University of Virginia Library

In Defense Of Hickman

Ad hominem attacks seem to be the order
of the day.
Of the several we have seen lately,
however, there is at least one which is
founded largely on misinformation and
misunderstanding.

Ron Hickman, after only a few weeks as
president of Student Council, seems suddenly
to be everyone's "bad guy." He is accused of
"deserting" the Student Coalition, or willfully
overruling a majority of the Council to stifle a
meeting, of speaking without justification "on
behalf of the student body," and of being, in
effect, a racist — all after two days' activity.

When the Student Coalition was organized,
Ron Hickman was, indeed, an enthusiastic
member of it as he interpreted it. He saw the
whole movement, as did several others, as
nothing more than a general display of
massive opposition to racism in hopes of
insuring that the past and future proposals
presented to the Administration would be
strengthened by the support that would thus
be demonstrated for the general ideal from
which they sprang. In other words, he hoped
that such a movement would enlighten the
Administration and the state as to the
strength of students' feelings on racism. He
saw it further as a demonstration that strong
feelings could be made known by such
dramatic methods without resorting to radical
or violent techniques or threats.

On Sunday night, however, the Coalition
came under increasing pressure to focus on
the real and specific issues implicit in its very
general and idealistic statements. Responding
to those pressures, the group drew up its five
"concerns" of Monday. It happened that
several of those concerns or proposals were
ones which had never been put forward
before, in particular through the "established
channel" of the Student Council. This
development put Mr. Hickman's relationship
with the Coalition in a new perspective.

The President of the Student Council, in
assuming the responsibilities of his position,
implicitly asserts his faith in the established
channels and, in effect, pledges to use them,
as he becomes their spokesman. For him to
have appeared on the Lawn as if to demand
action on proposals which he had not
previously forwarded the proper way would
have been highly hypocritical and irresponsible.
For him to have put himself in a
position of demanding things he had never
asked for would have been an inexcusable act
of bad faith on his part, which would have
jeopardized his standing with the Administration
and thus the effectiveness of the
channels he represents. Mr. Hickman was and
is in complete agreement with the ends of the
Coalition; he could attend its rallies, as he did,
but he could not sponsor or organize them.
He withdrew from the Coalition only when he
realized that his responsibility to his office, to
the council, to the students, and to the
Administration required him to do so.

On Monday night it became apparent to
the Coalition, as it made its plans for Tuesday,
that its position might be considerably
strengthened or justified if the Student
Council met to endorse its proposals. Several
Councilmen tried to organize a meeting, and a
majority of the Council responded and came
to Newcomb Hall. Mr. Hickman did not come,
however, and is therefore charged with going
against the will of the majority. The fact is,
however, that several members who came did
so under the impression that Mr. Hickman had
called the meeting; when they discovered that
he did not, they withdrew and left those who
were trying to organize the meeting without a
majority. It may well be that Mr. Hickman
should have called the meeting, or at least
have explained himself, but in not doing so he
did not go against the bidding of his Council.

He is also accused of making an apology to
C. Stuart Wheatley in the students' name
without authorization or justification. There
is no truth in this allegation except that he
was one of 24 signers of the telegram which
made the apology. The other signers included
the members of the Coalition and numerous
other sympathetic students who felt Mr.
Wheatley should be given the opportunity to
explain himself. Mr. Wheatley contacted Mr.
Hickman to respond to the telegram, and Mr.
Hickman communicated his response to the
student body in his statement in Wednesday's
paper, adding to the response that he,
personally, was satisfied with it.

Thus none of the charges leveled at him are
valid. Granted, there is widespread disagreement
with his personal preference of how to
do things, and with his sentiments regarding
Mr. Wheatley, but those can be no more than
differences of opinion. For whatever it's
worth, he seems to have reflected the majority
opinion of the Council in that it, too, must
have been satisfied with Mr. Wheatley's
response.

As for the difficulties at Tuesday night's
meeting, they can certainly be attributed to
no one except the gallery.

It is sad indeed that those who serve on the
Council with Mr. Hickman — those who have
been fighting the battles with him — can, even
in times of intense emotion, forget so easily
what he has done for the students and for the
Council. We recall how highly he was regarded
earlier this year for his work with the
Organizations and Publications Committee
and for his successful bid to gain for the
Council control of the Student Activities Fee.
He was instrumental, also, in convincing the
Board to change the parietal rules.

What remains a mystery is why it is that so
much criticism has centered on Mr. Hickman,
for he has sought only to perform his duties as
he saw them. It was entirely logical for him to
withdraw from the coalition when it infringed
on his constituted responsibilities; it is
entirely defensible for him to have refrained
from subjecting the Council to an unannounced
meeting on a moment's notice, it
was proper for him to receive and convey Mr.
Wheatley's response; and it was his job to try
to maintain order in his meeting even if
passions and emotions were high. Perhaps his
critics, increasingly frustrated with the whole
situation, focused their wrath on him merely
for want of any other handy scapegoat. There
is no doubt that each development appeared
to place him in opposition to the demonstrators
and to their goals, but that appearance
was not indicative of reality. Anyone
who witnessed his enthusiasm when the whole
movement was first being organized can attest
to his dedication to the ideals involved. Means
alone, in that they were irreconcilable with his
position — and his position alone — forced
him into that no man's land between the
generations.