognized
by administrators within the
Housing Office as the most prestigious
accommodations on the
Grounds. Their position as the
desirable housing has now (alas)
been usurped by (of all things) the
architectural monstrosity of McCormick
Road. Yes, the Housing
Office has decreed that single
rooms in Emmet House are now
worth more to a student than are
rooms in the Monroe Hill Houses or
on the Lawns and Ranges.

A simple listing of the merits of
Emmet - concrete block walls,
metal furniture, lack of curtains,
presence of roaches and noisy
weekend junior Wahoos in adjacent.
Page House - reveals that the price
of the Emmet House rooms ($374)
includes $19 a year more than-the
price of a large single on the Range
($355) for the sheer prestige of
living directly over the Housing
Office. This sum, it must be seen, is
more than enough to make the
rooms in Emmet the most expensive
housing available to male
students at Mr. Jefferson's University.

So, in conclusion, we the undersigned
residents of Emmet House
take this opportunity to inform
those men in other, previously
more highly-esteemed housing, that
they are now only NUMBER TWO!
The Housing Office has so decreed.

Rotten Pillars

Can you be serious in your
editorial "Take-Home Temptations"?
If someone's honor is as
tenuous as glass so that it is "bound
to give way under the strain" of
take-home tests, then the University's
Honor System is already
resting on rotten pillars. What kind
of honor can one claim who regards
taking a test in the quiet of his
room or of the library as "an
unnecessary and grueling test" of
his honor? An Honor System, it
seems, either rests on honor or it
does not exist. If it must rest on
"honor" in quotes, then it but
makes a mockery of the ideal of
honor and the concept of an honor
system.

Full Explanation

I would like to express partial
agreement with the Student Athletic
Council in its condemnation of
student behavior at the UNC
basketball game. There is absolutely
no excuse for throwing anything on
a basketball court or the continued
booing of an individual player. Poor
sportsmanship is not a strong
enough term for this behavior.

My disagreement stems from the
fact that the SAC has placed undue
emphasis on the fact that Charlie
Scott was booed because he is a
black athlete. Mr Scott is an
Olympian and no one will dispute
that he is one of the finest
basketball players in the nation.
Virginia fans have always tended to
be rough on the best players from
opposing teams. (Len Chappel-Wake
Forest; Art Heyman, Bob
Verga-Duke; Billy Cunningham,
Larry Miller-UNC). Second-rate
players are not booed. Add to this
the fact that UNC is one of
Virginia's bitter rivals, they are the
No. 2 team in the country, and Mr.
Scott was involved in a fight with a
Virginia player. Mr. Scott represented
the UNC team which was
having a rough time with UVa. at
that point. I daresay in that
emotion packed atmosphere even
good-natured Rusty Clark could
have become the butt of abuse.

In these times it is easy to jump
at racist strife as a motivating force,
too easy. One cannot say that
Scott's treatment had no relation to
being black, but the SAC, one
group which should know better,
has taken one factor out of context
and blown it up out of proportion.
Nothing is said of the generous
applause given Bill Chamberlin, a
black man on the UNC freshman
team. How can the same fans be so
inconsistent? It must go beyond the
fact that Scott is a black man.

This is not to excuse student
conduct but an attempt to get a full
explanation of the reasons behind
it.