University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Readers Comment On Wheatley,
Student Coalition, Hickman Letter

As some of the students who
exhibited "ungentlemanly conduct"
last Saturday afternoon in
confronting Mr. Wheatley personally
we would like to mention a few
unreported facts. In spite of Messrs.
Mannix and Hickman's comments,
Wheatley stated he had nothing to
apologize for concerning his past
racial policy, and he would not
repeat them only because he found
them "ineffective" that is to say
futile. After prompting by incredibly
leading questions by Mr.
Mannix (who resembled the
pathetic little boy pleading "Say it
ain't so Joe") Wheatley revealed he
was for equality for all just so we
do not bring down the "barriers."
The only meaningful idea in his
statement comes from his curious
choice of language. If he had said
"standards" one could deduce he
was concerned about university
education, but "barriers" has a different
connotation. It is of course
uncertain what was exactly on his
mind, but the image of a black peril
cannot be far-from wrong. In any
case history puts the presumption
against him, and his later statements
can only be seen as a fear of
the "straights" whom at the time
he did not consider concerned.

As a matter of principle it seems
the wisest policy to follow in purging
U.Va. of its racial traditions is
to impose costs of its injustice upon
the oppressors (active or passive)
instead of resting them solely upon
the oppressed. Abrogating certain
laws of social decorum is a positive
and constructive method of effecting
this change. The power structure
must see and feel that we have
higher values than the more formalities
of gentlemanly conduct. If
knowledge is dear do you not feel
that what we have learned in
Saturday's confrontation is worth
the price of some social discomfiture?

Though we have nothing to
apologize for, Mr. Hickman, you
have apologized to Mr. Wheatley
for us. Who will apologize to the
Black community for you?

Hickman's Letter

I am writing in reference to the
letter written by Student Council
President Ronald Hickman which
appeared in Tuesday's Cavalier
Daily. In it, Mr. Hickman presumptuously
takes it upon himself to
apologize to Mr. C. Stuart Wheatley
on behalf of the student body of
the University for several "misguided
individuals" whose "ungentlemanly
conduct" consisted of
forcing Mr. Wheatley to clarify his
position on the issue of racism and,
specifically, his position on, and
role in, the "massive resistance"
movement in the late 1950s.

Mr. Hickman is sorely misinformed
if he believes that in this
letter he is speaking for the entire
student body. He is a leader very
much out of touch with those
whom he purports to lead. As was
evident at Tuesday's rally, most of
the students present were unwilling
to apologize to Mr. Wheatley for
anything. To the apparent surprise
of the coalition leaders, the loudest
response of the rally was to the
demands of several of the non-coalition
speakers that Mr. Wheatley
resign.

We take Mr. Wheatley at his
word. He said Saturday afternoon
that the only reason he would
repudiate his role in massive resistance
was that, as a realist, he
realized that massive resistance
won't work. Left unsaid, but
strongly implied, is the feeling that
perhaps Mr. Wheatley is still
searching for another way to prevent
meaningful integration. What
better way than to remain on the
Board of Visitors by means of
appeasing some students by saying
obliquely that of course his
opinions have changed in ten years?
I am not saying that this is
necessarily the case, but words are
cheap. Mr. Hickman proved that by
signing the vague coalition statement
on Monday and then by
refusing to take part in either of the
rallies on Monday and Tuesday, and
by his appalling behavior at Tuesday
night's Student Council Meeting.

At long last the time has come
to say emphatically that people
such as Mr. Hickman - and Mr.
Wheatley - do not speak for us and
that we shall not be bound by them
or by their ideas. Those who are
really concerned say that there has
been enough cheap talk and enough
vague threats and enough empty
promises. All that is yesterday; today
we must see actions taken -
positive actions. One of the first of
these should be the resignation of
C. Stuart Wheatley - and on the
side, an end to Mr. Hickman's
presumptions to being the voice of
Virginia's students.

Scott Caldwell
College 4

—ed.

Best Method?

The last week has seen the
emergence of a coalition of intelligent
students who have committed
themselves to the elimination
of racism at the University, in
the state of Virginia, and the
nation.

The student Coalition has
chosen to stress the unity of the
movement - approaching the president
of the University, the Board of
Visitors, the governor, and the state
legislature with its demands and
recommendations on the basis of
their support by all groups and
individuals involved in their formulation.
This raises a question hitherto
unasked. Considering the composition
and attitudes manifested in
the past by the state legislature and
the Board of Visitors as well as the
governor's own involvement in massive
resistance and President
Shannon's uncommitted status,
does the presentation of a unified
front to these parties represent the
best method of attack.

