University of Virginia Library

In Interests Of Better University Politics

Fraternity-Independent Split Called For

This is the first in a series intended
by its authors "to be a provocative
column of opinion," under the name
of "The Heretic." The columnists prefer
to remain anonymous "because
the purpose of the column," in their
words, "is to stimulate discussion, not
to offer a field of fire for personal
feuds." Anyone wishing to correspond
with "The Heretic" may reach him
c/o The Cavalier Daily.-Ed.

The best thing that could happen
to College politics would be a
"fraternity-independent split."
Candidates have been raising this
spectre for years as the ultimate
evil. They rarely bother to substantiate
the belief; it is an article
faith. When they do, they say that
if this horror were to appear, fraternity
men would vote only for
fraternity men and independents
only for independents, so only
independents would be elected,
and student government would be
unrepresentative, and its leaders
not always the best men.

Assuming for a moment the
first part of this reasoning, what
does the University's student
government have to lose? Could
the Student Council possibly be
less broadly representative than it
is now (90 per cent of the present
College delegation, but only 40
per cent of the College, is fraternity)?
And is student leadership
so good now that much would
be risked? Can anyone name anything
except girls-in-the-dorms that
student government could claim
to have done, much less that it
actually has done?

Look at it from a more positive
angle. Student politics are
supposed to be democratic. In
democracies, groups of people with
identifiable common interests
organize, either as parties or to
influence parties. They are doing
what comes naturally-trying to
advance their own interests. This
is more than acceptable, it is an
integral and crucial aspect of American
democracy.

So why shouldn't fraternity men
and independents drop the pretense
of total community of interests?
They are two different
interest groups, and should act
accordingly. The University Party,
specifically, has often been accused
of promoting a fraternity-independent
split by soliciting only
independents. Unfortunately this
has not been true. But the University
Party should make it true,
by making itself a party of independents.
The image it has
sought to create-the party of "new
ideas," which sound remarkably
like everyone else's, and of "service
to student government," which
student government's records just
don't show-that image is badly
tarnished, and a new one is necessary
anyway.

A fraternity-independent split
would be one step in the direction
of a more genuinely representative
student government, for it would
bring in one of the major groups
whose point of view has been
unrepresented. It is the only way
to induce more independents to
care about student politics. Now
student government is not directed
toward them at all and they are
not represented in it. An Independent
Party would be a reason,
a cause.

A split is one of the few ways
of making campaigns and elections
meaningful. Now they are
empty periods when well-dressed
candidates present the same ideas
(as each other's and as 1960's
candidates') and try to outdo each
other with promises of how they
will actually accomplish them-Tweeded-dy
and Tweeded-dumb.
A split would guarantee some
issues, however trivial, and some
emotion, however childish-(more
on student government in a later
column).

The crusher that current leaders
usually offer in painting their picture
of the horrible effects of the
split is to point to the University
of North Carolina and say that
everybody knows it's a bad situation
there. Obviously the implication
you are supposed to draw
from this is that only independents
are elected at North Carolina,
and student politics is as
a result terrible.

This is a falsehood, doubtless
offered out of wishful thinking and
ignorance rather than with a
conscious intent to deceive.
Though there is a split at UNC
and has been for sometime, fraternity
men continue to be elected
regularly and often-as do independents.

It is not surprising that fraternity
men are the loudest in
voicing fears of a fraternity-independent
split, for it would no
doubt reduce their current domination
of undergraduate life (though
the real threat is something entirely
different-a later column).
But the acquiescence of independents
in this notion is both
absurd and pathetic. There is
nothing wrong with working and
voting for governments' that represent
you, and independents
should do just that. And maybe
force fraternity men to call a spade
spade-to admit that they like
the status quo, the absence of the
split, because it benefits them-not
because it is "in the best interests
of the whole University community."