University of Virginia Library

Abrams & Lears Praised For Accurate Critique

I couldn't agree more with the Tuesday
article of Jere Abrams and Jackson Lears on
curriculum reform. Their presentation was
well thought-out and showed that they put
in a lot of time analyzing and evaluating the
courses offered at the University. Their
criticisms were valid, clear and yet constructive
— faculty and students alike should
benefit from reading the article's suggestions.

Messrs. Abrams and Lears and especially
perceptive about student response. For
students who have spent four years in high
school learning "the basics" to come to the
University to be spoon-fed for another two
years is really an insult to their intelligence.

Certainly, facts and theories must be
learned and digested before students can get
on to more independent study. But part of
this digestion process should be the
continual feedback and response offered by
student discussions moderated by a teacher.
The University, fortunately, has recognized
at least some truth in this; the in-dorm
seminars for next year, led by experienced
professors, are a step in the right direction.

But one step isn't enough - does the
University really expect a sensitive, curious
and independent student to spring up out of
the ground after two years' cultivation with
massive doses of lectures and multiple choice
tests?

I applaud the small seminars planned for
1969-70 - I also applaud the Abrams-Lears
critique of the University curriculum and
their suggestions for change. The students
and faculty would do well to sit back and
think a little bit about where they want
their University to go, and how they want it
to get there. After all, it's your education.

Ironic Column

Rod MacDonald's column in the Tuesday
edition of the Cavalier Daily entitled "The
Last Dying Whispers" has proved to be quite
ironic. For, both sides - VPP liberals and
caucus liberal-moderates have now indulged in
Mr. MacDonald's proscribed 'last whispers' or
smears.

Two sheets have appeared, a "white" and a
"blue." The white was issued first by Jack
Rhoades and claimed a number of preposterous
things. The blue sheet was written
by Pieter Schenkkan and was prepared by the
VPP as a rebuttal to the white. It was issued
only after the white was issued; it would not
have been used had not the white been used
first. In his desire to set the record straight,
Mr. Schenkkan committed the same error of
generalization and smear attack of which he
accused Mr. Rhoades.

The VPP officially apologizes for the
slander and sincerely wishes it to be known
that whatever a man's political beliefs, we will
never question his character, his motives, or
his honest desire to do what he feels is best
for the University.

Mr. Jefferson left to us the legacy of
tolerating error so long as reason was left to
combat it. The VPP is willing never to tolerate
its own errors.

We apologize to Mr. Gardner and Mr.
Martin and bid them think no less of our
party for the incident.

Never Too Late

I am sorrowed that Charles Ribakoff felt
that my essay in Modulus/5 (Cavalier Daily,
May 7, 1969) seemed "almost reactionary"
in my call not to ignore history. We are in
an age of great popular ignorance about
history even among students, and a
corresponding skepticism that it has anything
to teach us. But I am afraid I have to
believe with Cicero who (to paraphrase) said
that those who knew no history were
condemned to act as children, and, as others
have remarked, to repeat all the mistakes of
their forefathers.

There are uses of the past and there are
misuses. I did not call for a repeat
performance of what history might show us
but rather for an understanding of the
wonders men have achieved from time to
time if only as a measuring stick for our
own "wonders," by which we might be less
certain and therefore more serious about the
quality of our own thoughts about our
present urban environment. I should have
thought the context of the rest of what I
wrote would have made that clear.

But, alas, it evidently did not and that is
the fault of the writer as much as the reader.
I am puzzled, though, by Mr. Ribakoff's
comment that my "call to look back to
history . . . although probably valid" nonetheless
seems out of place. It is never too
late to learn that "there were brave men
before Agamemnon."

Great Concerts

It is not just by "chance" or "luck" that
in the last four months the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill has had, in my
opinion, the top five groups in this country:
Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, the Chambers
Brothers, Paul Butterfield Blues Band, and
Blood, Sweat and Tears, (the last three in
one fantastic weekend).

I think it is up to Mr. Bakhaus and Mr.
Doilney, as presidents of their respective
organizations, to go to UNC and find out
from the people responsible there how to
create a successful, popular concert.

If they are not interested enough to do
this, they are not doing their jobs and
should give them to someone who will. As
we have seen in the last year, politics and
excuses are no replacement for great
concerts.

Cocktail Parties

At a time of unprecedented student
involvement in the educational process at
the University, general faculty attitudes
seem to rekindle old Virginia apathy. I am
speaking specifically of the poor response of
faculty members to recent fraternity cocktail
parties.

Many fraternities have these parties and
invest time and money in mailing out several
hundred invitations in hopes of attracting
faculty to the house for leisurely cocktails.
At the same time, these social gatherings
serve as opportunities for the students and
faculty to become better acquainted and
open lines of communication which are
otherwise considered prohibited in the
classroom.

Undoubtedly these gatherings, and more
of their kind, not necessarily sponsored by
fraternities, could do much toward closing
the ever-widening communications gap between
students and the faculty, a situation
highly undesirable in an "academic village."

Obviously, many faculty can't attend
due to previous engagements, but a recent
cocktail party held during the middle of the
week showed no considerable increase in
faculty response.

Conclusions which these results may
suggest are either that the faculty is lazy, or
unconcerned, or they dislike students, or
they dislike fraternities, or they just don't
realize the significance of keeping communications
open in an academic environment.

Let us hope that the poor response
encountered does not indicate any worsening
trends in faculty-student relations.

Washington Party

I write to inform you of the 1969
campaign of the Washington Party. Last
year, we emerged as the one startling
development in a rather dull political
season, which had been marked only by the
Anarchists' campaign and the general
"punt" attitude which pervaded the
grounds.

Although grieved by the loss of several
of our fair members, we once again clear the
arena, daring to present the new Washington
Party, which has recaptured the magic
moment in early America when Rutherford
B. Hayes stepped to the platform and said,
"I won it in a fair fight..."

Yet we do not consider our Party an
anachronism in the context of University
politics (think about it) nor do we feel that
we should be classed with the "freak" or
"joke" parties which have emerged in the
past. The fact that we run uncontested for
these offices is mere testimony to the
inventive ingenuous spirit which has always
marked our endeavors.

It is our hope that The Cavalier Daily
and other student organizations will endorse
our drive for a more diversified political
spectrum at the University. If you haven't
seen our campaign yet, watch for it soon in
your neighborhood.

Best yet, remember the words of our
namesake, when in farewell to his generals
he said, "Why forego the advantages of so
peculiar a situation?" Let this then be our
motto for the struggle ahead. Long live the
University!