Will an essentially conservative
governor, state legislature, and
Board of Visitors be impressed by
the fact that the SDS and the SSOC
are allied with the Student Coalition
in their demands and recommendations?
Wouldn't they be
more likely to act on our demands
if they were presented as a test
case, intended to justify the claim
of the leaders of the Student Coalition
that indeed "you don't have
to be radical to be concerned," that
unlike the radicals, the moderates
can communicate with those in the
centers of power and can successfully
influence the direction and
rate of change at the University and
in the state? Realistically, isn't it
more likely that conservative men
with conservative constituency
clientele will find it far easier to act
affirmatively on our demands and
recommendations if they can tell
their conservative constituencies
that they were the recommendations
and demands of moderate as
opposed to radical students. This is
not to make a judgment of the
relative merits of either the recommendations
or the organizations
that compose the present coalition.
It is to face the political reality that
those in the centers of power that
we must deal with must justify
their action to others besides themselves
and on grounds other than
those of a moral character. It is to
face the reality that the initials SDS
and SSOC are anathema to the men
being asked to work with the Student
Coalition to eliminate racism.

Norman Mailer says that "politics
is property." We are asking the
governor, state legislature, and the
Board of Visitors to sacrifice some
of their political property in exchange
for progress in our mutual
struggle for universal human rights.
Let's make it as easy as possible for
them to do so. Perhaps the lesson
of the domestic policies of the last
eight years is that the cost of
progress is a lesser degree of unity.

Sane Voice

I would like to raise a single
sane voice against the manifest injustice
which has been unleashed
here in the past several days. Mr.
Wheatley has been accused on the
basis of SDS "independent" research
and condemned without a
trial, on the basis of his alleged
actions of some ten years ago, by
the very same accusers. According
to our legal system a man is innocent
until proven guilty. Mr.
Wheatley has not been given an
equitable trial or hearing of any
type, therefore he is innocent; and
everyone who is demonstrating for
his removal at the present time is
urging the punishment of an innocent
man.

Mr. Jefferson said that "here we
are not afraid...to tolerate any error
so long as reason is left free to
combat it." And yet several
hundred students are willing to
condemn a man accused by the
rather questionable SDS of being a
racist a decade ago. If racism is an
error, as I believe it to be, and
reason (if Rosen and company can
be said to represent reason) is left
free to combat then I recognize
no problem. If a Visitor were removed
because he had been accused
of having been a Communist at
some time in the past, then all of
the liberal sentiment would unhesitantly
support him. Yet in this
instance, "liberal" sentiment seems
to support these unjust and immoral
demonstrations; somehow
imputing that right-wing error is
worse than error of the left.

If there is anyone left in this
community who still believes in
Jeffersonian democracy and freedom,
who still supports the concept
of freedom of thought and speech,
and who is willing to stand up for a
precious ideal lest it be destroyed
for us all: then for God's sake let
him speak out now.

United We Stand

If there has been anything significantly
individual about the current
demonstrations here at the University
it has been our rational
approach to change and the unity
of spirit in which change has been
sought. There is something marvelous
about viewing a crowd in
which bead-angled men march
united with three-piece suiters.
There is something marvelous about
hearing a succession of speakers,
representing all factions of the
University, voice their common
interests without concentrating
more on backbiting than achieving
their goals. There is something marvelous
about feeling a real rejuvenation
of interest at Virginia for
something other than a beer can.
But, there is something very sad
about the potentiality of the present
glorious situation. Suppose the
"student leaders" lose their
momentary enthusiasm and delve
back into their old distrust of "long
haired radicals"? Or suppose these
"radicals" become impatient with
the lesiurely pace of the "Virginia
gentlemen" and disassociate themselves
from a coalition movement?
Stop supposing; it is happening.
Such a polarization of ideals can
only weaken the intensity, effectually,
and sincerity of any demands
or proposals that either
group might make.

Bud Ogle, a very strong uniting
factor at Tuesday's rally, risked
sacrificing the impact of his speech
with a paraphrase of a tired, but
meaningful, cliche: "If there is
really a will, we can make a way."
We feel brave enough to do the
same. "United we stand, divided we
fall."