University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

IFC President Asks 'What Are You Afraid Of?'

In regard to your editorial of
Thursday, September 25, I would
like to submit to you and hopefully
to the reading public of The
Cavalier Daily my duly "expected"
reply. I write this letter more in my
capacity as a fraternity member,
however, than as President of the
Inter-Fraternity Council. Although
my opinions are personal, I consider
that they may represent
fraternity sentiment to some extent.

I must admit that I am prejudiced
in favor of fraternity life. I
have found it to be a very pleasing
and rewarding experience for me,
and for this reason, I often find
myself overstating the case for
fraternities. These are my limitations,
and I hope an interpretation
of my remarks will take them into
account. As I now state my
limitations, I cannot help but
wonder why you have not seen fit
to state yours.

I am sorry indeed that you have
allowed personal grievances to
creep into your judgment on a
matter which so greatly concerns
the University Community. The
social life of the student body of a
University is a very important
matter which concerns the happiness
of all. For this reason, I am
disappointed to note the unconstructive
nature of many of your
remarks. These seem to be the days
of dragon slaying. This is a very
honorable trend as long as the
slayers maintain their rationale and
do not become Quixotic. I am sure
you will agree that there is neither
time nor place within a dynamic
intellectual community for the
slaying of wind mills.

I am certain also that you will
agree that the fraternity system
which you criticize contributes
greatly to the University. Although
fraternities can only partially fill a
vacuum of organized social life
here, you seem to express disdain at
the fact that they do not completely
fill the void. These seem to be
wasted words - unconstructive, in
that their intent is merely to
destroy what we already have
rather than attempting to construct
an alternative social system which
might augment fraternities. Fraternities
admit their shortcomings of
not providing a social outlet for
everyone; this is not their intended
function or ambition. Instead, I
would invite you to use your
influence and words in a constructive
manner. Certainly, you must
agree that the happiness of future
students at the University is more
important than airing personal
grievances that either you or I
might have.

On the point of racial discrimination,
I am partially in agreement
with you. I think that if you are
willing to study the matter, you
will find that many fraternity men
share your feelings. There may,
indeed, be prejudice among individual
members of fraternities, but I
am certain also that you will find
equal incidence of prejudice within
the whole student body. Such
prejudice, however, will never be
successfully "legislated" away. Prejudice
is a problem which we all
must deal with personally. We are
enrolled in the University to learn;
the process of overcoming prejudice
is simultaneously a process of
learning. There is a realization of
the problem of prejudice from
within the system and steps are
presently being taken to overcome
the problem.

In closing, I would question
your motives and your fears:
"Don't Rush, Don't Pledge." What
are you afraid of? First-year men
today, more than ever before, are
endowed with an intellectual inquisitiveness,
as well as a sturdy
measure of critical judgment. You
advise them to waste these capacities,
to hold the "prejudices"
which you personally hold, and to
commit the "unforgivable sin" of
bearing a closed mind which you
accuse people in fraternities of
bearing. In this sense I believe you
have compromised any confidence
which the first-year men might have
in your reasoning.

I would invite all first-year men
to use the capacities with which
they have been endowed. Fraternities
are nothing more than the sum
of the individuals involved. Progress
can only come to the system by the
blossoming of progressive ideas
from within. The progressive beliefs
which today's first-year men bear
will be the ideals which will be
embodied within the system tomorrow.

Rush.

Use your own intellect.

During the past week some
dozen students in my English 5 and
10 classes have informed me that
they have been unable to attend
classes or complete assignments
because they were participating in
their fraternity's Hell Week. This
disturbs me for two reasons: first, it
seems unnecessary inconvenience
to the faculty to expect it to
modify its curriculum to accommodate
fraternity hazing. Second, this
series of incidents directly gives the
lie to the recent sanctimonious
announcements that U.Va. fraternities
do not permit Hell Weeks and
excessive hazing. The hypocrisy in
the situation is patent, and galling.

This is not the complaint of an
anti fraternity radical. I was a
member of a fraternity when I was
an undergraduate, and I went
through what these men are going
through not. There were two
differences: first, I knew better
than to expect to be excused from
class work because of the hazing
nonsense; second, no one pretended
that there were no Hell Weeks.

