University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Stated Purpose Not Present Reality

I was disappointed by the
lack of insight into the true
nature of Jefferson's views on
education as presented in the
article "Malone Reveals
Jefferson's Views on
Education" in the Tuesday
issue of The Cavalier Daily.

While it is true that
Jefferson's views on education
subsumed a natural aristocracy
of "virtue" and "talent," it is
also true that Jefferson
believed, and I think more
fundamentally, that an
individual, once possessed of
the basic intellectual tools and
skills, could direct his own
educational endeavors. To
quote Gordon Lee (see
introductory chapter to
Crusade Against Ignorance:
Thomas Jefferson on
Education). "The ideal.....was a
thoughtful and responsible
man.

Possessed of the basic skills,
Jefferson believed such a man
was equipped to move into
almost any realm on his own. Thus it is that what the
moderns call 'independent
study,' but on a lifelong plan,
was perhaps Jefferson's
cardinal pedagogical principle."

Further evidence of
Jefferson's view that an
individual who was admitted to
the University could operate
on this assumption of
self-direction is found in
Jefferson's letter to George
Ticknor, dated July 16, 1823.
As Mr. Jefferson stated:

We shall...allow them [the
students] the uncontrolled
choice in the lectures they
shall choose to
attend,....Our institution
will proceed on the
principle of doing all the
good it can without
consulting its own pride or
ambition; of letting every
one come and listen to
whatever he thinks may
improve the condition of his
mind.

Since one of the stated
purposes of this University is
"to make a living reality in the
consciousness and the daily
lives of the students and
faculty of the special historic
commitment of this University
to the character of its
members," I assume (or at least
once did assume) that the
University of Virginia was
dedicated to the fulfillment
and realization of Mr.
Jefferson's views. Only this
should be the apt qualitative
criteria upon which to compare
the existing realities and
conditions of this University.

Since the University does
not appear at the present time
to have an active commitment
(I wonder if it ever did) to this
most fundamental pedagogical
principle of "independent
study" which would permit a
student to actively seek out the
best teachers in both formal
and informal teacher-student
relationships, I think that the
wide gap which exists between
stated purpose and present
reality must be filled before
this University can even begin
to claim that it is fulfilling the
stated, explicit, qualitative
objectives, assuming that those
objectives are predicted on Mr.
Jefferson's vision.

Anti-Women

As a doctoral student and a
native Mississippian, I strongly
oppose the recent action of my
formerly esteemed Senator,
John Stennis, in voting against
the Women's Rights
Amendment. Many of us here
at his alma mater, the
University of Virginia, feel that
his action is merely a reflection
of attitudes that have setback
the Women's Rights Movement
for many years.

It is not surprising that
Senator Stennis voted as
did; but he will surely discuss
that the women of Mississippi
are going to remember his
action when election time rolls
around again.

Sign Off

Enclosed is a photograph of
the International Plot sign that
marked our outdoor education
program site until October 31,
1971.

On or about that date
someone removed the above
mentioned sign for some
apparent reason. Would you

assist us in effecting the return
of this sign?

We do not have funds to
reproduce the sign, having
exhausted the original $30.00
appropriation given to us by
the University Student Council
some three years ago.

Academic Robot

Mr. Buford leaves us with
an interesting "Parting Shot"
which cannot really be argued
against since it is based on his
own opinions. I am annoyed,
however, by the insult he
managed to slip in against the
science and engineering faculty
and students during the course
of his article. I guess he felt
that he could put whatever he
wanted to in a paper because it
was his last day as editorial
editor, but the whole sentence
referring to "you academic
robots in Thornton or Gilmer
or the Physics Building" was
seemingly out of place with the
rest of the article.

I am not so unrealistic as to
request a public apology from
Mr. Buford, but I would
appreciate it if he would point
out exactly what he means by
"academic robots" and why he
chooses to call us that.

All engineer students are
required to take six
non-technical electives in the
College, and I lament the fact
that, barring a twenty-hour
semester, that is all I will be
able to take. Perhaps Mr.
Buford should have taken a
few courses in the E-school
and gotten to know us better.

Perhaps not, but I'm afraid
he's wrong if he believes that
we don't think and that we
simply follow instructions. If
he began as an engineer and
dropped out, then I can
understand his feelings,
although I can't agree with
him.

Regardless of whether or
not we hear again from Mr.
Buford, this is not a challenge,
and I do not intend to engage
in a running argument with
him through the letters column
of this paper.

Michael Ashton
Engineering 2

Ed.)