University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Giltinan's Anti — Intellectualism

We would like to complement
Mr. Giltinan for his recent comments
deprecating the strike and his
astute perception in recognizing the
fact that both liberals and reactionaries
share in the antiintellectualism
that seemingly pervades the
Grounds. However, not wishing for
Mr. Giltinan to remain oblivious to
his own naive hypocrisy, we must
call the attention of the crusading
journalist to his own
anti-intellectualism, as demonstrated
by his atrocious reporting of
events at the Young Republican
table on activities night.

Unable to address himself to the
subject with fairness and cogency
of thought, Mr. Giltinan resorted to
fairy-tale rhetoric by creating an
ogre which he dubbed "Croaky."

"Croaky," (we'll use this term
for sake of simplicity) reportedly
said that the Geneva convention
established a "free and independent
and sovereign state of South Vietnam."
This was not what was said
at all.

What "Croaky" did say, however,
was that the Geneva convention
established a line of military
demarcation which was to be abolished
following elections in 1956.
The elections were not held and the
fault for this is still debatable; but
all this is history and the mistakes
have been made, as regrettable as
they are. Further attempts to place
blame are fruitless and reassemble
something akin to Monday morning
quarter-backing.

Thus, in reality, there are two
Vietnams and we have, rightly or
wrongly, chosen to involve ourselves
in defending the integrity of
the South. There we are and there
we must stay until Vietnamization
is completed or risk political chaos
there by precipitate withdrawal. Nixon's
policy is the only reasonable
course of action. This, we feel, is a
considerably more accurate account
of the dialogue at the Y.R. table
than Mr. Giltinan's simplistic report
so characteristic of anti-intellectual
thought.

Furthermore, it was charged
that the Young Republicans were
"intimidating first-yearmen" during
activities night. This contention is
wholly false and unworthy of any
journalist. In response to Mr. Giltinan's
smear, we, the undersigned
demand an immediate and public
apology from the C.D

Benjamin F. Shaw III

William M. Shaw II

William H. Hurd

— Ed.

Police Raid?

I was quite surprised to read
your article, "Police Raid Fraternity
Party," in the CD of October
1, having no idea that the incident
of September 26 at the ATO house
would have such a mammoth impact
on university life; or so your
article suggests. I was also surprised
at your reporting of the alleged
facts surrounding the incident,
since I was a personal witness to the
entire affair. For this reason, I feel
it my obligation to correct and
comment on your article.

You stated that, after the police
had surrounded the house, "Brothers
in the fraternity then stopped
the police from entering the
house...". This implies that the police
were preparing to attack. They
were not. At no time was the house
in danger of being raided by the
Charlottesville Police Dept.

You stated that "... one local
policeman refused to talk to the
students...". Al Hadeed, President
of ATO, went with the officer in
question to his squad car, at which
time Mr. Hadeed explained fully his
position and the position of the
ATO brothers.

You stated that "Mr. Hadeed
supposedly followed the police to
their cars and was shown a warrant
that the police had to enter the
house." The police had no such
warrant.

You stated that "the security
guard, who has not been identified,
did not have authorization to accompany
the police to the
house...". This statement is not
relevant to the situation. The fact is
that the security guard served as a
valuable intermediary between the
brothers and the police. The brothers
thank him for his aid.

You stated that Mr. Houchens,
Chief of University Security,"...added
that the information
about the presence of the security
guard was 'absolutely false'." Your
statement is absolutely false, as can
be attested to by Mr. Hadeed as a
result of his conversation with
Chief Houchens on September 28.

These are the major misrepresentations
of your article. For now, we
are willing to excuse them as simple
error. Any fool can bungle the
facts. What we cannot excuse, however,
are the implications and intent
of this article. This incident was not
an instant replay of the events of
last May, nor was it an example of
further police repression as your
article implies. The police department
received complaints about a
loud party at the ATO house. It is
their duty to these citizens to try to
alleviate the situation.

When an injustice occurs, such
as last May, the brothers of ATO
will stand up and be counted, as we
did last May. However, we recent
your involving our fraternity in
your paper's attempt to make
U.Va. a center of revolution in
America and the CD its vanguard.
We will not tolerate your distortion
of the facts, and the sensationalist
slant to your writing.

The fraternities, The Cavalier
Daily, and the Charlottesville Police
Department are all part of the
university community. As such we
must work together as best we can.
By pitting one segment of our
community against another, no one
gains.