University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

At Good Old U.Va

In your article on the problems
facing the Alumni Association you
refer to the recent letter by C.
Waller Barrett that was sent to
alumni soliciting contributions to
the Alumni Fund. I think for the
sake of clarity and also to partially
illuminate why many recent alumni
hold little confidence in either the
ideas or ideals of those who speak
for the alumni the entire section on
disruption should have been reprinted.
It reads:

"Again, I would stress that the
vast majority of the student body is
opposed to illegal and irresponsible
policies. In analyzing the attitudes
of the student body we have found
less than two hundred students who
encourage violence and disruptive
tactics. This leaves 98% who are at
the University for the purpose of
pursuing the educational process.
The faculty, also, may be said to
have its small coterie of radical
individuals. The overwhelming majority
are devoted to the institution,
its preservation and its improvement."

Sound a little familiar? At any
rate, the director of the Alumni
Association doesn't know who
made the analysis (someone should
ask Mr. Barrett what "we" means -
and whether the concept of honor
has been excluded for the Alumni
Associations officers.) But, it is
precisely this combination of falsification
and scare tactics that are
training many recent alumni to seek
alternatives to the present Alumni
Association and to establish an organization
that is responsive to the
people attending the University
that moves for progressive change,
and that avoids a concept of things
staying just as they were when we
went to good old U.Va.

Backs Rush

I read Mr. Ted Jordan's reply to
Mark Storm in Monday's C.D. and
was very surprised to see Mr. Storm
criticized for inviting first yearmen
to rush and seek the truth about
fraternities. I saw nothing self-righteous
in his letter nor anything that
warranted such harsh and vulgar
criticism. However, the same cannot
be said of Mr. Jordan's reply.

Mr. Jordan wasted no time in
displaying his ignorance of the fraternity
system. It is not a fact that
"rush is designed and practiced by
the fraternities to obscure the facts
about fraternity life." Nor is it
amazing that such a large percentage
of first yearmen believe that "a
sense of brotherly love pervades the
lives of fraternity men", It is amazing
that a fraternity system has
existed and flourished here since
1852 resting on a foundation as
superficial as Mr. Jordan suggests.

As for the "black ball" system,
Mr. Jordan has to admit that a
fraternity must be somewhat selective
when each house welcomes
over four hundred rushees in a
single rush season. If he has an
alternative means of narrowing this
number to a reasonable size, I'm
sure all thirty-three houses would
welcome hearing from him.

As a former "axeman", I can
honestly say that no rushee has ever
been deceived or misled concerning
his chances for membership in our
house. When the axe falls, it falls as
swiftly and as painlessly as possible.
The system is selective, but reason
dictates that it must be.

Finally, I fall to see how the
"black ball" system relates to a
rushee's finding out the truth about
fraternities. The facts and figures
are there; one need only rush to get
them.

Shadowy Figure

In response to the C.D.'s Gestapo
editorial of September 30, 1970,
the University Family. Housing
Council sent out a letter last month
asking people who live in University
Family Housing to remove their
pets and informing them of the
procedure to follow in complaining
about pets.

The lease contains a provision
prohibiting pets in University Family
Housing. The Council is the
elected representative body of University
Family Housing. When people
seek to move into family housing
they sign a lease which includes
a provision prohibiting pets.

This is a two edged sword, on
one side it imposes a duty not to
keep a pet. On the other side, it
grants a right to live in an area that
is free of pets. These apartments are
just not constructed so that a dog
can bark or a cat can howl without
bothering someone.

Also, pets create a problem concerning
the safety of the many
children who live in the area. These
are not imaginary problems
dreamed up by the council but are
based upon complaints received over
the past year.

As to the content of the C.D.
editorial, Mr. Ralph E. Main, had
nothing to do with the letter. Also,
personal attacks and name calling
seem inconsiderate and ill advised.

In case your readers are concerned
about that shadowy figure
who looms above the tenants in
University Family Housing, here I
am alive and healthy in D-5 University
Gardens.