University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Small Town 'Cop-ism' Displayed
By Removal Of Gregory Poster

At 1:50 p.m. today, Monday, 4
November, on the eve of the national
election, two of
Charlottesville's finest exhibited another
example of that apparently
inescapable small town "cop-ism"
which confronts us almost daily.
The incident occurred at the intersection
of Garrett and Ware Streets,
in a predominantly Negro neighborhood,
when Charlottesville Police
patrol wagon number 64 pulled to a
screeching halt and the officer in
the passenger seat jumped out and
viciously ripped a campaign poster
soliciting votes for Dick Gregory
for president from the telephone
pole to which it had been tacked.
The officer then got back into the
car, and the officer who was operating
the car drove it unhesitatingly
past the next telephone pole which
bore a poster with a picture of the
very white, very establishment face
of Congressman Marsh.

You're welcome in Selma,
George.

Editorial Inaccuracy

Responsible reporting requires
that a newspaper make sure of its
facts before it goes to press. By this
standard your editorial of November
1st was lacking, as a telephone
call to the Director of the University
of Virginia Hospital, the manager
of the Beauty Shop, or me would
have shown the inaccuracy of several
of the statements you make as
fact. Please allow me space to reply.

The Beauty Shop at the University
of Virginia Hospital is one of
the several moneymaking operations
which enables our Auxiliary
to give substantially to the Hospital
- last year over $23,000, in addition
to the many services our volunteers
offer to patients and staff.
The service of our volunteers is
given freely and generously
throughout the Hospital to people
of all races, and we are grateful that
our volunteers themselves include
women of several races, including
Negro.

Space at the Hospital is at a
premium, as every doctor, nurse, or
employee knows. Each of our shops
would like to expand, but it has not
been possible. The Beauty Shop
occupies a space of 11 feet, six
inches by 17 feet, six inches, in
which three beauticians work. In
addition, they give bedside care to
patients who cannot come to the
shop.

The clientele of the Beauty
Shop is approximately as follows:
15% patients, 15% visitors, and 70%
employees or staff. All of our operators
have stated to me that they
are willing to work on the hair of
Negro customers whose hair is sufficiently
straight for them to be
confident of success with it. Mrs.
Clements in her letter to you acknowledges
that "curly type hair is
of a different procedure than the
Caucasian hair."

Upon a very few occasions we
have declined to work on hair with
which we knew we could not succeed,
but in the past year we have
given hair care to at least four
patients, one employee (who is a
regular customer) and one visitor
who were Negro. The most recent
was only a week ago when the
NAACP convention was held at the
University.

I consider it unfortunate that
the high philosophical tone of your
editorial remarks was not equalled
by a sense of justice which would
have prompted you to ask your
questions to us before putting them
in print.

Mrs. Frederic W. Scott
President
University Hospital
Auxiliary

The editorial made no statements
about the hospital as fact. It
rather asked for a report on the
situation involved from someone
who knew. You have provided us
with that report, and we thank you
for it. -ed.

Student Petition

The CD's journalistically
dubious practice of using an
editorial to usurp the reportorial
function proper to a news story was
once again in evidence on
Wednesday. The events leading up
to the presentation of the Board of
Visitors petition were given short
and inadequate shrift in a
one-paragraph "caption."
Meanwhile, a careful selection of
other pertinent facts (and errors)
was introduced into the
opinionated structure of an
editorial.

It may be too much to hope for
a reform of CD's antijournalistic
habits, but I wish to rectify some of
the false impressions and challenge
some of the eccentric opinions
which appeared in Wednesday's
paper.

The decision to award the
petition to Mr. Evans was not, as
your editorial implied, made by the
students attending the meeting on
the Lawn on Tuesday. It was made
by some members of the committee
in a meeting to which they were
not invited.

One wonders just why President
Shannon should be so anxious for
Mr. Evans to present the petition.
Certainly there is no justification
for this course in the petition itself.
The petition was not initiated by
Student Council. The ad hoc
petition committee was not a
committee of SC. The petition was
endorsed by SC, a fact which in
itself implies that it was not in SC's
provenance - a group does not
endorse its own measures. SC
passed no resolution authorizing
Mr. Evans to present the petition in
its name. Finally, Mr. Evans was
not even a member of the ad hoc
committee.

CD may debate with itself the
merits of "going through channels"
till the Lawn freezes over, but it is
incontestable that a petition, by its
very nature, seeks to circumvent
established channels. The salient
fact is that 3,000 students
chose not to write their SC
representatives, not to ask of Mr.
Evans that he use his good offices
on their behalf, not even to request
of President Shannon that he
express his preferences among
various channels or agents of
communication; they chose to
petition the administration itself,
and it was the duty of the ad hoc
committee to present the petition
to the administration and no one
else.

To be sure it is the prerogative
of President Shannon to refuse a
petition, and such is his authority
that he need not say why. But I
submit that he has no authority
whatsoever to subvert a petition by
insisting that the students
themselves treat it as though it were
nothing more than yet another
request submitted by SC. If, as
your editorial argues, President
Shannon will not give the petition
"even as much (attention) as he
would have" had it been delivered
by Mr. Evans, and this in spite of
the fact that the 3,000 signature
petition was unanimously endorsed
by SC, then it is clearly President
Shannon, not the petitioners,
whose preoccupation with
channels overshadows a concern
with issues.

