University of Virginia Library

Answers Mr. Bines

I would like an opportunity to
answer the letter of Mr. Bines
which appeared in Saturday's CD.
For his sake, I hope that he reads
his law school assignments with
more care than he apparently gave
my original letter.

First, I do not deny the connection
between morality and law.
Certainly many laws and regulations
are passed because of moral
considerations. My point was
simply that when an act is done for
no reason other than compulsion,
it is not a moral act. Morality
is possible only where choice exists.

Second, I did not address my
discussion to the power of the University
to make a segregation regulation,
but the wisdom and propriety
of doing so. Certainly the
University has such power; it has
power to make any rule of conduct
it chooses, so long as it does
not conflict with rules made by a
higher authority. I need not repeat
the reasons why I feel that
the Council's action was unwise.

Mr. Bines carefully misquotes
my letter, a thing I would have
thought he was taught not do before
entering law school. I expressly
stated that the University
may properly regulate conduct
other than simply that which the
law already prohibits. Most such
regulations deal with private action
relating to the demeanor of students,
and the major question in
determining whether to pass such
a regulation is whether it is wise.
By turning the discussion into one
of power, Mr. Bines avoids the
issues, which is convenient but not
particularly helpful. Finally, Mr.
Bines makes an additional point,
that the regulation is justified because
the organizations affected
are entitled to use the name of
the University and are assisted by
University funds. I submit that
this is no distinction.

Every student at this University
carries its name with him wherever
he goes, and by his conduct either
enhances or demeans that name.
That name goes into a segregated
establishment when carried by an
individual student just as when it
is carried by an organization, and
the applicable principles in determining
appropriate regulation are
the same. Furthermore, every student
receives financial assistance
from the University, whether it is
institutionalized in the form of a
grant or not. There is no one so
naive as to think that his tuition
and fees come close to covering
the entire cost of his education
here; the legislature makes massive
appropriations each session to
cover the deficit.

There is, therefore, no difference,
under that analysis, between
the reasons supposed to justify this
regulation of organizations and
those which would justify its extension
to individual students. I
dare say that Mr. Bines would
be shocked if he were told that
he was forbidden to enter an
establishment because it supported
a political or social policy of which
the University community disapproved.