University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Improved Salary Scales Suggested

The lead story in the February
6, 1969 Cavalier Daily, entitled
"Saunier Answers Charge About
University Wages" represents a
gross diversion from headline accuracy.
For Paul Saunier's announcement
that Mr. Jenkins has
made two trips to Richmond this
year to speak with state authorities
about pay increases neither provides
a satisfactory explanation of
the University's substandard salaries
and employee benefits, nor does it
begin to "answer" the recent justifiable
expressions of rage, disbelief,
and resentment emanating
primarily from Charlottesville's
black community with respect to
the deplorable position of the University
as an oppressive employer.

May I respectfully suggest to Mr.
Saunier that he cease insulting the
University community with evasive
and unresponsive public relations
statements. It would be more appropriate
and honest to let the facts
speak for themselves; Mr. Saunier
should release for publication in
The Cavalier Daily the abject
University wage scales and employee
benefits of the janitorial and
maid staff for all to see. These
figures will demonstrate sufficiently
the present callousness and indifference
of University policy toward its
poorest employees. And in view of
the unfair and inequitable existing
wage scales, it is no wonder that the
University is having great difficulty
in filling its bottom wage scale
positions. If the University were to
place the acquisition of a living
wage for its poorer employees high
enough on its scale of priorities,
however, then there is little doubt
that it would meet with greater
success in improving salary scales
and have no difficulty in receiving
an abundance of job applications
for all available positions.

Wilson Hall

It is almost tragic to observe the
fantastic exertion of misdirected
energies of the Harry K. Thaw
Society and coincidently, the Architecture
Class of 1970. They
manufacture little pasties to stick
upon a structure that is merely the
logical outgrowth of an equally
misdirected concept of educational
facilities - the Old and New Cabell
Halls, Cocke and Minor Halls. Wilson
Hall is valid relative to the rest
of this complex of educational containers.
Yet, in spite of their proximity
to the Lawn, none of these
buildings have anything to do with
the original academic village developed
by Mr. Jefferson and expressed
by the Pavilions the student
facilities, and the Rotunda library.

By attacking the brand new
manifestation of an archaic educational
facility without expressing
the basic fallacy of that concept
will only confuse and further misdirect
the public in their attempt to
comprehend the nature of their
educational environment.

Not a single building erected
since the creation of this academical
village one hundred and fifty
years ago has, in the slightest
degree, extended the original concept
of a close relationship between
student and faculty. This is the real
"Architectural disgrace to Mr.
Jefferson's fine University."

No Board of Visitors or any
other influential organization is
going to "learn their lesson" by
having their attention and the
attention of the public focused on
defacing another example of architectural
mediocricy if no one really
understands that Jefferson's
original concept has been turned
into a setting for the Virginia Lawn
and Garden Club and a prestigious
domicile for tenured faculty and
super students.

Attention ought to be focused
upon future architectural schemes
being developed now for the
University to see whether they have
anything to do with the original
educational environment. The time
for protesting Wilson Hall was a
number of years ago before the
building's design was approved, not
before the building's dedication.

Wilson Hall has nothing to do
with Mr. Jefferson's fine University.
Attacking the building as any sort
of symbol of a nonexistent educational
environment is therefore
pointless and unfortunately,
illustrates a gross lack of understanding
on the part of those who
profess to affect the physical
environment in which we live.
Effort must be directed toward
making people aware of their total
environment, not in generating
petty crusades against an inanimate
extension of a stagnant educational
system.

'Boot The Hoot!'

As an avid and knowledgeable
Cavalier basketball fan for the past
three years, I feel compelled to
express publicly some widespread
feelings about the basketball program
at Virginia and, in particular,
coach Bill Gibson.

Bill Gibson must go! Any coach
can win with talent, but it is a rare
coach indeed who can consistently
lose with talent. Virginia is blessed
with such a coach.

