University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Bowers Clarifies Faculty Stand
On Student Council Proposals

So much misinformation has
been current about the events, or
non-events, in the 19 February
meeting of the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences that a plain statement of
fact may be useful addressed to the
student body in general and to
members of the faculty who could
not be present at the meeting.

Under the longtime policy of
the faculty, advance notice is
required of any substantive
resolutions or proposals if action is
to be requested by vote at that
meeting. However, it is possible to
introduce unannounced resolutions
under new business after the items
on the agenda have been heard.
Nevertheless, if these violate the
rule and are so significant as to be
subject to substantive debate, they
either are ruled out of order or are
referred to the appropriate faculty
committee for analysis and a
recommendation at the next
faculty meeting, at which time they
are normally voted upon. Important
decisions are not made on the
spur of the moment without
deliberation, particularly because
each member of the faculty has a
right to know that his absence from
a meeting will not disenfranchise
him because of the unexpected
introduction of important matters
not present on the official agenda
that is circulated at least a week in
advance. It is essential for a faculty
which consists of some 500 members
in Arts and Sciences to govern
itself in this orderly way.

The Dean of the Faculty is
always prepared to acquaint the
Arts and Sciences faculty at any
regularly scheduled meeting with
communications or requests he has
received from the Student Council.
If they are received in time to be
placed on the official agenda, and if
they call for action, the faculty can
vote on them or refer them to an
appropriate committee for recommendation,
either course at its
pleasure. However, if they are
received too late for the official
agenda, the usual procedure would
be for the faculty to decline to vote
if they were definitely substantive
in nature, and instead to refer them
to a faculty committee for recommendation
at the next meeting.

We now come to the heart of
the matter. The Student Council,
despite its statement of intent in
The Cavalier Daily printed only on
the morning of the faculty meeting,
did not request the Dean of the
Faculty to present the various
Proposals to the faculty at the
meeting that afternoon. If the
Council had done so, even at such
short notice I should, of course,
have announced to the faculty that
this request was on the agenda for
the afternoon, and no doubt some
cognizance could have been taken,
although these Proposals were,
naturally, of too substantive a
nature to be voted on without the
necessary prior consideration or
without the report of a committee
to which they might have been sent
for discussion and recommendation.
The question of the time
necessary to divide, discuss, and
vote on eleven distinct proposals
must, also, be considered. No one
meeting would perhaps be sufficient,
particularly a meeting already
loaded with a heavy agenda.

It is completely inaccurate,
therefore, to state that the faculty
"declined" to consider the proposals.
Quite simply, the Council
never presented the faculty with
the Proposals for consideration, and
hence the faculty had no means of
knowing that the Proposals might
be offered at the meeting. A
statement of intent in the newspapers
is scarcely adequate as a
substitute for formal Council
action. The faculty, I am sure,
would never decline to consider any
requests made to it by the Student
Council. But if no request is made,
as was true for the Proposals, the
faculty is quite incapable of considering
something that is nonexistent.
The faculty, then, was
guilty of no discourtesy to the
Council or to the student body
represented by the Council. It is
contrary to fact, therefore, for
anyone to assert that the faculty
declined to consider the Proposals
or was in any way unresponsive in
the matter. I earnestly hope that
this statement will close the
question.

Mistaken Identity

I write to correct an impression
of some members of the University
community that a member of the
faculty of the Graduate School of
Business Administration did not
participate in the February 24
meeting of the ad hoc student-faculty
committee. I was there, but
The Cavalier Daily incorrectly identified
me with the School of
Commerce.

I did not attend as a "representative"
of the GSBA; rather, I
attended as an individual who is
concerned that the faculty give
encouragement and support to the
student coalition in their responsible
efforts to move for change.

Over-Kill

Once upon a time, an ambitious
senator, for lack of better employment
and a need for publicity, went
Communist hunting in Washington
and, with the help of public
overreaction, did a beautiful job of
it. (Everybody knows that Communists
are bad.) Several years later
the SDS, for lack of better
employment and in need of a cause,
went racists hunting at the University
and, with the help of public
overreaction, are doing a beautiful
job of it. (Racists are bad guys,
too.)

Now, we have seen several
historical examples of this over-kill
tendency on the part of the 'good'
people - the witch trials, the
persecution of the Jews, etc. - all
of which share certain similarities.
There is (1) a manipulating force.
(Although it is not easy to compare
SDS to Joe McCarthy), (2) public
overreaction by the 'good' people
wallowing in their individual mud
puddles of self-righteousness, and
(3) there are the victims.

