University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

The Right To Be Offensive Must Be Protected

It can only be attributed to
liberal beating-around-the-bush that
in all the controversy over the Scott
Stadium flag waving incident the
central issue has been ignored: the
ardent flag-waver, for all his
alleged offensiveness was acting
within his rights of expression. In
this light it is not his guilt that
stands out but, rather, the involved
black are seen to be guilty of
intolerance and, far worse, of
repression.

Even were we to assume that
this waving of the confederate flag
represented racist beliefs, we
cannot prevent a man from
expressing his beliefs. It is only
when he acts on his beliefs in a
manner calculated to do us injury
can we take action against him. We
cannot punish one merely for his
beliefs no matter how 'offensive'
we may find them.

Nor can we assume that the
gentleman meant to put his racism
on display when he waved his flag.
Likely he did not; symbols are far
too complex to tie to one meaning
and one meaning only. The
confederate flag itself is used as the
banner of the Patriot Party, a
radical organization of poor whites
which is dedicated to fighting
racism and which has intimate
connections with the Black Panther
Party. Those who remember the old
SSOC (the Southern Student
Organizing Committee, long since
merged with—some would say
swallowed up by—the SDS) will
remember the large part played by
the confederate flag in its emblem.

I personally was not at the
game— and am therefore dependent
on the C.D.'s no doubt inspired
accounts—because I wished to
participate in the minuscule Attica
protest demonstration.

At this demonstration many
banners were displayed which were,
of course, offensive to many. This
is done consciously, deliberately, as
a means of political agitation;
sometimes people must be shaken
into action. In a supposedly free
society we have these rights and
they must be maintained—we must
protect our right to make ourselves
as offensive as we wish.

Finally—if the University and
Student Council act in typical
fashion by sweeping the whole
business under the rug with a
blanket ban on flags in Scott
Stadium, are we to assume that the
ban applies to our own Stars and
Stripes? Some find that flag to be
offensive and the nationalism it
represents may well pose a greater
threat to civilization than any
amount of racism.

Solemn Humbugs

Robin Lind's commentary,
"Education 1971," was well done;
but he did not relate the depth of
the idiocy behind the decision to
build a new building for the School
of Education. It is far too late to
start "kicking the Education School
in the backside" but not too late, I
hope, to convert the facility into a
garage.

Why spend money on an
institution which produces silly and
solemn humbugs? An undergraduate
education major of my
acquaintance (mea culpa!) was
bothered with the question, "What
does a teacher do about an unruly
child"; his range of response was
limited to placing a waste basket on
the child's head or smacking him in
the teeth. Another acquaintance, a
graduate student (mea maxima
culpa!), was asked to write book
reports and nothing more. Her
typical level of response was "I gave
it a sixty-five, I liked the words but
you can't dance to it."

How did they get the money?
Who knows? But the Education
School is self-perpetuating: with
the present level of academic
sensitivity no future students will
be wise enough to say "Halt!"

'Enlightenment Period'

Ever since my first year here in
the fall of 1968 various issues in
community living have arisen under
the name of the "racial" issue.
Sparked by the "Enlightenment" of
Bud Ogle's tenure on the Student
Council, the University students
actively campaigned for increased
black admissions in an effort to
make this community somewhat
reflective of the society that it was
attempting to educate. During this
"Enlightenment" period, students'
attention was focused on such
archaic, inconsiderate, and immoral
cultural carry-overs of this
community as the waving of the
Confederate flag at football games
and the playing of "Dixie" on the
University radio station at sign-off.
During the controversy over these
practices, their connection with the
American racist heritage was hotly
debated.

Although it seems as though the
connection with this American
heritage was never finally
established to the satisfaction of
the community, one point became
crystal clear; the blacks in this
community were genuinely
offended by these practices. The
question remains—Why do certain
people persist in these practices
when they know full well that they
are offending members of our
University community? Extended
inconsiderate behavior of this type
can only be continued with severe
consequences for our University
community.

Racial Slander

This concerns some of the most
overt racism I have witnessed since
I have been at the University of
Virginia. It happened at last
Saturday's football game. While I
was sitting in the stands there were
several whites around me referring
to a couple of the black football
players as "boys." They were
saying things such as "Get that
boy" and "Run over that boy."
These remarks were directed
toward our quarterback Harrison
Davis and the opposing team's
flanker Walter Overton. When I first
heard the word "boy" I though
these people were using it as a
figure of speech; however, when
they reiterated that word I took it
as a racial slander. This is just an
example of the racial slurs I have
heard at this University. The black
students here still are not respected
by some of the white students.

While I do not expect every
white person to call every black
person "sir" I do expect more
consideration for us than I have
witnessed so far. I do not think that
the termination of racial
name-calling will serve as a panacea
for the elimination of racism, but it
will definitely serve as an asset.

Potential Exists

During my first four years at the
University I noticed myself to be
one of those avid
letter-to-the-editor writers who
rarely ever seemed to get around to
the pen and paper stage. Please bear
with me now through a few
reflections upon Randy Wert's
"Progress Report" in the 9/27 CD.

First of all let me say that I've
been going to all the games in Scott
Stadium since Fall of 1967, and
even prior to Mr. Wert's letter I had
not written off the Wahoos for Fall
71. The potential is definitely
there, both in players and coaching.
I noted that at least once on
Saturday, Lawrence gathered the
entire offense down at one end of
the bench and made a few emphatic
suggestions. That is a new and
welcome sight on the Cavalier
sideline.

As for Mr. Wert's impressions of
the game, he is entitled to his
opinions. As a reader and Wahoo
fan I'm entitled to react.

Ir seems best to start with our
areas of agreement. He said the play
calling lacked originality. I agree.
Mr. Wert said that, "Virginia
showed a steady offense, not
flawless, but efficient." I agree that
it was not flawless.

On the debit side of the ledger,
(note the neat transitional phrase) I
did disagree on a few points; or
perhaps I misunderstood. He said
"it just seems to always happen
[Mr. Wert's grammar] [sic] to the
Wahoos." Does this mean we really
didn't see all the things we thought
we saw on Saturday? Was it those
funny little cigarettes or what?

And just to prove I'm as
philosophical as he is, I must apply
Foster's Law (alias Murphy's Law)
to the Dook game. That is: if
anything can possibly go wrong, it
will. Just as Randy did, I noted
improvement over the Navy game,
and I'm hopeful that Foster's Law
will not hold true for the rest of the
season. And I have confidence in
Coach Lawrence, for it is indeed
"up to he and the team [again, Mr.
Wert's grammar]." [sic]