University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Reader Disagrees With Vietnam View

I should like to reply to Mr.
David Cox's article on U.S. Asian
policy in The Cavalier Daily, October
10th.

As his opening critique of our
Vietnam policy, Mr. Cox states
"We have made countless enemies
among the peoples of the world,
and strained our relations with
others—including our allies." I
would like to reply to Mr. Cox
by way of proposing that it is the
sworn duty of the United States,
to do what it believes to be right—
and I submit that the defense of
liberty is a moral imperative—
regardless of whether world
opinion opposes our actions or
not. An example: A majority of
the countries in the United Nations
are on record as favoring the admission
of Communist China to
that organization. The United
States, however, has not been
afraid to recognize that the exclusion
of Red China stands as
one of the great moral judgments—
perhaps the only moral judgment—
in the history of the United
Nations, and that Red China's
admission would be a perversion
of the noble ideals of that body.

Mr. Cox's phrase to the effect
that "In the 'third world', our
image as a peace loving nation
has been shattered", causes me no
great pain. Who in God's name
has OK'ed the moral credentials
of these "third world" countries—
the murderous African bloc, for example—to
pass judgment on the
United States? Bertrand Russell?

Proceeding to Mr. Coz's next
attempt at profundity: "Underdeveloped
nations are particularly
shocked at this war, in which a
tiny, underdeveloped country is
pitted against the premier nation
of the world." Mr. Cox declines
to mention that the two leading
aggressive powers of the world
(Russia and China) are wholeheartedly
engaged in making possible
North Vietnam's attempt to
destroy the freedom of the South
Vietnamese people. Without their
aid, I grant that North Vietnam
would be just a harmless little
totalitarian state. With their aid,
Uncle Ho is far more dangerous.

It is in the second half of his
essay—if I may so distinguish it—
that Mr. Cox begins his descent
into absurdity, however: "...Laos
may teem with Communists, but
who cares?" Alas!, where is Mr.
Cox's compassion for the underdeveloped
nations now? I'll tell
Mr. Cox who cares: the Laotian
who has seen his government
degenerate into something not
worthy of its own people.

Mr. Cox reaches his peak in
proposing that the United States
support popular, nationalist reform
movements in underdeveloped
countries, "Communist
or no," rather than pro-Western
rightist regimes, "in the hope that
the people would benefit and that
the Communist regime would be
moderate and realistic. The U.S.
would really have little to lose, for
theoretical Communism does not
work, and in practical application
is a form of socialism as in
Sweden...Through our influence
on the country, perhaps we could
avoid the pitfalls of dictatorship.
Assisting a communist-led movement
would indeed be truly novel,
with results which would no doubt
be amazing." Well, Mr. Cox,
that certainly is novel, but the
results would not be amazing—
they would be catastrophic. Supporting
Communist movements
and, thence, the establishment of
totalitarian dictatorships, with the
supposed goal of instituting
Swedish-style democratic socialism,
is the most asinine suggestion
that I've yet heard, is
repugnant to everything this nation
has ever stood for, and is so appallingly
naive in its presumptions
that only Senator Fulbright could
have proposed it.

Mr. Cox's conclusions as to
U.S.—Asian policy, insofar as they
are based on his foregoing proposals,
deserve no comment whatsoever.

Undoubtedly, we shall be seeing
more and more of these dirges
appearing in The Cavalier Daily,
the editorial bias of CD having
been made abundantly clear in
earlier displays of kindergarten
rhetoric. I shall be on hand to
reply, as, I know, will others.
For, as Mr. Jefferson said: "Eternal
vigilance is the price of liberty."

UGF Drive

I recently received a report prepared
by the United Community
Funds & Councils of Virginia,
indicating State employees' support
of United Fund campaigns
increased substantially in 1966 for
the fourth consecutive year. This
is a fine record and one in which
we can all take justifiable pride.

Although total contributions increased
ten percent over 1965 for
those units included in prior reports,
a wide variation in per capita
contributions existed, ranging
from a high of $31.67 in one unit
to a low of one cent in another.
The report also points out that
although payroll deduction is available
to all employees as a matter
of policy, less than one-third
of the units included in the report
actually made it available to their
employees. The average contribution
per employee, through payroll
deduction, was slightly more than
double that of employees making
cash contributions.

State policy provides for only
one such organized campaign within
State offices each year, and as
head of one of our State's agencies,
I hope you will encourage the support
by your employees of this
vitally necessary and worthwhile
activity. Please make sure that
every employee is aware that payroll
deduction is available to better
enable each to contribute his or
her fair share.

As Governor, I commend these
campaigns to everyone associated
with me in State government. They
deserve our full support.

System Examination

Rush is here and the first-year
men are beginning a six-week
period of having their backs
slapped etc. Many of these men,
in fact most of them, accept the
fraternity system with a minimum
of questioning. There seem to be
very definite advantages to the system
but often the advantages to
be gained by its abolition are overlooked
or go unstated. The first-year
men should be exposed to
the arguments for both sides
before they are called upon to make
a decision.

The advantages are usually
stated in terms of service to the
University, close fraternal relationships,
basis of social life,
organizing units for intramural
athletics, etc. The question which
arises and demands examination
is could these purposes be served
as well by alternate means if the
system were abandoned. The
arguments against fraternities,
though rarely stated, are important.
With a greater percentage
of the students living in the dorms,
there would be more force behind
measures which would improve
living and social conditions. The
politics at the University would
become more representative of the
student body. The organizations,
like the Union, the Corks and
Curls, etc., would no longer be
controlled by any specific section
of the student body, like the fraternities.

It is not in my opinion deplorable
that the fraternity system
exists but I think it unfortunate
that there has been little open
criticism or debate on the situation.
I hope that the first-year men examine
the pros and cons of the
system and make an educated and
not a fatalistic decision.

Painting Theft

I am extremely sorry to say that
last weekend (probably Sunday)
two of my paintings were removed
from the wall of my studio and
spirited away. Although probably
not worth a great deal, these
paintings were part of my class
work, and I need them for faculty
evaluation. I certainly hope that the
culprit was not a student, but since
that possibility has crossed my
mind, I should like to remind him
that what he has done is a sin
against the Honor System and ask
that he repent and return the
paintings posthaste.

I would also like to remind the
student body that each student
must be an enforcer of the Honor
System and ask that if anyone has
any information about the whereabouts
of the pilfered art or any
ideas as to the culprit, he contact
me at 293-4761, 133 Tuttle
House, or 3 Cocke Hall. Descriptions
of the paintings follow: the
first is 20x24 inches, on a blue
background with a simple, circular
design in pure colors (red, yellow,
black, and violet). The other is
24x30 inches on a bright yellow
background, with a design of words
and shapes in black, white, red,
green, and light blue. Both have
the signature NEWM. I believe
that the Honor System can and
should be a fact of student life
rather than a grand principle given
lip service; I ask for a confirmation
of my belief.