University of Virginia Library

Coalition Warning.

We have been disturbed in the
course of the controversy about the
student coalition proposals by the
tendency among students and faculty
to accept these recommended
actions as representing unequivocal
and direct ways of fighting "racism"
at the University. The sponsors
and supporters of these proposals
no doubt feel that they are
in possession of revealed truth and
a logic so persuasive that it must
totally prevail. Those who would
demur are branded with the epithet
"racist," or some equally pejorative
variant thereof.

Nevertheless, we must not allow
the mass hysteria which is sweeping
our country and now threatens our
University community to intimidate
us into silence. It is to be
hoped that even in these revolutionary
times, arguments may still
perhaps have two sides. So amidst
the chorus of cliche-ridden acclaim,
we think we have the duty to
suggest some of the implicit and
explicit dangers in what the student
coalition would have us do.

(1) We cannot see how the
proposal to raise the minimum
wage scale for non-academic University
employees can solve the
problem of poverty or racism.
Indeed, the effect of this action will
have a result precisely the opposite
of that intended by its supporters.
We are opposed to this proposal
because we predict that its effect
will be to render people unemployed
and hence to increase
poverty. The issue is not a moral
one, but a scientific one capable in
principle of being resolved by
empirical evidence. Unemployment
among black teen-agers is running
about 25%. Recent estimates of
outstanding economists have suggested
that in the absence of legal
minimum wages such unemployment
would now be under 10%.
Minimum wage legislation declares
that it is better for an individual to
be unemployed at $1.60 an hour
than employed at $1.00 an hour.
Although it is not intended to do
so, this action would increase
poverty and a sense of betrayal
among low-income blacks in our
community. On any interpretation
it seems to us presumptuous for
students to recommend this action.
It is an action which will have no
costs to the students. The costs will
be borne exclusively by those
low-income groups which can least
afford to do so.

This discussion of minimum
wage laws leads us to comment on
one of the student proposals with
which we can agree. Acceptance of
this proposal would leave the
University free to decide upon the
maximum rates of pay for its
employees. President Shannon's remarks
(The Cavalier Daily, 2-26-69)
lead us to believe that legislative
regulations have prevented the
University from granting wage increases
to some categories of
non-academic employees. Note that
the issue in this proposal is not
minimum wage legislation but
rather the desirability of abolishing
maximum wage legislation. We
conclude that both maximum and
minimum wage legislation are objectionable
goals.

(2) The proposal that we create
a student body which is fully
representative racially, economically,
and sexually of the population
of the state is in our opinion
tragically misguided. The mayhem
and turmoil of adjusting our student
bodies to comply with such
proportional representation surely
would create problems that would
tax the logical ingenuity even of
those who support it. But aside
from the practical problem of
implementation, it is our contention
that it is potentially dangerous.
The only basis for judging a man's
potential is the content of his mind
and character - his skin color, sex
and economic status are irrelevant.
To ask that the University consider
the latter in selecting its students
involves racial discrimination and
would in effect be a Quota System.
What it says is that if 30% of the
Virginia population is black, 30% of
students, ipso facto, should be
black. The Quota System, especially
as applied to the percentage of
Jews in a student body, has usually
been taken in enlightened circles to
be a detested feature of admissions
policy in American ivy league
universities. To embrace it and
extend it to every racial minority,
economic group and sex is now
proposed. It is ominously reminiscent
of the Hitler Nuremberg laws
which imposed special disabilities
upon Jews because they made up
more than their "just" proportion
in various occupations. To bring
about the correct "racial balance"
they were relieved of their jobs and
made helplessly dependent upon
the state for their livelihoods. It
was the first step on the road to
Auschwitz. Those who support this
proposal are in effect saying that
racial discrimination if practiced by
and for the right people is permissible.
But they need to be reminded
that intentions and results are often
very different, and the principle
underlying this proposal is ultimately
incompatible with any goal of
intellectual excellence.

(3) To demand that "the University
stop sending recruiters to
secondary schools that discriminate"
will have the effect of
injuring the innocent along with the
guilty. Those black students who
happen to have been admitted to
largely segregated institutions will
simply be excluded from any
possible consideration for entry
into the University. It is possible
that these black students may not
share the student coalition's moral
fervor in this matter.

(4) The demand that the Director
of Athletics actively engage in
the recruitment of black athletes
ignores the experience that individuals
have had when brought to
universities under such a prescription.
Last summer, Sports Illustrated
ran a remarkable series of
articles indicating that black athletes
feel degraded as a consequence
of this unseemly talent hunt.
Recognizing that they were recruited
solely because of their
physical abilities and skin color,
they rightly experienced a sense of
frustration and exploitation. Their
outrage is justified.

The differences that we have
with the proposals of the student
coalition reflect mostly differences
in predictions regarding the effects
of these policies. Unfortunately, it
is often much easier to question a
man's motives than to counter his
evidence or arguments. There is a
regrettable tendency on the part of
many young intellectuals, of all
people, to bring the support of
outraged indignation to their views
by regarding those who differ with
them as "racist" who want to
achieve "racist" objectives. This
attitude cuts off the possibility of
rational discussion by refusing to
accept the possibility that others
might have much the same objectives
and simply differ in their
judgment about how to achieve
them.