University of Virginia Library

Letters: Priggish Polemics

The controversy that blazed around
the Student Council's temporary
suspension of the rule against
patronage of segregated
facilities by student organizations
generated so much more smoke
than light that I fear one important
incident may pass unnoticed. I
refer to the letter signed by thirty-one
faculty members which
appeared in Tuesday's Cavalier
Daily.

The rule in question was made
by the Student Council, suspended
by the Council, and finally reinstated
by the Council in a
strengthened form at the behest
of a vocal faction of the student
body. At no time was the advice
of the faculty members ever required,
and at no time was it
ever solicited. The students of this
University proved quite capable of
resolving the issue independently.

Certainly faculty members,
whether requested to or not, have
a right to put in their two cents
worth on any issue (although two
cents is perhaps an overly generous
estimate in the present case). But
in controversies between factions
of the student body and their
elected representatives I, for one,
think it desirable that faculty members
exercise considerably more
restraint than was evidenced by the
authors of that priggish polemic
in Tuesday's CD.

The letter in question explicitly
imputed moral turpitude and
bigotry to a majority of the
member of the Student Council.
The validity of those imputations
appears most dubious in the light
of subsequent events. Of course,
the members could not
know what course the Council
sub would take at the
, signed their names to
, but that is all
more why they might
have been more cautious in making
snap judgments on the personal
integrity of the Councilmen. While
I realize that certain of these
faculty members find it difficult
to forego any opportunity to exhibit
their crusading egalitarianism,
I hope that they will henceforth
find it possible to restrain
themselves in the use of invective
when making gratuitous preachments
about controversies which,
as events have shown, can be
satisfactorily resolved by the students
themselves.

It is quite possible that a majority
of the student body finds nothing
wrong with faculty members entering
the fray in the present context,
but let faculty members thrust
themselves into what is essentially
a student controversy sometime
when their views are not shared
by the bulk of the student body,
and then mine will not be the only
voice raised in protest.

Different Interests

"The heretic" blandly states that
fraternity men and independents
are "two different interest groups"
but fails to give even the slightest
hint as to what these radically
different interests are.

The truth is that a fraternity-independent
split would not solve
student government's problems,
it would in fact exacerbate them;
personalities, not issues, would
remain firmly entrenched in the
forefront of every campaign. There
is no inherent difference between
fraternity men and independents
per se over any issue which would
concern the Student Council.

The only real interest groups
that can be said to exist at the
University are liberal activists and
conservative traditionalists-those
who demand a certain amount of
change in rules, institutions, and
overall attitudes on one hand and
those who are satisfied with things
as they are on the other. "The
heretic" implies that all fraternity
men are resolute defenders of the
status quo and that all independents
are equally determined
in their attacks upon it. The generalization
is fatally overextended,
and even a limited investigation
would reveal enough liberal fraternity
men and conservative independents
to disprove it.

Instead of a complete split along
fraternity-independent lines, a
liberal-conservative realignment
would be more calculated to bring
"issues rather than personalities"
to the fore. Why not establish two
political bases, one liberal-oriented,
the other on a conservative
bias? Representation
would be on an individual basis
(as it is now in the University
Party) and thus power would be
equitably distributed to fraternity
men and independents alike.

Fraternity men would not then
vote for a candidate simply because
he was a fraternity man
but rather because they supported
his views. The same is true for
independents. If there were any
issues at all in a given campaign,
they would necessarily be forced
to the surface.