University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

A Note Of Sanity From A Displeased Reader

While I regard the embryonic
efforts of budding journalists to be
necessary if this country is to have
a corps of professional journalists
that are worth anything to the mass
media, I find these efforts of The
Cavalier Daily to be so inept that
after four years at this university I
must, at least, level a note of sanity
at this publication.

From the first year I spent at
this university I have watched the
caliber of this newspaper drop from
that of a news oriented publication
to an editorial scandal sheet, to an
issue concerned only with filling
the column space with whatever is
available for print. (In this sense I
will be somewhat chagrined if this
letter appears.) Articles that appear
on the "news pages" of the paper
often ring suspiciously with the
tone of the editorial. Why are not
these on the editorial page or noted
so that they may be clearly seen as
opinions of other than expert
persons?

Yours editor's reply to a recent
letter from a graduate of this
university now residing in Texas
does not answer the questions
raised nor dies it deal with the
content of the letter in any
intelligent manner. To merely call
someone a liar does not prove or
demonstrate the point. It serves
only to degrade the editor and the
paper as a whole, and put it in the
category of those of the Teddy
Roosevelt era.

While I realize that a school
without a newspaper is, in a sense,
incomplete, I do expect more of
value from a paper than the correct
date printed at the top of the first
page.

If this is printed I am sure that
the readers will gleen much pleasure
from the sort of editorial response
that will be issued in an attempt at
wit or half-witted reply.

Correction

Your editorial on "Committee
Appointments," while admirable in
its intent, is factually incorrect. It is
true that "any student can be a
member of a committee," and
Student Council is attempting to
place as many students as possible
on University committees.
However, the Council does not, as
your editorial states, send a "select
list to the President" with
"suggested" student members;
rather, under an agreement with
President Shannon, Student
Council appoints all student
members of University committees
subject to the President's
confirmation. Should the President
disagree with an appointment
(which has never happened) he will
consult with Council and an
alternate will be appointed.

The key point this year is this:
for the first time, students who
have not been appointed by
Student Council first will not serve
on University committees next
year. President Shannon has asked
his committee chairmen to submit
nominations directly to the Council
instead of to him. We are, of
course, cooperating fully with the
chairman, and we take our
responsibility quite seriously.

Any student who wishes to serve
on a University committee next
year should therefore make sure
that Student Council has his name
and interests.

Parietals

May I second your conclusions
on the first year parietal issue.

Many of the administrators at
this University have been, and are
now, deluding themselves by
believing that "a proper balance in
regards o the social, academic, and
personal privacy demands of
individual students" (in the words
of Vice-President Williams) has
been achieved. Telling oneself that
this is the case does not make it so.
One has only to look at the parietal
vote of the first year class (1423 to
59 for the First Year Council
proposal) to see that the great
majority of students disagree with
Mr. Williams appraisal of the
situation.

The First Year Council
President, Charles Musson, and
myself, as well as the entire First
Year Council, have repeatedly made
clear to administrators our reasons
for believing that the present
regulations do not provide this
"proper balance." The
administration has yet to even
address itself to the points which
we have made. The problem is not
so much that they have refused our
request; It is more a matter that
they have not begun to adequately
answer any of our arguments.

At the end of one of our
discussions with Vice-President
Williams on parietals, I confronted
him with the proposition that he
had successfully evaded answering
everything we had presented. Mr.
Williams then included that we
had reached a basic and
irreconcilable "difference in
philosophy." May I suggest that we
will never solve the problems at this
University if administrators insist
upon debating philosophy rather
than reasonable and logical
arguments.

This is the first time that we in
the First Year Council have ridden
the administrative merry-go-round
for any considerable length of time,
and, to say the least, it was not a
pleasurable experience, an
experience we hope will not be
repeated. For it is time the
administration ceased playing
games and started reasonably
discussing the vital issues at hand.