University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Councilman Attacks 'Gestapo' Edit

I would like to reply to the
Gestapo editorial that appeared in
the September 30 issue of the
Cavalier Daily. I am a Councilman
on the University Family Housing
Council and was responsible in that
sense for the issuance of the pet
letter that you so severely criticized.

First, I would like to restate the
facts so that they place the responsibility
for the letter on the proper
people. Mr. Ralph Main had absolutely
nothing to do with it. It was
entirely the product of the Council.
For that reason I think you owe
Mr. Main an apology for your hasty
investigation into the origins of the
pet letter and your scathing implication
that he is some type of
"Gestapo" agent.

Second, the pet letter was not
drawn hastily by a council that had
nothing better to do than threaten
the tenants of University Family
Housing. The pet problem has been
in existence and under consideration
by the Council for more than
two years. This, last letter was only
the last in a series of notices by the
Council concerning the problem.

In July, for instance, the residents
of Family Housing were informed
in a nice, polite note in a
newsletter that pets were not allowed.
Nothing happened. To the
knowledge of the Council, very few
pets left Family Housing because of
the notice. It was decided therefore
that a harsher letter was in order.
This brings me to my third point
concerning your criticism of the
"tone" of the pet letter.

The language in the letter was
hard and direct. It was intended to
be. Its purpose was to flaunt those
who keep pets and to inform those
who do not keep pets as to the
steps they can take to get rid of
pets in their area. The procedure is
simple. Write a signed complaint to
Mr. Main. This is horrible you say.

People should not rat on their
neighbors. It should be made clear
that the council does not impose a
no pets restriction on the tenants.
Nor does the University come
around after the tenant moves in
and inform him that no pets are
allowed. The provision for no pets
is in the lease, a contract entered
into voluntarily (unlike first year
dorm contracts) with the University
by the tenant. The pet provision in
the lease not only restricts a tenant
from having pets but gives each
tenant the right to live in a pet free
area.

It may not be the duty of the
Council to enforce that right, but,
at least, it is the Council's duty to
inform tenants that they have it
and how they can enforce it. That
is all this last letter did. Whether
the tenant exercises his right is up
to his own conscience. But that he
knows his right is essential.

As to your use of the label
"Gestapo", I am disappointed. It
smacks of a Joe McCarthy type
attitude as to how to analyze social
problems. I am sorry to see that the
Cavalier Daily has sunk to such
depths.

Book Inquiries

A few questions in regard to the
problem brought up in the recent
Cavalier Daily editorial (Sept. 30,
1970 "Dirt Under The Rug") concerning
the Anderson Brothers and
University Bookstores:

Why are they the only bookstores
selling hardback books?

Why are they allowed to charge
such outrageous prices?

Why is this wholesale exploitation
of the University students
allowed?

Why doesn't the Newcomb Hall
bookstore sell hardback books?

If this cannot be done, why
can't another bookstore be established
in order to set up some air
of competition and thus lower
prices somewhat?

Why isn't a reasonable explanation
given to the students concerning
this matter?

WHY WILL THIS LETTER BE
FORGOTTEN ABOUT BY PEOPLE
WHO COULD DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT?