University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Reader's Interest In Editorial Brings Proposal For Boycott

I read with interest your
October 8th editorial entitled
"Barber Bigots." I was especially
interested by the fact that amidst
the indignation there was a sense of
irony and wonderment.

The editorial seems to be based
on what I believe to be a quite
commonly held fallacy here at the
University, i.e., that we are a
basically liberal, progressive,
concerned student body that is
appalled at individual acts of
discrimination.

After a little over a year here at
the University I have a feeling that
the average "Cavalier" is at heart, if
not in speech, rather racist, and is
not particularly ashamed of it. I
believe that he feels either that
private barber shops have a right to
cut (or not to cut) the hair of
whomsoever they please or at least
that it is not the duty of any
individual to bring such bigots
around to equalitarianism by
anything so drastic as a boycott.

However I may be wrong; so I
propose a test.

After the true policies of the
barbershops are determined by Mr.
Charles Murdock, if any shops still
refuse to cater to Blacks, let the
names of these shops be published
in The Cavalier Daily. Ask all
concerned, right-thinking people
not to patronize these shops. Then,
wait for a reasonable time. If the
boycott and the offending barbers
are idle, I will concede that I am
wrong and take the verbal thrashing
on your editorial page that I will
justly deserve.

If, however, the boycott is a
failure, you must reassess on your
editorial page the racial situation at
the University and throw the full
weight of your efforts behind more
forceful methods of coercion such
as picketing. Are you game?

Dan Sullivan
Law II

We will indeed publish the
names of those barber shops Mr.
Murdoch's study finds will not cut Negroes hair when he provides
us with a list of them. We are
certain that we will not have to
encourage all concerned, right-thinking
people not to patronize
them. It's the unconcerned, not-so-right-thinking
people that we have
to worry about. —ed.

Negro Admissions

In her letter of October 10, Miss
Corbett stated that she would go
even further than Mr. Levy's
proposal of lower entrance
requirements for Negroes and that
she would suggest a "free tuition
for Negroes."

She said that one of her reasons
for this suggestion is that many
Negroes cannot even think about
seeking college admission because
they lack unit requirements in the
fields of language, math, and
science because of a lack of
parental or teacher influence to
enroll in these courses. However, in
most high schools the lack of
parental or teacher influence to
enroll in these courses is not really
relevant because they are required
courses and must be taken anyway
in order to graduate. These basic
credits are necessary and should be
required for college admission. If a
student were accepted into college
without these requirements then he
would not be able to keep up
academically with the rest of his
class. If a student's high school
doesn't require these courses, then
it is the high school's responsibility
to raise its standards and not the
college's responsibility to lower its
standards.

Another reason that she gave for
her suggestion is that Negroes
would be prevented from attending
college by financial difficulties.
However, I believe this to be untrue
because at most universities, and
particularly at this one, there is a
very good Office of Financial Aid.
It is not hard for any qualified
student, regardless of his color, to
get monetary assistance from this
office.

Miss Corbett claims that the
program, which she endorses, is not
a "hand-out" but a program aimed
at alleviating discrimination on
college entrance requirements. Yet
it creates discrimination by having
different standards for the different
races. This program is no solution
for the problem of "racial
injustice."

I agree with Mr. Murray, who
said that the average Negro scholar
would be insulted by a "hand-out"
education in the form of lowered
standards and lures. I support the
policy of equal entrance
requirements for all races.

Administration

It disturbed me more than a
little to hear the recent article by
Walker Chandler described as an
"extremely well though-out
presentation" and to have his and
Robert Rosen's articles praised as
an excellent program for the
University. Mr. Chandler's article
seemed to be basically and
obviously rubbish and wild-eyed
shoutings. I feel I must rise "to
dispute the cold fact" that Mr.
Chandler and his ilk shall run this
university.

For the real cold fact is that we
do have a responsibility to the
citizens of this state. It has
apparently been overlooked by Mr.
Chandler that they to an
overwhelming extent pay for our
education. We are being educated,
among other things, for positions of
leadership, but should some of us,
in the name of this leadership,
presumptuously seek to upset the
whole basic moral system of
society, they have the right to
withdraw support from them.

I have, of course, no objective
proof that the administration does
support whole-heartedly the
so-called (by Mr. Chandler, not I)
"antiquated moral reasons" for
visitation rules and so on, but I am
quite sure that they do. How does
Mr. Chandler support his claim that
they don't?

I could devote quite a bit of
space to an argument against the
statement that "everything is
relative" and that hence there is no
moral system. However, let me just
say that Mr. Chandler would almost
undoubtedly feel quite indignant if
people defrauded him, assaulted
him, and generally were unfair to
him, as they could if it were true, as
he says, that "everything" -
including the truth and moral
standards - "is relative." If anarchy
were a viable system, surely some
civilization in the world would have
adopted it; I've never heard one
that did. And survived . . . .

Having had the dubious privilege
of being a cadet at the Air Force
Academy, I know quite well the
oppression of rules. However, I also
know that rules are necessary for
the preservation of an orderly,
growing society. Our position here
at the University is that of
students: we came to learn, and to
learn a lot more than what is taught
in the classrooms. I don't know
about Mr. Chandler, but one thing
I've learned here is the
unfathomable extent of man's
ignorance. The administration of
course shares this ignorance, but
nevertheless, they do know more
than we do, especially about such
things as the discipline which is
necessary to learn. They were
students for a good while
themselves, and they are also now
in a position to see more and
farther than we can. I came to
learn, so I am willing to put myself
in their hands.

Of course, I would be a fool if I
were to do this blindly, and they
would be fools if they tried to run
our lives entirely. We are not
infants. On the other hand, we are
closer to being infants than they
are. Continued, concerned
communication is necessary
between the two segments for each
to understand the position of the
other, and act responsibly about it.
We should have a voice, but not the
final one.

