University of Virginia Library

Standing Firm

Elsewhere on this page are a Colloquium
and a letter to the editor by two prominent
students in support of the Student Council
Presidential candidate whom we did not
endorse. After carefully reading both, and
discussing them with the authors, we
unreservedly stand by our endorsement in
these columns yesterday of Phil Chabot.

We welcome response, both pro and
con, to yesterday's editorial. It has always
been, and will always be our policy to
encourage and publish serious opinions on
this page whether or not they agree with our
own. But today we feel we must respond to
several specious charges.

First, we re-emphasize that we did indeed
spend several weeks arriving at our final
endorsement decision. After weighing the
issues and what we regard as our journalistic
responsibilities, we (The Managing Board of
The Cavalier Daily) concluded that we must
make an endorsement in the race for Student
Council President and that Phil Chabot should
receive it. This decision, as would be apparent
to anyone whom we consulted, was
never taken lightly. The nonsense statement
that the "CD (was) forced to ask current
Student Council President Tom Collier to
identify major issues just three days ago" is
based upon total unawareness of the
consultations with candidates and their
supporters which had already crystallized the
issues for us. We merely asked Mr. Collier last
Sunday for his conception of the issues.

After complaining that we did not
adequately portray Mr. Rinaca's
accomplishments, Mr. Shea, in his
colloquium, offers us little of substance which
we could have included in Mr. Rinaca's
behalf. The comparisons of the candidates'
involvement in University Tuesday ignores the
fundamental disagreement between Mr.
Chabot and Mr. Collier regarding the scope
and goals of the event. What the colloquium
says amounts to little more than an account
of the movements of the two candidates in
the days prior to University Tuesday. Both,
we feel, have accounted for themselves
acceptably, as we had expected they could.

What Mr. Shea leaves unsaid is that Mr.
Chabot attended every meeting of which he
was made aware, and offered any assistance
Mr. Collier might request of him. During at
least part of the time to which the
colloquium's charges allude, Mr. Chabot was
attempting to make the state legislature aware
of the significance of University Tuesday and
its relation to expansion.

After seeing Mr. Chabot's
recommendations on the revitalization of the
Lawn, Birdwood, and other issues, we can
only dismiss as ludicrous the insinuation that
all his efforts were merely "self-serving."

If the colloquium can cite a committee
member who considered Mr. Chabot's reports
to the Future of the University Committee as
being "of questionable value," we can cite
one who does not. So what?

The criticisms of Mr. Chabot's
recommendations as "paper- weight projects"
betray an obvious ignorance of their content
and purpose. If they have not received
administrative approval, we think Student
Council as a whole should shoulder the blame
along with the students who never cared
enough to press the issues.

What then, of Jim Rinaca? He did, very
respectably, serve as a member of the
Council's Organizations and Publications
Committee. He was once Student Council
Treasurer. He submitted a detailed and
conscientious report on Traffic and Parking.
We salute these efforts.

But we have not previously mentioned Mr.
Chabot's position as Student Council
Secretary or liaison to the First-Year Council.
We hoped to keep the choice before us one of
issues, not lists. Accordingly, we have stressed
the major accomplishments of the candidates,
and hope the future is your foremost
consideration in selecting a Student Council
President.

We must conclude that many of those who
support Jim Rinaca do so because neither has
he in the past nor does he now seriously
challenge the existing structure of Student
Council, as Mr. Chabot does. The decision, of
course, is yours. We believe, however, that it
is time for a revitalization of Council and a
reevaluation of its methods and aims, things
which only Phil Chabot is likely to
accomplish.