University of Virginia Library

Counselor Complaints

Your editorial of March 21
entitled "The Counselor Complaints"
unfortunately obscures
the true issue here at stake. That
issue is whether a disciplinary
body at the University should be
allowed to employ a procedure
which is fundamentally unfair in
imposing punishment which can
result in expulsion from the dormitory
and which is recorded in a student's
permanent record. With that
issue in mind, consider some of the
remarks of your editorialist.

The first expresses confidence
that investigation will reveal that
the "two counselors acted properly."
This is basically irrelevant
because the actual guilt or innocence
of Chase or Longfellow
is not at issue. What is at issue
is their right to a fair determination
of that guilt or innocence-and
a procedure embodying secret
testimony by an accuser is not
fair.

Your editorialist contends that
the counseling program "is an excellent
example of student self-government
at work." Counselors
are appointed, not elected, and
this appointment (as well as the
free rooms occupied by virtue of
their position) is dependent upon
their remaining in the good graces
of Mr. Titus and Mr. Main. If
this be self-government, then Mr.
Runk is a pot pusher.

Your editorialist next rebukes
Messrs. Chase and Longfellow
for injecting "irrelevant comments
about their 'Constitutional rights'
in the affair," apparently on the
grounds that there is some legal
doubt whether Constitutionally
mandated procedures must be applied
to state action at lower
levels. It should be noted, however,
that due process under the Constitution
is designed to insure fairness
and, again, the issue here is
not must fair procedures be employed,
but should they be?

The Honor Committee and the
Judiciary Committee have procedures
guaranteeing rudimentary
fairness to an accused. Perhaps
your editorialist should ask his
oracle why the Executive Committee
should not also be fair in its
procedure and why individuals who
have been denied such fairness
without justification should not
have a legitimate grievance.

Michael C. Willner
3rd Year Law

Because of the unique nature of the
selling system and of the situation
in the dorms in general, and because
letters on this matter from both sides
have tended to distort the nature and
details of the incident, The Cavalier
Daily will print no further letters on
this issue until after the results of the
Student Council investigation are
publicized.-Ed.