University of Virginia Library

Myopic View

I am writing in answer to George
McMillan's article in the Monday
Edition. That article is
demonstrative of such a myopic
view of the ends and means of the
Coalition that it should not go by
unchallenged.

First of all, Mr. McMillan says,
"the tactics (of the Coalition) are
futile if not downright destructive."
This is precisely the point: the
objective is to be destructive of
institutional racism at the University
as a first step toward realizing a
better atmosphere for living and
learning.

Mr. McMillan says, "the student
protesters have demonstrated an
intolerance" of those who are not
equally vociferous. This is not the
case. They do seem intolerant -
but not because people aren't loud
enough. They can't hear enough
people! They are intolerant of
those who do not see the validity,
the necessity, and the urgency in
1969 of the expressed goals. Are
they wrong, George?

In addition, their vociferousness
indicates a firm refusal to be easily
dissuaded from their position. Is
this attitude not laudable?

Mr. McMillan says, "Virginians
in general probably . . . have an
aversion to demonstrations," and
"Demonstrations . . . tend to polarize
. . . rather than . . . draw together."
This may be true, "in
general," but I doubt that you can
document that Virginians are opposed
to demonstrations, per se.
What is more fundamental is that
Virginians and many other people
prefer that assembly be peaceful,
and less indicative of bluster than
of genuine appeal for change, less
indicative of chaos than of coherence
of aims. On these two points,
the people of Virginia have little to
argue about. As an oft-quoted
editorial writer in another part of
this reticent state has put it: "(The
demonstrations) reflect credit on
the University."

Mr. McMillan says the demonstrations
have been more concerned
with "a show of strength than with
propagating the goals." I am surprised
that one of George's political
know-how does not (?) realize the
importance of a show of solidarity
and strength. As he said, this is a
state-supported institution. The
political overtones of the present
situation cannot be underemphasized.
And in the American
political system, a pressure group
(which the Coalition and the other
sympathetic students and faculty
may be said to comprise) have to
give evidence of strength and
numbers. (Yes, like the National
Rifle Association!)

Moreover, this is not to say that
signs of strength are more important
than the goals. But the
proposals are old hat. The ideas
have been around for so long. Being
without a neatly typed business
length draft by Tuesday two weeks
ago does not indicate that one is
uninterested in substantively
realizing the goals. Rather the goals
are decided upon. It is the working
out of the most efficient means of
bringing these to fruition that
rightly deserves primary attention
now.

Mr. McMillan questions the
propriety of directing certain of the
proposals "solely to University
officials." In this day of almost
instantaneous communications, I
doubt that Virginians are unaware
that certain of the eleven proposals
are directed not only to University
officials, but to the Governor and
the General Assembly.

But why not initially direct the
argument to University officials?
The Coalition is making an effort at
persuasion. Surely if University
officials, most visibly President
Shannon, were won to the necessity
and urgency of the goals, and
voiced a commitment to these, the
students would be half way home!
Mr. Shannon could then act as
mediator with the Governor and
the General Assembly firmly on the
students' side of the issues. (Is this
a real possibility or is it Valhalla?)

Furthermore, I would question
the propriety of any other initial
tactic. Would you rather, George,
that Mr. Shannon, in his representative
position, from the beginning
be bypassed? Mr. Shannon -
not a student or a student group -
is our customary spokesman in
Richmond.

Mr. McMillan pointed out that
"social reform cannot be accomplished
within a week and a day."
Perhaps, there is a point of
misunderstanding here. The students
have carefully not set deadlines,
not coerced University
officials. (Coercion would be burning
down Cabell Hall or occupying
Garrett for a day). Rather they
have asked only that the wheels for
effective change start rolling, immediately.
That is a far cry from
suggesting that social reform be
accomplished in a week and a day.

Mr. McMillan says, "the orderly
processes of the University have
been moving toward correcting
racial injustices which exist. When,
however, after fifteen years since
Brown vs. Topeka Bd. of Educ., et
al, integration of the U.Va. student
body stands at .5% (i.e., ½ of one
per cent), one begins to think
there's been a greater premium on
order than on moving. Should we
be satisfied with this percentage
figure?

Indeed, implementing major social
reform is qualitatively more
important than negotiating "visiting
arrangements in the dorms." The
aims are somewhat different, and
hence deserve attention on different
levels. The tactics employed
tend also to be different.

I question also some of the
assumption in the article. Force is
not necessarily the logical next
step. In fact, the best way to
subvert that possibility is to show
that moderation pays off. The
administration should ante-up with
a concrete, positive response to the
proposals.

I could go on and on. However,
one final word: When people attack
a moderate, coherent program for
change and a dignified code of
conduct, they only indicate to the
moderate leadership that their
means are inappropriate. Perhaps,
the nay say intend merely to
impede the process of change. But
they really encourage the moderates
to give up the reins of
leadership to those fond of sterner
measures. The process of change
will not be stilled. But a shift in
leadership can easily be brought
about,