University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Teachers Cause Violence

This letter is addressed to those
liberal academicians everywhere,
who have wrung their hands over
Berkeley, strongly deplored the
destruction of Columbia and Cornell,
and are even now eyeing their
own students with suspicion. This is
to tell you that the cause of the
maelstrom which has descended
upon the nation's campuses is you.

You wonder why students are
not content with following reason
and the democratic process, when
the world you describe is mad.
Wasn't it you who told them war
was irrational and unthinkable? But
they see billions being spent on
defense, the bomb, and Viet Nam.
Wasn't it you who taught them that
only the vicious and depraved could
oppose eliminating poverty through
massive governmental efforts? Yet,
they see opposition coming from
many sources. Didn't you content
that integration was the only
reasonable solution to racial problems,
and that only bigots and fools
could fail to see that? But then our
recent history of escalating racial
conflict shows America is a nation
of bigots and fools. Wasn't it you
who condoned civil disobedience as
a tactic to destroy the injustice of
segregation in the South? Doesn't it
bother you now, when you turn
around and condemn students for
seizing your buildings and disrupting
your meetings in the name of
preventing campus injustices?
Didn't you convince them that our
government was controlled by big
business, big unions, etc., and the
people were only so much fodder,
kept in line by TV and press
propaganda? How can you wonder
why they reject the democratic
process and peaceful change; why
they compare our country's leaders
today with George III? And finally,
wasn't it you who taught them that
America's history was one of
exploitation - of Negroes, of
Indians, of foreigners under the
guise of $ diplomacy? Does it then
make sense - with this going on
again in Vietnam - for them to
approve of your taking out anti-war
ads in the New York Times or
raising money for George McGovern?
No wonder students complain
of the rhetoric and demand
action when confronted with
your response to the barbarisms
you've described. Did you really
believe you could disseminate such
intellectually fissionable material
and not set off a blast?

In fact, the intellectual Luddites
who burn banks in Santa Barbara
and boo Hubert Humphrey from
your campus auditorium accept
everything you and he ever taught
them. They accuse you of hypocrisy,
because you don't accept the
obvious solution that derives from
your premises. Either everything
you've ever taught them is mad, or
America is mad. They accept the
latter, and one doesn't reason with
the deranged; one doesn't listen to
the insane; its irrelevant which of
the crazy candidates wins the
election. So up to the wall you
mother f....rs! One thing you can
say about Mao, in killing millions to
implement his ideas, he has proven
himself no hypocrite.

Your editorial entitled "Nominations"
of February 27th was a
unique compliment to the poor job
of reporting on the Jefferson Party
convention which appeared the day
before.

In the convention article, the
reporter's interpretation of Dave
Morris' speech emphasized the
necessity to "orientate students to
the Honor System," a seemingly
worn-out, conservative plea. While
Mr. Morris recognized the importance
of adequately informing students
about the existing system, he
did more than merely 'express
concern over...the need for a
consensus on public honor.' If I
may go so far as to accurately
quote him (a practice your reporter
would be wise to initiate), Mr.
Morris said, "The greatest test
facing the Honor System will be its
ability to change, and yet this
should be one of its greatest
strengths."

After misinterpreting the emphasis
of Mr. Morris' speech, your
reporter then proceeded to obliterate
the ideas expressed by Dave
Bowman. Mr. Bowman was not so
concerned with "How will the
committee interpret a feminine
'white lie' as he was with the
legitimate problems imposed upon
the Honor System "when women
become our peers and not our
weekend entertainment." His most
potent idea (and one which was
surprisingly absent from the article)
was that of "an Honor System
based upon a participatory democracy
involving every student."

In your follow-up editorial, you
posited two ideas that I would like
to refute. First, it is virtually
impossible, at least in the Jefferson
Party, for "a few people...(to)
effectively decide who is going to
run long before the actual nominating
votes." Upon examination you
will find that membership in the
party is open to every college
student at the University, and that
such fact was duly publicized in
The Cavalier Daily several days
before the convention. Moreover,
the various nominations were open
to every party member. Second, I
think you will find that "apathy, at
least as far as the nominating
process is concerned" was not
"rekindled" by the two new
parties: rather it is an unhappy state
that has long existed at this
university, and one that the new
parties have tried to abort. It is
hard, however, to generate interest
in uncontested nominations, as you
seem to have recognized. This
brings me to one final point.

There seem to be few people
who care enough about the spirit of
honor to make the sacrifice of
running for a position on the Honor
Committee, and, if elected, to
serve. In this new day of emphasis
on meaningful, interpersonal relationships,
which are based, above
all, on mutual honesty and integrity,
it is regrettable that so many
students here have partially lost the
excitement of a beautiful agreement:
We will not lie to our
brother; we will not cheat him; nor
will we steal from him.