Now that we have stated the
problem in clear, concise terms, let
us proceed to the solution. Brilliant
young man that I am, I have
devised the perfect solution to our
dilemma. In all modesty, I set it
forth here for the consideration of
all the 'good' people out there.
There are, I believe, about 15
members on the Board of Visitors. I
propose: Once the SDS - I'm
sorry, the Coalition - can present
the student body with adequate
proof that there is not at least of
15 students who practices some
sort of racial discrimination, then
we move with all expediency to
secure the resignation of Mr.
Wheatley. Until then we are forced
to assume that the man does indeed
represent a significant portion of
the University and therefore merits
his position.

As the matter now stands, with
a man's job threatened because of
his political beliefs, I can assure you
that Mr. Wheatley represents at
least one member of the student
body.

'Dixie'

I am writing in protest to the
motion passed this week by the
Student Council urging that the
University Band discontinue the
playing of "Dixie." First, I feel that
it is presumptuous to assume that
this song is a symbolically racist
song. I am willing to agree that
"Dixie" is often sung by racists,
and is for them symbolic of their
racism, and for this reason I
sympathize with the black students
of the University for their dislike of
the song. However, I do not think
that the aversion these students
have for "Dixie" should be allowed
to prevent the playing of a song
which a great many students enjoy
at football and basketball games. I
enjoy "Dixie" and I don't consider
myself a racist. I participated in the
two demonstrations last week, but I
object to being denied the pleasure
of hearing "Dixie" here at the
University merely because one
group of students finds it objectionable.

Secondly, "Dixie" can only be
an effective symbol of racism as
long as those that play and sing it
retain a racist attitude. As Mr.
Roebuck said, the words of the
song are not of themselves objectionable.
The racism attributed to
the song can only be present in an
atmosphere of racism. Therefore, I
feel that any racist overtones that
may be gathered by the playing of
"Dixie" at the University are the
result of a traditionally racist
atmosphere here, and have nothing
to do with the song itself. It seems
that the Student Council is trying
to gloss over this atmosphere and
present a rosy picture for Negro
applicants by doing away with one
of the more harmless and enjoyable
traditions at the University.

Finally, I object to any group in
authority here at the University,
whether it be the administration or
the Student Council, that will
attempt to restrict what I may say
(or sing) or hear as a student at the
University.

Words Of Wisdom

In the last few days the University
has seen the emergence of a
united student-faculty-clergy coalition
which is combating the institutionalized
racism so prevalent in
our local community, as well as in
the country at large.

For those who have had the
eyes to see and recognize the evils
of racism which permeate the country
in general, and this University in
particular, the thrust of the coalition's
efforts are heartwarming.
However, a sizeable number of
people in this Academic Community
are in doubt and confusion
towards this grave issue. I would
ask these people to reflect on the
words of Norman Mailer, who himself
is facing another of the issues
threatening to destroy this country
- the vastness of the military-industrial
complex, and its influence
upon governmental policies. Although
the immediate issue is different
from racism in this context,
the effect on our country is the
same.

"America - the land where a
new kind of man was born from
the idea that God was present in
every man not only as compassion
but as power, and so the
country belonged to the
people;

Broad on that country who
expresses our will. She is
America, once a beauty of magnificence
unparalleled, now a
beauty with a leprous skin. She
is heavy with child - no one
knows if legitimate - and languishes
in a dungeon whose
walls are never seen. Now the
first contractions of her fear -
some labor begins - it will go
on: no doctor exists to tell the
hour. It is only known that false
labor is not likely on her now,
no, she will probably give birth,
and to what? - the most fear
some totalitarianism the world
has ever known? Or can she,
poor giant, tormented lovely
girl, deliver a babe of a new
world brave and tender, artful
and wild? Deliver us from our
curse, for we must end on the
road to that mystery...

Rienzi Reply

I am frequently dismayed when
reading letters to the editor, usually
written in response to editorial
comment or to letters from other
readers, to note how often and how
widely they miss the point. An
instance, among many, is Mr.
Rienzi's letter in your Feb. 25th
issue replying to Prof. Danielson's
position on the ROTC unit here at
U.Va.

My purpose is not to express
allegiance to the views of either of
these gentlemen, but to question
the manner of Mr. Rienzi's reply. It
is clear, of course, that he and
others see the ROTC as a means of
altering their military obligations,
with which I have no quarrel.
Having been drafted myself some
years ago, I sympathize wholeheartedly
with his sentiments.

