In your article on the problems
facing the Alumni Association you
refer to the recent letter by C.
Waller Barrett that was sent to
alumni soliciting contributions to
the Alumni Fund. I think for the
sake of clarity and also to partially
illuminate why many recent alumni
hold little confidence in either the
ideas or ideals of those who speak
for the alumni the entire section on
disruption should have been reprinted.
It reads:
"Again, I would stress that the
vast majority of the student body is
opposed to illegal and irresponsible
policies. In analyzing the attitudes
of the student body we have found
less than two hundred students who
encourage violence and disruptive
tactics. This leaves 98% who are at
the University for the purpose of
pursuing the educational process.
The faculty, also, may be said to
have its small coterie of radical
individuals. The overwhelming majority
are devoted to the institution,
its preservation and its improvement."
Sound a little familiar? At any
rate, the director of the Alumni
Association doesn't know who
made the analysis (someone should
ask Mr. Barrett what "we" means -
and whether the concept of honor
has been excluded for the Alumni
Associations officers.) But, it is
precisely this combination of falsification
and scare tactics that are
training many recent alumni to seek
alternatives to the present Alumni
Association and to establish an organization
that is responsive to the
people attending the University
that moves for progressive change,
and that avoids a concept of things
staying just as they were when we
went to good old U.Va.