It seems to me that your
practices are badly out of line with
your stated policy. Which do you
propose to change?

James B. Carothers

— ed.

I do not know who was
responsible for the editorial in
Thursday's Cavalier Daily, but I
wish to thank him for pointing out
a few of the many weaknesses of
the fraternity system here at U.Va.
A large segment of students have
been voicing similar opinions for
quite some time, and have been
dismissed as being "Wide-eyed radicals,"
intent on destroying Mr.
Jefferson's University and its fine,
gentile traditions.

Your staff will undoubtedly
receive many letters, such as Mr.
Blumberg's telling you that your
editorial policy is rubbish, and just
what you may do with your
opinions. I would hope that this
letter will encourage those who are
in agreement with your views, not
only on matters concerning the
University, but also the community
and nation, to give you their
support.

Re "On Rush" - mess compliments
au chef!

I am responding to Rod MacDonald's
column in the September
25, 1969 Cavalier Daily in order to
clarify my position regarding student
appointments to administrative
committees.

First, the Council's motion requesting
the power to appoint
student members of administrative
committees is not due to any
"resulting friction between the
Council and Pavilion VIII." The
Student Council has been studying
and discussing student appointment
of students on administrative committees
for nearly a year. As the
Council's unanimous letter to President
Shannon indicates, that particular
motion resulted from ideas
discussed with numerous members
of the administration at Mountain
Lake.

Second, at no time have I
considered the students I recommended
to President Shannon to be
"the men the Council recommended."
Each member of the
Student Council and many other
interested individuals submitted a
list of recommendations to last
year's President Ron Hickman. The
only "Council" recommendations
were the compiled list of all
students referred to Mr. Hickman.
Unfortunately academic and other
pressures made it impossible for
Ron to forward the list of over 200
names to the President until June
25. In the interim President Shannon,
committed to consider all
possible student recommendations
to administrative committees, requested
that I (having taken office
at the end of May) send him a list
of recommendations. After repeated
unsuccessful efforts to contact
Mr. Hickman in early June, I
worked up a partial list, indicated
my preferences, and sent it to
President Shannon. At that time I
apologized for the delay and
expressed hope that a complete list
would be forthcoming, In late June
Assistant Dean Robert Canevari
notified me that Ron Hickman had
sent a list of recommendations to
Mr. Shannon. In a most cooperative
way Mr. Canevari helped me supplement
the earlier list sent to
President Shannon. At no time did
any administrative officer go
against the recommendations of
Council since the Council as such
made no specific recommendations.

Third, Mr. MacDonald makes
several misleading attributions, such
as "the real crux of the issue is that
Student Council President Bud Ogle
believes President Shannon made
committee appointments this year
to nix the chance for a strong
(student) voice"; "Ogle said Tuesday
'I am trying to learn to trust
President Shannon,' but added he
feels the President acted unwisely
in stacking the committees against
the men the Council recommended."
Over the past two weeks
I have talked with Messrs. Peter
Shea and Rod MacDonald of The
Cavalier Daily staff. I did indicate
disappointment that few student
activists were appointed to The
Future of the University, Admissions,
Housing, and other important
committees. At no time did I mean
to give the impression nor do I
believe that President Shannon
went against the wishes of Council,
"Busted the Trust" of students, or
tried to undermine a student voice
on administrative committees.

In conclusion, Mr. MacDonald is
accurate in assaying my disappointment
at some of President Shannon's
appointments. This disappointment
has been expressed to
Mr. Shannon directly and at Mountain
Lake discussions. To attribute
the Council's desire to make student
appointments to a lack of
trust in the administration, however,
is wrong. The Council seeks to
make student appointments to
University committees because we
believe that students can best select
their own representatives. Although
we have often been critical of
various actions and inactions of the
administration we appreciate the
openness of the faculty and administration
in seeking a larger role
for students on faculty and University
committees. We look forward
with full trust in increasing expansion
of the role students play in the
planning and programming at the
University.