University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Principals Clarified
In Economics Clash

As one of the graduate students
signing the letter disavowing the
views of Roman Senkiw, I would
like to question Alan Bromberg's
statements about the Department
of Economics and particularly
about Professor Martin's letter.

I objected to Senkiw's letter
because I felt his views could be
used by others to discredit the
Economics Department. Although I
have encountered a wide variety of
opinions among the faculty and
graduate students in the Economics
Department in three years, Senkiw's
seem to me to be virtually the
only opinions that could even
remotely be described as "racist."
Yet Bromberg used our letter as a
pretext for furthering the misconception
that the Department of
Economics is "racist" and "reactionary."

Senkiw argued that the distribution
of income reflected a statistical
"truth" and should not be altered.
Professor Martin suggested that
transfers of "money, goods or
training" were superior to the
minimum wage as a means of
redistribution. But Bromberg fails
to see that these are different
points of view.

Senkiw emphasized the importance
of genes as the determinant of
ability, ability as determining individual
position in society. As races
are to him nothing more than "gene
pools," their relative position reflects
only heredity and not environment.
Certainly Professors Breit,
Moore and Culbertson's arguments
against any form of racial discrimination
represents the complete
opposite of this position.

Bromberg's caricature of the
Economics Department as "anti-dillevian"
or "pre-Keynesian" reveals
only the depth of his own
ignorance and prejudice. John Maynard
Keynes opposed the minimum
wage because it would create
unnecessary unemployment. Did
that make him "pre-Keynesian"?

Hickman

At last night's Student Council
meeting, because of Mr. Murdock's
insistence upon hearing the entire
correspondence with Mr. Wheatley,
it became quite clear that Ron
Hickman has appointed himself
censor and editor concerning communication
between the Student
Council and outside bodies.

After first reading Mr. Wheatley's
reply to Student Council's
motion of February 25, Mr. Hickman
indicated that the rest of the
text he held was not relevant to the
issue because they were his own
comments and not Mr. Wheatley's.
The rest of the text was not read at
this time.

But when Mr. Wheatley's reply
was brought up under old business,
Mr. Murdock requested that the full
text of Mr. Hickman's letter be
read. Upon reading the letter a
number of the Student Council
members became noticeably disgusted
with the handling of the
matter.

Mr. Hickman, in defense of his
letter, indicated that he knew,
through a previous conversation
with Mr. Wheatley, that he would
not repudiate his past actions, and
thus saw fit to ask only that Mr.
Wheatley reaffirm his past position
of "equity" for all. And that his
intention in softening (or should I
say censoring?) Student Council's
specific proposals was to keep from
offending Mr. Wheatley so that he
might at least reply. Mr. Hickman
upon questioning from another
Student Council member, stated
that he had hoped Mr. Wheatley
would repudiate his past principles
and make a statement to this effect.

But Mr. Hickman is mixed up.
One doesn't say: "Reaffirm your
past position" and then expect to
receive a new answer - i.e. the one
Student Council had previously
made clear was the only acceptable
answer.

If Mr. Hickman was not able to
convey the correct message to Mr.
Wheatley after such great elaboration
by the Student Council members
as to what was to be sent, then
Mr. Hickman is incompetent. If, on
the other hand, Mr. Hickman was
intelligent enough to know what
the Student Council wished and
then did otherwise, he is not an
honorable gentleman and should
remove himself from office.

It is blatantly evident that in
either case Mr. Hickman is not
qualified to be on Student Council
and should resign.

Chandler

It has given me no little pleasure
to read the many letters of criticism
that have been printed in this year's
Cavalier Daily which are directed
against various and sundry fascist
and/or communist plots that I have
allegedly spearheaded during my
term of office on the Student
Council. My pleasure derives not so
much from seeing my own name in
print (I have a typewriter that I use
for that purpose), but rather it
arises from the blatant boorishness
of the vast majority of my functionally
illiterate detractors (Engineering
School, please comment).
They are, I would imaging, people
who take your often-erroneous
news coverage as truth, SDS literature
as pure lies, and the merits of
the late Dr. King as debatable. I feel
rather sorry for these people as
they strike out blindly against what
they can't comprehend and haven't
studied. This is not to say, of
course, that I am above criticism -
I would only hope that in the
future it might be of a little higher
quality.

I am writing not so much in
response to any single letter or
cause, but rather in response to the
type of criticism which helps to put
a chuckle in an otherwise dry paper
and at the same time lowers the
intellectual content (such as it is) of
your rag - in short, the type of
letter I am writing.

The issue of "Dixie" is a good
example. As a native Georgian
(USA not CCCP), it was my song
too. I also used to use the word
"nigger" in polite conversation. But
I grew up and put away childish
things (except, naturally, my Grand
Dragon Halloween costume and my
teddy). I abstained on the same
vote in the Fall. It is, granted, a
very debatable issue. It was debated
and a majority (Bolshevik) of
Council voted in favor of asking
WUVA and the pep band to refrain
from playing the song. We did so
reluctantly, not vindictively. The
point, however, is that the Council
has not sent a flying squad of Black
Shirts and KGBs to liquidate the
band or destroy the Rotunda as the
phantom rednecks would have us
believe. And so it goes with nearly
every issue that beats the unimaginative
over the head - reaction is
their sole capacity.

I hope that this letter will produce
another veritable storm of
protest and trust that such objections
will continue to be of the
same low caliber and base humor
that has heretofore been their only
distinguishing attributes. I would,
however, welcome a change.

Yes, mudslinging can be fun!