As some of the students who
exhibited "ungentlemanly conduct"
last Saturday afternoon in
confronting Mr. Wheatley personally
we would like to mention a few
unreported facts. In spite of Messrs.
Mannix and Hickman's comments,
Wheatley stated he had nothing to
apologize for concerning his past
racial policy, and he would not
repeat them only because he found
them "ineffective" that is to say
futile. After prompting by incredibly
leading questions by Mr.
Mannix (who resembled the
pathetic little boy pleading "Say it
ain't so Joe") Wheatley revealed he
was for equality for all just so we
do not bring down the "barriers."
The only meaningful idea in his
statement comes from his curious
choice of language. If he had said
"standards" one could deduce he
was concerned about university
education, but "barriers" has a different
connotation. It is of course
uncertain what was exactly on his
mind, but the image of a black peril
cannot be far-from wrong. In any
case history puts the presumption
against him, and his later statements
can only be seen as a fear of
the "straights" whom at the time
he did not consider concerned.
As a matter of principle it seems
the wisest policy to follow in purging
U.Va. of its racial traditions is
to impose costs of its injustice upon
the oppressors (active or passive)
instead of resting them solely upon
the oppressed. Abrogating certain
laws of social decorum is a positive
and constructive method of effecting
this change. The power structure
must see and feel that we have
higher values than the more formalities
of gentlemanly conduct. If
knowledge is dear do you not feel
that what we have learned in
Saturday's confrontation is worth
the price of some social discomfiture?
Though we have nothing to
apologize for, Mr. Hickman, you
have apologized to Mr. Wheatley
for us. Who will apologize to the
Black community for you?
Charles Westcott
Michael Brannon
M.E. Roche