In the end I suppose that it is to
the credit of Mr. Shannon that after
three efforts to meet with him (not
two, as you reported) he finally
found the time to accept the
petition, unadorned even as it was
with Mr. Evans ingratiating hands.

'Rapier' Apology

I was somewhat mortified this
morning to read in your journal
that my sensibilities had been
"outraged;" my sincere thanks are
offered to Mr. Reynolds for being
so enlightening.

Come now, Mr. Reynolds, you
criticize "us" for having concepts
that are "rigidly and unjustifiably
stereotyped" and yet you choose to
make sweeping statements on the
behalf of all the foreign
nationalities present at the
University. I wonder if you are
aware of how large a flock you have
gathered? Well, Mr. Reynolds, you
have made yourself the champion
and mouthpiece of approximately
forty nations and I trust you are
prepared to carry out your duties in
representing "our" opinions on
subjects beyond American girls and
joyous frolics. Perhaps you could
next express my feelings on intense
self-righteous college seniors.

However, all is not lost, Mr.
Reynolds, for without your good
intentions I would never have been
aware that it was an intense
xenophobia that drove Mr. Greer to
have been so "philistine." Mr.
Greer, as one of forty, I accept
your apology on the behalf of
"Rapier."

Experimental U.

This Wednesday, November 6, is
registration day for the Experimental
University at Virginia. This
marks the beginning of a project
which deserves to succeed if only
for the sake of the courage and
aims of its founders. It is an experiment
whose very boldness in scope
and method should encourage every
student in the University to look
into it.

The course offerings will be
from many different areas, most of
them too specialized or topical to
be taught now in the University of
Virginia - film at, confrontation
at the Chicago convention, nonviolent
discipline. I use the word
"course" advisedly, however, for
these will be like no courses any
student has experienced here. Perhaps
the closest thing to these
unrestricted and ungraded exchanges
of opinion and knowledge
is the education system at Summerhill
in England. There will be no
tests. The emphasis will decidedly
be upon reading and analyzing and
criticizing and constructing. In a
certain sense, there won't even be
any teachers; the students and
adults who have volunteered to lead
the courses will be closer to
"moderators" in function. Most assuredly,
the most important part of
the courses will be the students
themselves, for it is their reading
and their discussion that the leader
is to guide and moderate. Unlike
the University of Virginia, without
interested and participating students,
no course can be a success.

This experiment offers to make
enrolled students more independent
and creative than might have been
otherwise possible in their undergraduate
courses. I urge every student
to investigate the Experimental
University's offerings this Wednesday,
from 3-5 p.m. and 7-9 p.m.
in Newcomb Hall.

ROTC Intimidation

In response to the "discussion"
held on Tuesday, October 29,
between ROTC and non-ROTC
speakers, I would like to relate a
personal experience.

I have had a number of long and
interesting discussions with a good
friend of mine who is in Army
ROTC and I have learned a great
deal from these discussions. My
friend has been in ROTC for four
years and knows' the ins and outs
well enough by now so that he is
terrified - terrified of being
identified with any anti-war or
anti-ROTC groups from fear that he
may lose his chance for a graduate
deferment. I can also say for a fact
that he is morally opposed to the
Vietnam war. In talking to me this
year, he has denounced the ROTC
program and yet he cannot state his
beliefs to just anyone as he fears
that his commanding officers might
hear of it and deprive him of his
chance for a graduate deferment. In
applying for a graduate deferment,
the ROTC student makes
application to the ROTC
department which has a great deal
of influence on the decision of the
Department of the Army. It is this
decision that my friend fears - if
he became known to the ROTC
program as having supported an
anti-war group or being opposed to
the ROTC program in general, the
commanding officers might well
deprive him of his chance for a
deferment. We both attended the
discussion on Tuesday, and he
regretfully refused to sit with me
as I was with some members of the
SDS and my friend was afraid of
being seen with "the enemy."

In conclusion, I am not signing
my name to this letter as my friend
feels that as we are close friends, his
name could easily be discovered by
the ROTC department and he fears
the consequences. If this is the type
of emotion that ROTC instills -
making a person afraid to speak his
mind or act as he feels he should -
then there must be something
wrong.

(Name withheld by request)

Nixon Accusations

The recent accusations that Mr.
Nixon has been dodging questions
of national significance is entirely
false. If one would only look at the
record I am sure that these false
allegations would be withdrawn. In
radio broadcasts, T.V. programs,
and speeches, Mr. Nixon has
repeated over and over his stand on
the issues. The frequent ambiguities
of these statements are only
reflections of the complexities of
the problems. His general
statements on issues have the ring
of rationality that this country
needs if it is to survive. Mr.
Humphrey, on the other hand,
seems to make sweeping generalities
(first in one direction and then in
the other). One could almost put
Mr. Humphrey's philosophy into
the lines:

I will also have to attack the
bureaucratic bungling that the
present administration has been
able to accomplish in the time it
has been in office. Perhaps if we
could have a respite from the Great
Society, we could recover and then
proceed to try it again when the
credibility gap has been closed. Do
you really believe that Mr.
Humphrey will be able to bring
back the luster to the tarnished
image of the United States? It is
very difficult to gloss over the
myriad of untruths that have come
pouring forth from the present
administration.

