University of Virginia Library

Anti-Orientation And The SSOC

Among the reams of introductory
literature which greeted this year's entering
class during orientation week was a letter
(slipped under their doors) from the Southern
Student Organizing Committee which, to put
it as mildly as possible, indicated to them that
there might be another side of the University
and all its components than the one to which
they are exposed in the various orientation
meetings. Certainly that advice is legitimate,
and in many cases for the very reasons the
SSOC members suggest. We feel, however,
that in several instances the SSOC has, at best,
overstated its case.

The rather irresponsible statement that the
central purpose of the University of Virginia
as outlined in the University Record is "a lie"
is objectionable for two reasons. The first of
these is that such a subjective definition of
purpose, while it may not be wholly true,
can hardly be deemed an outright lie; it's too
much of a value judgment. The second reason
is that there is something unnecessarily
inflammatory about calling anyone a liar or
anything a lie in any community, especially in
one based on honor such as this one is.

We cannot accept the SSOC's version of
what the University is achieving: "In
particular, the University of Virginia serves to
condition people so that they will accept and
participate in this state's oligarchy, racist, and
exclusionist political system and economic
structure." We agree that many of the
University's alumni emerge, to a greater or
lesser degree, in the frame of mind the SSOC
suggests. We cannot help wondering, however,
whether that is the fault of the individual or
of his overall background rather than of his
four years here. At the same time we must
admit that the University is certainly no
powerful force against perpetuation of the
overall situation of the state; after all, the
University is obviously an institution of the
state and all that goes with it.

We-are very interested in the SSOC's charge
that "outside interests invest their money,
talent, and time in the University; and their
investment yields certain returns, such as
channeled brainpower, conditioned acceptance
of the system, and elimination of dissidents."
The SSOC promises in its letter to prove this
charge "with studies to be released later this
year." If the SSOC can, indeed, prove that
unnatural activity such as the letter suggests is
going on, we will be happy to publish its
findings in The Cavalier Daily for all to see,
students and alumni alike; for the type of
activity it suggests ("elimination of dissidents,
etc.") is not only counter to Mr. Jefferson's
belief in pursuit of the truth, but it holds
serious implications about the quality and
scope of the education the University offers.
We hope the SSOC will accept our challenge.

The SSOC's next "charge" is that the
purpose of orientation week is "to mold you
(the new students) into the accepted pattern
of University life." What else, we ask, does
anyone expect of any orientation program?

Then the SSOC warns the first-year men
that the counselors are agents of the
"establishment." Surely in that warning the
SSOC gives the entering students credit for
little, if any, sense. That the persons whose
main function is to introduce new members
into a community are agents of the accepted
or "established" of that community should be
self-evident to anyone of reasonable
intelligence.

The SSOC's suggestion that toleration of
heavy partying is the administration's
"price . . . to pay for a placated student
body" speaks for itself (and for the persons
who made it).

Finally, the charge that the orientation
process channels students "into thinking and
acting to serve the interests of people
completely outside the University
community" seems to assert first, that those
who go through orientation are helpless to
resist the "brainwashing" thereof, or, second,
that the thinking and acting engendered by
orientation does not serve the interests of
those within the University community.
Either charge is obviously absurd. Perhaps the
SSOC is merely distressed to find that so
many people have willfully accepted a system
which, for one reason or another, it has not
accepted (or, perhaps, by which it has not
been accepted).

We admire the SSOC's efforts to present
the other side of the picture, but we feel that
the other side is not so bad as the SSOC would
have it. What the SSOC calls "obvious lies,"
"false assumptions," and "propaganda" are
not exactly those things in everyone's
estimation. Even if they were, every new
student is free not to accept them with or
without the SSOC's helping hand. To believe
anything else would deny the sovereignty of
the individual.