Of major importance to coaching
is the ability to handle one's
players. In this area Gibson has
shown little or no competence.
Discontent and poor player-coach
relations are trademarks of every
Gibson ball club. This is evidenced
by the many top quality players he
has lost: John Schroeder, Steve
Jackson, Jeff Crackel, John Quinn,
Mike Smith, Sam Harvey, Gary
Laws, Bill Buck, Tom Joyce, and
most recently Buddy Reams; yes,
Buddy Reams! It is easy to reconcile
the loss of 1 or 2 players but
hardly two full teams.

It is depressing to contemplate
how good we might have been with
the ballplayers on this list. However,
it is even more distressing to
think that the list may not yet be
complete. Why has Tony Kinn been
playing erratic ball for only 20
minutes a game? Why was the
red-hot Kinn pulled in the first half
of the St. John's game? Why isn't
Kevin Kennelly, an ideal playmaker,
running the offense? Why
has Norm Carmichael dropped from
15 points and 12 rebounds a game
to 10 and 5 respectively? The answer
is Bill Gibson.

It is sad indeed to think that out
present fine crop of Freshman must
soon be subjected to Coach Gibson's
incompetence. There have
been enough "Hooter Victims."

Boot the Hoot!

Wage Support

Somehow in the smoke and
sparks of vigorous endeavor at
Tuesday's Student Council meeting,
my vote in SUPPORT of Mr. Ogle's
motion for raising the wages of the
University's bottom scale employees
was misreported as
AGAINST. In support of the motion,
I made a comment after its
passing that we not let this issue die
on the vine, but rather work with
the Administration (as it was noted
that they favor it) to convince the
powers at State level that positive
action (in response to this issue)
was of extreme importance.

As a general comment on The
Cavalier Daily's reporting of Student
Council meetings, I feel that
quite often Mr. Adams reports
colorful comments or statements
by individuals with whom he
sympathizes. These comments quite
often are irrelevant and by so reporting,
Mr. Adams does not accurately
reflect the decision-making
process that took place.

Stolen Papers

May I express publicly my admiration
for the person who stole
the "A" papers from Philosophy
33?

The deep motivation behind the
act, the high courage of the act
itself, and the wide consequences of
the act for better education in the
College are incalculably impressive.

Take-Home Honor

I would like, to begin with, to
disagree with your recent editorial
which condemned take-home tests
as a strain on the Honor System.
This is a position which I fear is
typical of those who would place
the Honor System, for and of its
own sake, above all else. It is my
own feeling, however, that the
Honor System was developed to
liberate us, to enable us to develop
our own honor to its fullest in an
atmosphere of trust. Were
take-home tests truly a strain on
the Honor System, this should not
be compared to dropping a glass to
see whether it will break but rather
to a glass which, when put to the
normal use for which it was
intended, shatters. A glass, a book
or an instrument, when it fails to
fulfill its purpose, must be replaced
or repaired.

Our Honor System is supposed
to create an atmosphere in which
we can be trusted. The fact is,
though, it allows us to be trusted so
much that we are not able to
arrange our own final exam
schedule - which students in other
schools, who spend more time
living by and less time glorifying in
their trustworthiness, are able to
do. But our Honor Committee has
decreed that after 24 hours a
professor must draw up a new test
- otherwise it is a 'strain' on our
system, I think it is time for us all
to have a hard and long look at our
Honor System, before we find that
it has shattered in our unconcerned
hands. And I would hope that The
Cavalier Daily, as a responsible
forum of student opinion, will play
a part in ensuring the strength of
our Honor System, through open
and unafraid discussion. The most
dangerous foe of our system is our
own fear to examine it honestly.

I would be most grateful myself
if someone could tell me why the
system is such that we can't arrange
our own exam schedule, and why
the Honor Committee doesn't
conduct a poll to see if the student
body as a whole prefers the Honor
System as it is, or whether the
students might not prefer to see it
altered in one way or another,
perhaps by limiting it to our
academic concerns or by providing
some flexibility by allowing more
than the one ultimate punishment
now handed out to everyone who
slips up-once and gets caught.