It is very flattering to think that
we could run this school. We do
have a hand in many parts of it, but
with all due respect to our student
leaders, the school would collapse if
it were run by students.

University Reform

ON UNIVERSITY REFORM, III

McCarthy Revisited

I am neither a student of
political science nor one well versed
on who is best qualified to be our
next president. It behooves me
though to express some of my
thoughts. As an undergraduate I
was once faced with the decision of
voting for one of two students
running for president of the student
body. I knew both of the
candidates well and each asked for
my support. Gullibly, I voted for
the one who promised to bring
about the greatest needed reforms
around the campus. His campaign
speeches expressed with confidence
the many things he would
accomplish if elected. Now in the
final analysis I see his aim was
mainly to get elected, and this he
did, but without accomplishing the
good he had promised.

Looking at the situation in
retrospect I see the other student
who stated his views simply and
with a great deal of integrity was
really the one who could have
performed the best. I am sorry now
that he was not elected.

I appreciate having men as great
as Humphrey, Nixon, and even
Wallace in our country running for
president, but it is unfortunate that
the man who has spoken simply
and with a great deal of integrity
will not be elected. A large
percentage of the people I have
talked with actually favor
McCarthy. It appears that a
majority of the capable voters in
our universities and throughout our
land wan a change from the
Humphrey forces, question the
Nixon leadership, and fear the
Wallace endeavors. This makes one
even more saddened that McCarthy,
the possible best one, has been
pushed behind, for certainly he has
impressed us with his honesty,
leadership ability, and genuine
integrity.

Would it not be what we all
really want, if time and
communications were such that,
that the university students and all
our people could focus attention
anew upon Senator Eugene J.
McCarthy?

Grape Boycott

For the possible (if, indeed, it is
possible) enlightenment of those
knee jerk crusaders of SSOC, I
would like to point out some
erroneous implications in Mr.
Lopatkiewicz's article on the
California grape boycott (Oct. 10).

In reading the article one gets
the impression that 1) the Delano
strike, led by Humble Cesar
Chavez's United Farm Workers
Organizing Committee, is successful
and popular among California's
8,000 grape pickers, 2) that most of
the grape pickers are underpaid,
overworked, and migrant - which
is why they're striking, and 3) that
the grape boycott is designed to
hurt the oppressive, insensitive,
money-hungry grape growers, like
the Giumarra Corporation. All of
these assertions are wrong, as
witness the following realities: 1.

Only about two or three percent
of California's grape pickers
have voluntarily joined the
UFWOC. Ordinary recruitment
methods have failed to work
with the laborers, so, with the
help of the AFL-CIO, the
UFWOC has undertaken the
boycott to force the growers to
sign union shop contracts. In
fact, the formation of the
UFWOC has spurred Jose
Mendoza, a 36-year-old grape
picker, to organize the
Agricultural Workers Freedom
to Work Association, which, of
course, is opposed to coerced
unionization. 2. The real issue is
not poor working conditions.
The great majority of the
workers involved in the dispute
are valley residents (not
migrants) who earn a base pay
of $1.50 an hour plus 25 cents
for each 36 lb. lug they fill (one
worker may fill up to ten lugs
an hour). Rather, the real issue
is whether the AFL-CIO can get
its paws on millions of dollars in
union dues and assessments.
How nice it would be if all farm
workers were unionized! 3. If
the boycott hurts anyone it will
be the small operators, who
constitute a majority of grape
producers in California. If all
the workers were unionized, (as
they would be if the boycott is
successful), and if they decided
to strike at harvest time, only
the large corporate producers
could survive.

Before any attempts are made
to bring this boycott to
Charlottesville, the parties involved
should realize the above truths.

Accountant Letter

I take this forum to ask that the
person responsible for the letter
from Kitty Bruce (accountant) step
forward. I do not refer to the
LADY, of course, but to the
student who has caused her to
think badly of us all. You will be
found out anyway, sir, for there are
precious few of us who do not have
part-time jobs or work during the
summer so you on the parental dole
will be easily identified. In addition
she has provided the clue that you
make motions in the Newcomb Hall
grill so we shall know where to find
you. I do not wish to know how
you have hurt this LADY but ask
only that amends be made. Purge
yourself of the delusion that your
continuing efforts to educate
yourself should in any way lift you
above the masses by moving to
Crozet, attending Wallace rallies,
and holding long deep discussions
on the world situation with the just
plain folks. Remember that no
sacrifice is too great to preserve our
good name among those who labor
to live while we just sit around
drinking mint juleps. Jefferson the
educator, legislator, President, etc.,
after all, may soon be forgotten,
but he will always be remembered
as a guy with dirt under his
fingernails. So make, or take, all
vows necessary to placate this
injured accountant that ye may rest
in peace.

'Playboy-gentlemen'

I would like to take this
opportunity to express my
appreciation to the students whom
I had in my classes last year. Their
enthusiasm and interest made my
sojourn as a Visiting Associate
Professor of Geography at the
University for the 1967-68
academic year a genuine success.

However, I would also like to
repeat something I often said,
possibly too often: don't be
content with a "gentlemanly
education." I encourage you to
demand better teaching, to become
involved in contemporary issues,
and to use Virginia's heritage of
past performance to build
leadership for future greatness in a
time of national and international
social revolution. But don't
"demand" by childish means; make
your feelings known through
participation in real programs,
through selection of classes and
teachers who are aware of modern
and future problems, and through
selection of leaders who can break
away from the stereotype of
"gentlemen" - or should it be
"playboy-gentlemen?" Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Monroe, Mr. Mason
and even Patrick Henry were
gentlemen but they were not
playboy-gentlemen.