University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Vote Validity Challenged

On Tuesday afternoon this week
I happened to look into the "ballot
box" which had been placed in the
doorway to the Snack Bar in
Newcomb Hall. This box was a
cardboard crate with about a fourth
of the top missing, effectively wide
open to passersby, sitting on a chair
with a stack of blank ballots next
to it and a sign reading, "Vote
Here." In the bottom were a large
number of ballots - about 200, I'd
guess - and I noticed that none of
the ones on top were marked;
supposedly all abstentions. Then I
noticed that most of the ballots
were in a wad, neatly fanned out as
if one had dropped a deck of cards
(or a stack of blank ballots) into
the box. After lifting a few of the
top ones it was evident that none,
or practically none, of the ballots in
the box was marked or showed
signs of having been individually
placed there.

The obvious inference is that
someone who wants to inflate the
number of ballots cast in the
present Judiciary referendum
dropped a number of "abstentions"
into the ballot box. While the active
group on the Grounds which seeks
to expand student control in such
areas as the Judiciary Committee
would never engage in such a tactic,
it is well known to their supporter
that they have been having trouble
getting even 23% of the student
body to vote, in three days, in
ballot boxes scattered in every
conceivable gathering place (such as
at a public bus stop on Main
Street). Forty percent is the required
minimum. As reported Monday,
the vote after three days was
three to one in favor of the new
judiciary constitution, but those
voting "yes" were only 14% of the
student body, which is hardly a
mandate for change. If the 77% o
the students who did not vote in
that time is any indication, th
there is no sizeable segment of th
student population which
anxious to reform the Judiciary.
Constitution, and the three additional
days of voting which have
been added will only invite ballot
stuffing and other breeches of the
Honor Code by those who want to
push the vote over the 40% minimum.

It is a sorry fact, but one that
may have to be faced, that the
Honor pledge to vote only once will
not protect student referendums
and elections from any group
determined to commit fraud. While
it may have been unwise for the
Judiciary Committee, the group
that will benefit from the new
Constitution, to have modified the
election procedures in their favor
after an unfavorable initial return
became know, or for them to have
endorsed the distribution of ballot
boxes to so many inconsequential
places, the greatest harm in this
referendum may be to student faith
in the integrity of unpoliced voting
conducted in elections under the
Honor System.

Had the author of the recent
editorial "Consistency, Please," not
attempted to link the establishment
and operation of ROTC units on
the Grounds to the requests that
the University lend implicit
condemation to the October 15th
activities, he might have made a
partial and very weak argument for
the cancellation of classes on that
day. As it was, he tried to trot tout
the old, tired arguments of the past,
and as such shouldn't be too
alarmed when someone criticises
him for doing so.

The chief function of
government is the protection of its
citizens, on a broad range of foreign
and domestic fronts. This is why
citizens give up their fight of
self-help. They are confident that
they will be protected. If the staff
of The Cavalier Daily doesn't
believe this fact, it might interview
the student whose date was
assaulted in the vicinity of the
Grounds. The only substantial
controversy that is commonly
raised is centered around how much
protection the ordinary citizen
requires.

The logical extension of all this
is that somewhere there must exist
agencies to prepare people to
undertake the vital and
indispensable function of public
protection, on many fields foreign
and domestic. I speak with the
experience of five years removal
from the Grounds, and thus my
observations may not be in good
odor. However, I see little reason
why the University should not
sponsor and encourage its students
to prepare for public service
through joining ROTC units. This is
of course old fashioned, but I can
say that my service as a Naval
Officer, was by turns strenuous,
mentally exacting and at times even
dreary and unimaginative.
Ultimately though, it was the most
profoundly rewarding experience of
my life to date, and I am grateful
that there was, and still is, an
NROTC Unit at the University.
Moreover, I would be interested in
having The Cavalier Daily poll the
class of 1964, or at least those who
were commissioned through the
ROTC units on Grounds. I am
certain that there would be a
substantial amount of support for
the position I have taken.

I would like to offer my
congratulations to Buildings and
Grounds for the superb job they
have done today of disrupting the
Service of Concern and Inter-
on As we met outside the door
they "happened" to drive to the
front of the chapel and vacuum
leaves with THAT noisy machine
(even though there was a mountain
of leaves more toward the Rotunda).
This resulted in no one being
able to hear a thing that was said
for the ten minute service.

I know from past experience
that the administration is not very
cooperative in matters of an ecclesiastical
nature but I just can not
believe they would encourage anything
of this sort. More likely it was
the actions of those few working
who were determined to disturb the
service; after all, anything connected
with the Moratorium must
be evil.

Of the scheduled activities, this
was a poor choice on the part of
those few employees responsible
had they only stopped to think.

Being one who believes in the
effectiveness of prayer both cooperate
and private I wish to urge all
who are concerned for peace to
pray to that end. It needn't be once
a month or once a week but every
day, those who call themselves
Christian is an obligation.

Once again the Cavalier Daily
has shown its editorial cleverness by
juxtaposing opposition to the
Vietnam War with on attack on
ROTC. It is quite a neat and
deceptive trick: to link ROTC with
pro-War sentiment, for there is
probably no group on this campus
that yearns for an end to the War as
much as do the students in the
three military training programs.
Unlike 2-S's, 1-Y's, 4-F's, and
married with-kids, these fellows are
in. They are not for the War, but
neither are they ignoring it. They
have, however, chosen one of the
several alternatives available to
those who feel that a military force
is a national necessity.

Ideological and philosophical
attacks on ROTC are fashionable
nd fun. But in calling for the
banishment of non-compulsory
military training at the University
of Virginia are you not indulging in
a left-wing ers n of
McCarthy You would deny to
a substantial portion of the student
body the right to take courses
which better prepare them for a
part of their future, simply because
you disagree with the courses and
the future. Talk with the ROTC
Cadets who, after all, are the
ones really concerned and see
how they feel. Or do they count at
all?