University of Virginia Library

Rationale For Revolution

In just a few weeks another session will be
over. Students will go off into the summer
and administrators will settle back and sigh
with relief that, if nothing else, they have
managed to avoid violence on the Grounds
this year. And if this summer is like other
summers, it will be spent fruitlessly. Administrators
will wait until fall to start dealing
with student activism in an ad hoc manner
again; students will take several months to get
organized. Then the cycle of dissidence will
start all over again, escalating perhaps just a
little higher, or perhaps to violence.

Sober observers around the Grounds in
both camps have been speculating in recent
weeks, wondering if the absurd drama that led
to tragedy at Harvard, Cornell, and other
campuses need be repeated here. They wonder
what it will take to get this University moving
in the direction envisaged by its founder 150
years ago. They wonder whether the students
most concerned will have the patience to
accept the limitations of the University and
the capabilities of humans to change their
ways, and they wonder whether those
presently charged with the responsibility for
the University's destiny will accept that
responsibility with the wisdom, courage, and
sincerity that those responsibilities demand.
They wonder whether imperative goals will be
lost in a morass of frustration and bitterness,
violence and reaction.

All of these doubts and fears are essentially
new to us, for the University has never been
confronted with such a demand for movement
backed by such a deep commitment.
Revolution has always been something encountered
in textbooks, and now we are
confronted with one in the making. Or
perhaps, as Kenneth Kenniston noted, in the
April 27 New York Times Magazine, we are
merely seeing the logical and accelerated
conclusion of a revolution started centuries
ago, lost in intervening years, and only
recently imbued with a new group of
dedicated proponents. Whatever the case, we
must accept the current movement as a
revolution and deal with it in those terms.

At the same time, we must accept the fact
that violent or unreasoning tactics will, just as
they destroyed the McCarthy anti-Communist
movement in the 50's, destroy this one by
alienating the moderate bloc of silent
supporters necessary for its success. The
University is not an island, and it can be
affected by forces beyond its control, forces
of which the state legislature is only a small
portion. If the University is to have a
revolution, it must be a quiet one, one that
will have the support of the silent moderates
and will not arouse the reaction of the
wrathful old ladies in tennis sneakers who
exert such pressure on the Nixons in our
society.

In his diary, Che Guevara explained the
imminent success of his revolution by saying
that if the people did not voluntarily support
it they could be neutralized by terrorism. The
cult of activists who believe that seizing
buildings is the way a small cadre may
precipitate the revolution subscribe essentially
to this Guevaran philosophy. It didn't work in
the Bolivian mountains, and it won't work
here. Moreover, in making their revolution,
they are destroying the bases of freedom to
which they dedicate it. Once those bases are
destroyed, the door is open for the Godwins
and Reagans and Mitchells to step in and
impose their concepts of a University upon us.

The University can fulfill its potential if
those who wish to see it do so are willing to
accept and complete the most difficult task of
working quietly and from within existing
structures. There is a definite need for a
counter-pressure against the forces of bigotry
and the status quo, but that pressure must be
applied in such a way that it will complement
the goals of the movement rather than detract
from them. Violence at Universities is often
the direct result of administrative stupidity,
the atmosphere of police and military power
that has been passed to students, and
intransigent reaction to any progressive steps
from certain segments of society. Just as we
reject the system that they seek to impose on
us, we must reject the temptation to violence
they offer if we are to eventually build
something better.