I have also heard that Mr.
Humphrey is for the Negro, for
peace, and for welfare. The facts
show that Nixon is also for these
altruistic goals. Mr. Humphrey's
uses the same old approach, give,
spend, and maybe conditions will
improve for the moment. We can
see that this has not helped in the
past and will surely breed more
frustration if it is continued into
the future. Moreover, the Negro
had a complete welfare state 120
years ago, free housing, free food,
and a guaranteed job? They were
slaves. No Negro would vote to
return to this bondage.

As for peace, the present
administration has had 8 years to
either stop the bombing, increase it,
or work through those mystic
diplomatic channels that we have
all heard about. They have failed.
Should we entrust more time to an
administration that we don't even
believe? his is even more true
since we have no idea which side
Hubby is on.

Thus, we are faced with an
admittedly drab outlook for the
1968 elections. Elect Humphrey,
who makes many policy statements
that have that old administration
sound or elect Nixon, who says less
but gives a hope that his ideas will
one day be realities. I cannot
believe Humphrey; Nixon is the
one, the only one.

Draft Stand

In your issue of Tuesday,
October 29, you announced your
support of Hubert H. Humphrey.
You described Humphrey as capable
of "dynamic and strong leadership"
and "genuinely responsive to
the wants of its [the U.S.] citizens."
If your readers answer the
questions "dynamic and strong leadership"
towards what goals and
"genuinely responsive to the
wants" of which citizens, they may
vote Nixon.

The rapid growth and productivity
of this country is owed to
those ideals that hold that a man
can produce as much as he desires
and use it as he sees fit (excluding
fraud). In addition, the tendency
has been to reinvest excess production
in the production process
itself. As a result, this country
armed the reputation of the "land
of opportunity" and attained the
highest standard of living in the
world. The impetus was the personal
profit motive and the condition
was the freedom to produce
and own property. As a by-product
labor-saving devices and improved
goods have been created. (This is
one reason that the suppression of
the Negro has been such a great loss
to this country. The potential productivity
of a large group of people
has not been fully realized).

Richard Nixon recognizes the
productive, creative, self-supporting:
those who are creating
the new jobs, labor-saving devices,
and thus raising the standard of
living. To help these people is, for
the most part, to simply refrain
from vast expansions of government
activities. An expansion for
which Hubert Humphrey has
"dynamic and strong leadership."
Hubert Humphrey is "genuinely responsive
to the wants of [some] of
the citizens" but the bill will be
sent to the productive citizens.

This is one reason for Nixon's
appeal to the conservatives. Consistent
with this "conservativism"
and indicative of Nixon's goals is
his appointment as two of his economic
advisors: Alan Greenspan
and Martin Anderson. These men
are economists who argue for the
necessity of laissez-faire capitalism.
More simply, they maintain "hands
off the producer."

A second point that should be
stressed concerns the draft. Again
ask yourself "Hubert Humphrey is
responsive to the wants of
which . . . citizens?" It is puzzling
that the draft has been an explosive
issue in the last few years and yet
little emphasis is presently placed
on it in the presidential race. The
draft is a flagrant violation of the
most fundamental right of men: a
man's right to his life.

Richard Nixon has pledged to
end the draft with an all volunteer
army. (This is stated in the Republican
Platform). In addition,
Nixon has chosen as his advisors
men who strongly recommend the
volunteer military as the most economical
and practical. It is the only
moral solution. To force men to
fight for freedom is contradictory.
A government should hire volunteers
to protect men in the street,
and the country in the world. Objections
such as raised in "SDS
Member . . . Against
. ROTC . . ." (same issue) can
be answered by an all volunteer
military: men volunteering to train
and fight on an contractual basis.

In contrast to the law-breaking
actions taken by the draft protesters,
here at last is a chance to
end the draft through due process
of law. Nixon has pledged himself
to that goal. If elected he will
inherit the problem of the Viet
Nam war. To solve this can cause
delay in ending the draft but the
point is that the goal has been
defined. Humphrey discusses no
such goal. Again ask to which citizens
he is responsive.

Unfortunately many of the
young men whose lives are at stake
cannot vote for the man who has
pledged to return to them the right
to their life. For these reasons and
more, the Radicals for Capitalism
endorse Richard Nixon and are
actively informing young men and
their relatives of Nixon's stand on
the draft. We urge every reader to
vote for Nixon.

Outdated Flag

When is the University going to
stop living in the past? On January
3, 1959, Alaska was admitted to
the union, and on August 21 of
that same year, Hawaii also entered
the union. Isn't it about time that
the University recognized this, and
started raising a 50-star, rather than
a 48-star, flag at the opening of
each football game? If the University
can't afford a new flag, perhaps
some fraternity or service group
might like to donate one. Or perhaps
a collection could be taken up
from among the students. It's time
that Virginia wake up to the realities
of the present world.