What I must ask, however, is
why Mr. Rienzi considers personal
attacks upon Mr. Danielson - a
pacifist by the standards of the
most exacting purist - to be either
necessary or desirable. For example,
he makes repeated and pointlessly
sarcastic reference to "the
learned assistant professor of mathematics."
Apart from a desire for
personal denigration, what is the
purpose of this sort of thing? As
Mr. Rienzi so visibly never bothered
to find out, Mr. Danielson would be
the last to aspire to a psoture of
inflated self-importance. It may
amuse Mr. Rienzi to try out his
courtroom techniques on some
contrived victim, but to those who
know Mr. Danielson and his convictions,
it is little more than tasteless
exhibitionism. Why did he feel
moved to introduce this tone? What
does it have to do with the matter
at issue? If he wished tolerant men
to act "reasonably," why has he so
effectively cut off "reasonable"
discussion by this deplorable device?
What reader of Mr. Rienzi's
letter would now expect a "reasonable"
statement from him, in the
sense in which he professes to use
the word?

Again, Mr. Rienzi has imposed
the least creditable construction
upon Mr. Danielson's statement, in
suggesting that his principal grievance
is the disruption of his classes,
and that he proposes something
akin to a student riot as a stimulus
to a change of university policy.
Does Mr. Rienzi know this to be
the case? I am less concerned with
the untruth of these insinuations
than by Mr. Rienzi's very evident
indifference toward finding out
whether they were true before
setting them up for attack. Why, I
repeat, did he not ask someone
about this, particularly Danielson
himself? Were one to adopt Mr.
Rienzi's own mode of response, one
might suppose that he deliberately
avoided finding out, lest he deprive
himself of an opportunity for some
trial-lawyer histrionics, a little display
- just for his own kicks,
perhaps? - of the rhetoric of
special pleading. Unfair? Probably.
But then, why did he go about it
this way?

May I propose that to act
reasonably implies not merely to
act with appropriate restraint, but
also to act in the light of some
understanding of one's motives in
so acting. Could an appeal be made
to the potential writers of letters
such as the one discuss here that
they ask themselves first why they
find themselves moved to personal
attack, the approach which involved
diminishing the stature of
the other person, rather than, say,
to an open discussion of the idea
involved?

Every responsible thinker who
reflects upon the current scene
pleads for open public discussion of
the myriad issues which confront
us. Such discussion is indispensable
if we are ever to free ourselves from
the mess we are in. To foreclose
discussion, communication, understanding,
cooperation by reducing
discussion to epithet and invective
is the furthest thing from what
anyone recognizes as "reasonable"
behavior.

Golf Team Funds

This letter is not written for the
express purpose of eliciting public
opinion but merely in hopes that it
will reach the eyes of Mr. Steve
Sebo. It is in reference to our golf
team. For years the golf team has
been led down the primrose path in
terms of financial aid. We have been
told time and again that as soon as
we assert ourselves and prove
ourselves worthy the Athletic Department
will reach into their
not-so-meager pockets and fork
over a few coins. Well, last year the
golf team truly proved that they
should receive some funds. Besides
winning the state championship for
the first time in twenty years and
being ranked second in the ACC
prior to the ACC tournament
(which is quite an accomplishment
since Wake Forest is nationally
ranked), we came in seventh out of
fifteen teams in the Palmetto
Invitational in Orangeburg, S.C. last
spring break (which is an accomplishment
in itself since three of the
first six teams annually received
nationally recognition). But this
showing was overshadowed by the
fact that only the players of
University had to pay all their own
expenses (room, board, and even
entry fee). The only thing we
received was five golf balls, some of
which we obtained only after
returning to school. Mr. Sebo, you
told us that if the Athletic Department
made money this past football
season some funds would be
allocated the golf team. Well, the
football team did make money
($80,000 of which was made in one
game). Yet, even now we are
receiving no funds for this season. I
don't quite understand how the
University can pay a major part of
the $25,000 expansion on University
Hall, yet cannot give the golf
team around $350 for this coming
tournament over spring break. I
think it about time the golf team
obtain some of the benefits received
by other major sports. We
have shown our worth. Now it is
time for the Athletic Department
to back its word.

Popular President

You state in the February 20
issue of The Cavalier Daily "if the
President of the Student Council
cannot speak on behalf of the
students of the University of
Virginia, who can?" No person
elected by twenty-two people can.
As soon as University of Virginia
has a popularly elected student
body president that person can
start speaking for the gentlemen of
this University.