University of Virginia Library

Student Answer Professors' Letter

Letters To The Editor

I write in response to "Professors
Circulate Letter Against
Anti-War Marches," CD, October
31. I object to the letter on three
grounds: 1) that it is based on a
fundamental misunderstanding of
the nature of the Vietnam war;
2) that the sentiments of sympathy
with "the suffering of the Vietnamese
people" expressed in the
letter are phony; 3) that the intent
of the letter is to stifle the
growth of meaningful opposition to
the war and to channel peoples'
anti-war impulses into counterproductive
efforts through traditional
forms-in other words, into trust
in the ruling elite to make the
basic decisions.

The "enemy" is not counting on
anti-war protests to win their fight
for them. For evidence on this
point I offer the fact that Hanoi
and the NLF have repeatedly affirmed
that they will keep fighting
no matter what until the Americans
are run out. Also the testimony
of Americans who have met
with representatives of the DRV
and the NLF that the Vietnamese
are cognizant of the great power
of the American government and
the relative powerlessness of antiwar
'marches. It is not because of
false optimism that Hanoi refuses
to negotiate on America's terms,
but rather because of justified optimism
based on their own
domestic success and because of
an adamant unwillingness to surrender
any of their national
autonomy.

To force the Vietnamese to the
conference table (if it were possible)
would not end their "tragic suffering."
It would institutionalize
it in colonialism. For the Vietnamese
to confer would be their
submission to slavery.

Not only do the professors in
their letter misunderstand the war,
we see, but they advise against
anyone else understanding it. They
try to cast anti-war demonstrators
as people who simply hate to see
guns going off, other issues being
unimportant, in which case the
anti-war movement would object
just as much to defense against
American aggression and 'Saigon
fascism as to that aggression and
fascism itself. In actuality the antiwar
protest is generally directed exactly
where it should be, i.e.,
against the aggressive policy of the
U.S. government and toward
building a resistance among American
victims of that policy.

A "just and honorably peace"
to the signers of the letter means
a U.S. victory. They object to
anti-war protest because it denies
the justice of such a solution.

Jefferson Slandered?

On your page of Tuesday, October
24th, you reprinted an editorial
from The Richmond Times-Dispatch
of October 22nd entitled,
"Slandering Mr. Jefferson," which
I assume was composed by Mr.
V. Dabney. In it, he called on
Dr. Fletcher to apologize for his
"slanderous remark," referring to
a jocular reference that Dr.
Fletcher made to "another Jeffersonian
plan, that of providing
a 'brothel or bordello' for University
students."

Mr. Dabney unfortunately had
not consulted the University Administration,
which had received
an apology from Dr. Fletcher,
dated September 29th. In that letter
to Mr. William Hobbs, Dr.
Fletcher said:

"You have my apology instantly
and without reservation. I feel
badly if any mention of that part
of Jefferson's plan according to
the 'oral tradition' has caused you
pain or the University embarrassment.

"It is a little hard for me to
see how it can be retracted, it is
so firmly a part of the gossip of
American history."

There you have it: an apology
and the reasons for saying it in the
first place.

I am frankly amused that the
Times-Dispatch could not have
let it pass with a smile or a disdainful
shake of the head when Dr.
Fletcher referred to it-and most
present laughed-on September
24th. But Mr. Real, a student of
the University and a reporter for
the T-D, saw fit to write it in
and the paper to print it. Now
the editorial. Shall we press the
matter further?