University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Students Resent Class Cut Policy

I am writing to protest what
I consider to be an injudicious
and unjustifiable administrative
policy of this University: I refer
to the requirements concerning
mandatory class attendance.

This matter was brought to my
attention when one of the students
in my suite received a letter from
his Association Dean, informing
him that "Our absence records
indicate that you have been missing
classes without apparent excuse,
(my friend concedes this, with
reservations.) We believe that a
student who does not attend classes
regularly will find that his academic
work has been seriously affected.
(sheer balderdash—it does not follow:
one is very likely to cut a
class in a course in which one is
maintaining a good grade. My
friend, for example, finds that he is
receiving his highest grade in the
course which he most often cuts!)
Therefore, should you continue to
absent yourself from classes, you
will shortly be placed on Attendance
Probation, with the same
penalties as if you were on Academic
Probation." This is sheer
idiocy. If the administration wants
to differentiate between those who
attend class regularly and those
who don't (which it shouldn't),
the answer is not a ludicrous and
artificial penalty for those who
don't, but rather "I Am A Good
Citizen" buttons for those who do!

The very heart of the matter,
though—the reason why the present
policy is unconscionable—is that
it manifestly denies that the gentlemen
of the University of Virginia
are competent to administer their
own affairs, independent of official
Big Brotherism. Class attendance
is the duty and responsibility of each of us...it is not the responsibility
of the Deans, who must have
more crucial things to do than
sign these inane letters which reflect
a kindergartenish attitude toward
college education.

I would suggest then, that class
attendance, like the Honor System
and the student government, be
proclaimed the responsibility of the
students themselves, and that,
henceforth, attendance be on a
voluntary basis—deriving from
each individual's evaluation of his
needs—as is the case at virtually
all of the leading universities in
the U.S. and abroad. Attendance
would remain mandatory for all
tests and quizzes.

Such a decision would, I believe,
be welcomed by the vast
majority of teachers, who must
surely resent the necessity, under
the present system, of calling roll
to accommodate an incredibly
juvenile outlook. And I am sure
that students would wholeheartedly
support the decision, reflecting,
as it would, a reaffirmation of
the University's trust in our integrity
and responsibility in the
pursuit of our education.

Thanks PUMPKIN

May I ask your assistance in
expressing to the members of the
Pumpkin Society my warm
gratitude and most sincere
appreciation of their recent kindness.

War And Youth

The effects of the Vietnam war
have gradually infiltrated into the
homes of all Americans. The great
war debates of the 1960's will be
recorded in the history books as
the most disrupting elements to
rip apart this country in the last
several decades.

The great controversy which has
been created by this war is astounding
and at the same time
frightening. The youth of America
have taken up the challenge to
at least examine the pros and cons
of the Johnson Administration's
position in Vietnam. And when
war becomes a life and death
proposition for many young people
it is their right and indeed their
duty to stand up and be counted.

This letter is not written to uphold
or criticize the peace demonstrators
for their actions across
the nation. But rather I am writing
this letter in answer to the position
taken by several faculty members
as outlined in their letter of
October 31, 1967 to The Cavalier
Daily.

The argument has been put
forth that demonstrators "tend to
prolong the war by misleading the
Hanoi government." I doubt that
this opinion can be substantiated,
for the Johnson Administration has
reiterated time and again that the
United States will stand fast to
its present policy in Vietnam. And
in recent weeks Secretary of State
Dean Rusk lashed out at Vietnam
war critics.

What is important is not what
the Hanoi government thinks of
these demonstrators but rather
what the government in Washington
thinks. If a government
becomes more and more alienated
from the desires of its people, then
a real crisis occurs.

The faculty members went on to
disclose that the leaders in Hanoi
have consistently refused to
negotiate a peaceful settlement of
the war. Let me ask the faculty
members whose country is being
bombed relentlessly day after day?
My friends in Vietnam tell me
that the North Vietnamese troops
consist of many boys between the
ages of 13 to 17. Can the government
in Hanoi coerce parents to
give up their children to a senseless
cause, or do the North Vietnamese
citizens see their conflict as a fight
against savage colonialism?

Being a major in the department
of foreign affairs, I have
been schooled in the necessity of
pragmatic approaches to foreign
policy analysis. Thus I cannot
advocate a complete withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Vietnam at
this time. But an unconditional halt
of U.S. bombing could be instituted.

It should be observed that a
rising tide of student alienation
is sweeping across this nation.
The only way a student can voice
his opposition to any issue is by
marching. While I do not advocate
protesting for the sake of protesting,
if a student is convinced
that his sentiments are not being
considered by the so-called establishment,
then he should rise to
participate in demonstrations. This
is what happened in Washington
two weeks ago.