University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Reader Defends 'Prospectus'

I was deeply concerned with Mr.
Golladay's approach to his criticism
of Robert Rosen's "Prospectus For
The University." Mr. Golladay, I
feel, saw only in the article a radical
call for the "use of force to dictate
change." The creator of Rapier did
indeed suggest change but specified
the form of such change by hoping
first for discussion, next, if needed,
for peaceful demonstration, and
then only as a final alternative, for
riot. Mr. Golladay sensibly point
out that the "only legitimate pa
open to (Rosen) is the path of
persuasion." this is the road Mr.
Rosen has effectively chosen.

Mr. Golladay charges rather
abrasively that since Mr. Rosen
"had contributed neither his
money, time, nor intellect to the
maintenance of this university, he
has no rights of ownership to
determine policy." According to
these criteria, Robert Rosen is
entitled to this "right." Through his
efforts with Rapier as founder,
editor, and publisher he has, I
believe, contributed a great deal to
the University in all these aspect
Furthermore, the basis of these
standards is invalid; one's standing
as a student should entitle him the
right of participation in policy
formation.

Mr. Rosen has done much
toward enriching the intellectual
atmosphere of the University. He
has pointed out, if nothing else, an
important aspect of the tradition of
the University and its founder that
has been overlooked too long. Mr.
Golladay allows one who "disagrees
with the manner of operation to try
to convince the owners of change."
Robert Rosen has disagreed; he has
also tried.

'Bloody Murder'

To Mr. Phillip W. Worrall,
congratulations.

To Mr. Roger Ison, nice try.

I'm glad there are still at least
two people on the Grounds who are
not yet stricken with the disease
which every so often flares up on
the playing field, hereby more
specifically known as "screaming
'bloody murder' as loud as one can
in the ear of the referee in the hope
that he will listen and watch for
more foul play." How many
referees will listen to a screamer
screaming? As a matter of fact, the
screamer is more likely to be
purged than the so-called murderer.
Those are the breaks of the game.

andler Replies

I was amazed by Mr. Pitts'
grotesque misrepresentation of my
views as I expressed them at
Monday night's meeting of the
Students for a Democratic Society.
Fortunately, he was probably the
only person there who
misunderstood me (I know not
whether this stemmed from
inattentiveness or lack of wit on his
part). Unfortunately, he was the
only one (including the CD staff)
who reported on that rather
significant gathering.

There is great potential for
active leadership at the University
and Monday's meeting saw a large
number of articulate and concerned
students in attendance. I stated that
I wouldn't join immediately for
political reasons. Those reasons are
as follows:

As a representative of the "radical
Middle" at Virginia, I feel
disinclined to join any half-hearted
and futile organization which spouts
empty psuedo-communist slogans
which border on the ridiculous.
Such pronouncements can only
accrue to an organization the
disrespect and the disinterest of the
student body. I think it best to wait
and see what form the SDS will
take — that is, will it win or lose?

I attended the meeting in order
to interject my thoughts concerning
membership recruitment which, in
my mind, should be intensive rather
than extensive. I cautioned that
they keep from their ranks the
misfits, the "bearded weirdos," and
the psychologically crippled who will
use the society as yet another
crutch. They must keep only the
leaders, the thinkers, and the doers.

I did not call "those of us who
would not vote to become members
of a national chapter of the SDS
'psychologically crippled,' 'shirkers,'
and 'misfits,' " and I am sorry that
Mr. Pitts either didn't listen or
couldn't comprehend the English
language.