University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Readers Criticize Rosen

Rational men can hope that the
students, faculty, and
administration of this university
will not be footed or intimidated by
the blatantly unveiled threats of
those such as Mr. Rosen who would
try to grasp by force that which
they could not gain by persuasion.
Behind his effusive sarcasm and
out-of-context quoting of Thomas
Jefferson in his "Prospectus For
The University," Mr. Rosen has
quite clearly presented his most
telling point — either play the
game his way or go for your guns.
Unless we supinely accept changes
he desires, we are told, we must
face the consequences, "perhaps by
riot." If his ultimatum for more
student-faculty control of the
University cannot be carried by
intellectual persuasion, he will not
hesitate to condone the primary
tool of anti-intellectualism—force.

It is seldom that those who
desire power are so open about
their intentions. But Mr. Rosen has
very frankly revealed that causes
espoused by him and his kindred in
spirit are not supported from
genuine sympathy but out of the
tactical belief that these causes will
advance that climb to power. Thus
his suggestion that dissidents ray
behind the push to achieve more
Negro student-faculty
representation on campus is not
made due to honest desire to aid
the educational advancement of an
often-stified minority but only out
of a necessity to "command respect
in literate circles." Power-sers
have long realized the tactical
beneficence of using genuine
reform movements for ulterior
ends, just as they have recognized
that if this tactic does not gain
them the respect which they so
desperately need, they still have the
weapons of intimidation and
violence in reserve. The interesting
feature of Mr. Rosen's article is that
is presented both tactics in one shot
to nakedly reveal the
anti-intellectualism of his goals.

Mr. Rosen has ignored the
principle that he who owns the
property decides it manner of
operation. If one disagrees with
that manner of operation. If one
disagrees with that manner of
operation, he may try to convince
the owners of change, or, if that
fails, leave the property. But one
does not have the right to use
physical force to dictate change to
that which he does not own. It is
interesting that Mr. Rosen does not
propose the creation of a rival
institution based on his ideals of
management but instead advocates
the use of force to dictate change in
the operation of a preexisting
institution whether the owners of
that institution agree or not. Since
Mr. Rosen had contributed neither
his money, time, nor intellect to
the construction or maintenance of
this university, he has no rights of
ownership to determine policy. The
only legitimate path open to him is
the path of persuasion. If the
owners of the university or their
representative are not convinced of
the rationality of his position, he
has no right to force his views on
those who do not wish them.

Since a university is an
institution dedicated to pursuits of
the mind, the mindless force
advocated by Mr. Rosen should be
rejected by all rational members of
the University who wish to
maintain and protect this
institution as an invaluable agent of
intellectual persuasion.

Unveiled Threats

Perhaps the students and faculty
of this University owe Mr. Robert
Rosen a vote of thanks for writing
his disturbing "Prospectus for the
University." Not, to be sure, for his
carefully selective and highly
unbalanced invocation of that most
complex figure, Thomas Jefferson;
but rather for an exposition of the
Rosen program that even Mr.
Rosen's, carefully constructed
facade of commitment to
"democracy" cannot conceal.

For it appears that the primary
goal of Mr. Rosen's endeavors is
neither democracy nor "rights" nor
justice, but power. The heart of his
article is that sentence which
declares, "The students and faculty
must begin to understand
power—less in terms of genteel
letters to the Editor than in terms
of decisive steps taken to put power
into the hands of the faculty and
students themselves."

It is not so much the shift in the
locus of power, however, but the
method Mr. Rosen proposes for its
accomplishment that constitutes a
danger to the very foundations of
intellectual freedom. The end is
made to justify the means, and the
author of the "Prospectus" does
not shrink even from advocating
the use of force. On the contrary,
he asserts frankly his commitment
to change "hopefully by discussion,
probably be peaceful
demonstration, perhaps by riot."

Realizing that a successful resort
to force would require strength, Mr.
Rosen proposes that "the first
large-scale demonstration" should
utilize the drawing power of a
popular cause, one that can
"command respect in literate
circles." Thus it is evident that he
embraces the civil rights struggle
not primarily out of belief in its
aims but first and foremost because
it is, as he states, "the best cause
for our purposes"—i.e., a suitable
tool for use in the quest for power.
Here is revealed the basis for that
unhappy alliance of the naive
idealist and the purposeful
revolutionary which has so often
been evident in the disruptions of
the last few years.

Certainly no one would dispute
any individual's right peacefully
and rationally to pursue any
legitimate objective. But one must
instinctively beware of those who
would allow passion and
destruction to prevail over reasoned
discussion, while at the same time
protesting their devotion to a
statesman who once swore "upon
the altar of God trial against
every form of tyranny over the
mind of man."

Peaceable Change

Regarding Mr. Rosen's essay "A
Prospectus for the University":

1) Thomas Jefferson was not a
revolutionary all his life. Any
aggravated peasant can assist in
tearing down an establishment; did
Jefferson's genius lie in his
destruction or construction of a
society?

2) Staging "demonstrations" or
"Disruptions" here, contrary to Mr.
Rosen's hopes, will not necessarily
thrust the University back into the
mainstream of collegiate activity or
improve our standing in the eyes of
the nation. Recent polls, indicating
a distinct conservative trend in the
country, point rather to the
opposite result.

3) One must agree, however,
with Mr. Rosen's statement that "it
is possible that an enlightened
Administration will deal fairly with
legitimate student proposals." It
would in fact seem "probable"
rather than just "possible" because
such recent Administration actions
as those regarding female dormitory
visitors, beer in Newcomb Hall, car
regulations, etc., are indeed proof
that "Things can change peaceably
here." For that very reason, and
despite the fact that no one, even
students, can get what they want all
the time, "disruptions" at the
University of Virginia would not
only be irrational, but would
undermine the generally good
relations between students and
Administration which we enjoy.
Therefore, any self-interest group
which would attempt to coerce the
Administration by creating another
Columbia or Chicago incident here
would be doing the University
community a great disservice.