University of Virginia Library

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.