University of Virginia Library

Council And The SAC

In its meeting Tuesday night the Student
Council passed a lengthy resolution
of which the objectives are two-fold: that
the Council be granted "final discretion
in the allocation of the Student Activities
Fund" and that Mr. Shannon establish "a
student-faculty committee to study the whole
area of funding of University organizations
and thereby...answer the numerous questions
posed in this area." The Council's concern
over the problem of funding of student
organizations is certainly justified in view
of the problems that have developed in that
area this year. Many organizations have had
their requests for money refused or cut because
of a simple lack of resources in the
Fund. In the course of its resolution, however,
the Council has posed a number of
questions that seem incredibly short-sighted
or anti-intellectual.

The first group of questions concerns The
Cavalier Daily. The resolution calls for a
study of The Cavalier Daily's operations
with emphasis on certain particulars. Let
us respond to these particulars individually.

"A. Attempts should be made by the staff
of The Cavalier Daily to make the paper
more self-supporting. The (sic) year The
Cavalier Daily received $28,960.26, or approximately
57 per cent of the total Student
Activities Fund." Had any industrious Councilman
bothered to inquire with the editors
he would have found out that we are
presently in the process of installing a new
printing system which should cut our budget
as much as 30 per cent within three
years. Further, this system is to be made
available to other University publications
and will thus cut their costs and the
amounts they request from the Student
Activities Fund sizeably. The reason our costs
have been so high lately is that we are
forced to use the University Printing Office,
which has raised its rates for us 20 per
cent this year alone. Perhaps the investigation
should start there.

"B. Does The Cavalier Daily really fulfill
its purposes as 'the student newspaper'
on the Grounds?" This question is obviously
one of a subjective nature and can never
be answered to everyone's satisfaction. We
do our best to fulfill our role as we interpret
it, and we always welcome anyone else's
interpretation of it. Our only concrete defense
in this respect is the number of complimentary
letters and remarks we receive
continually from faculty and students alike.
Perhaps we would appease the Council and,
in its eyes, fulfill our role better if we
endorsed and supported everything it did,
but that is too much to ask of any rational
being.

"C. Does the coverage of national news
by the paper serve any useful purpose? Is
this really necessary?" The aims of this question
elude us, to say the least, but, at any
rate it, too, concerns a subjective matter.
We feel that we do have a responsibility
to carry national news since it affects our
readers as well as those who read city
papers. We try to choose national news
which is especially pertinent to the students,
such as that on the war, the draft, or the
presidential elections, and sometimes we use
national news which we feel is simply of
interest to the students. When we expanded
to our current eight-column size, those
persons on the paper and on the Student
Activities Committee at the time knew that
national news would be included in the larger
paper and agreed that it had a place in the
paper. Their reasoning is still valid. Further
almost every university paper with which we
exchange carries national news, in many
cases more so than we do. If the Councilmen's
concern over the national news stems
from a feeling that it is replacing local news
or the University Notices, let me assure them
that whenever such news or notices do not
appear in the paper, national news is not
what has replaced them. This is a matter
concerning advertisements and classified ads,
which we cannot change to make room for
anything on a day when we happen to be
cramped for space. Again, we are doing
everything we can to fulfill our role in this
area as well as possible.

"D. Why shouldn't The Cavalier Daily
come before Student Council, as all other
groups do, in order to request their (sic)
funds?" The answer to this question should
be obvious to any citizen of the United
States. Everyone knows that he who controls
the purse strings of an organization
controls the organization, as evidenced in the
situation regarding the Student Council's
control over other organizations here. For
the same reasoning for which the legislative
body in any realm of control should
not control the local press, the Student
Council should not control The Cavalier
Daily. We refer the Councilmen to the
thinking behind that article in the Bill
of Rights which provides for freedom of
the press. The logic that encouraged the
Founding Fathers to include that provision
in the Constitution holds true even at the
University of Virginia. The Cavalier Daily
would cease (no doubt to the Council's
joy) to be an effective publication if it were
subject to the authority of the Student
Council. As it is now, we are the only
institution which is in a position to call
the Council into account for its actions.
If we lose our power to challenge the Council,
then a potentially unhealthy and dangerous
power would be the Council's,
and there would be no one around to try
to check that power except the students
themselves, who could no longer be sure
that what they read was an accurate account
of the Council's actions. The power
of The Cavalier Daily has always been
derived from its independence of Council
influence or control. Woe to us all if that
power is successfully usurped.

One other angle of this last question
illuminates some sort of inconsistency or
ignorance on the part of the Councilmen.
The new constitution which they are now
considering specifically exempts The Cavalier
Daily—along with the Honor Committee,
the Judiciary Committee, and the Inter-Fraternity
Council—from Council control.
Perhaps the Councilmen would do well
to familiarize themselves with their proposed
new constitution before they make any
more moves which are directly contrary to it.

The next question in the resolution asks,
"Do the other publications present on the
Grounds really serve any useful purpose?
This pertains specifically to the University
of Virginia Magazine, Plume and Sword,
Rapier, and the Virginia Weekly. None of
these publications are self-supporting and do
not expect to be self-supporting in the foreseeable
future." We must defend our sister
publications against the anti-intellectual
Councilmen almost as vociferously as we
have defended ourselves. If these publications
are read by anyone—which they are, if they
provide opportunity for students to exercise
their talents outside of the classroom—which
they do, if they are an outlet for ideas and
opinions for the public—which they are, then
they serve an obviously useful purpose. We
remind the Councilmen of Mr. Jefferson's,
"For here we are not afraid to follow the
truth, wherever it may lead us..." These
publications are actively engaged in pursuit
of the truth, and are thus a credit to Mr.
Jefferson's university.

Why the Councilmen chose to pick on
publications in its study when there are
so many other organizations available we will
not embarrass them by asking.

The rest of the resolution concerns a
proposed formula for distribution of Student
Activities Fund money by a system of priorities.
The legitimacy of such a system
will only prove itself or not with time.

We cannot help feeling that the passage
of a resolution such as this is one more
step in that drive for power which has
characterized the Student Council for the last
two or three years. A drive for student power
is certainly justified, but a drive by students
for power by taking it from other students
is not only unjustified but loathsome. We
are glad that we are here to challenge that
drive. If we fail, surely Pandora's Box
will have been opened.

A much more reasonable solution to the
problem of insufficient funds for student
organizations than that suggested or implied
by this investigation is an increase in the
students' activities fee. Since time began, it
seems, the fee has been a diminutive $3.50
per semester. That this fee has not been
increased lately demonstrates a failing to
keep up with the times (in particular with the
inflation thereof) on the part of those who
set it. An increase of a dollar or two would
surely be no burden on the students, and
yet it would provide immensely more funds
for student activities. The Student Council
has requested that such an increase be effected.
At the moment the request is with
the Student Activities Committee, whose
option is to forward it to the Board of
Visitors or not. We hope that the committee
will forward the request to the Board and
that the Board will pass it as soon as possible.

Whether or not such an increase is effected,
we cannot support the Council's
attempt to gain total authority over the Student
Activities Fund. At present the fund
is controlled by a committee of faculty and
students, which seems the most reasonable
arrangement. Such a system provides for
representation of more widely varied opinions
and prejudices than Council control would,
and we feel that such scope of opinions
and experience is necessary to insure equitable
treatment for all organizations.