University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Racist Student Body

Dear Sir:

During my four years at the
University, I have been extremely
impressed with those students who
have worked diligently in an attempt
to curb and, hopefully, end
racial prejudice here. While there
have been some major steps in the
right direction, an atmosphere of
true racial equality is totally nonexistent.

Very unfortunately, a black
student faces many instances of
discrimination here, including the
fraternities. But do the fraternities
deserve to be pinpointed as a (or
the) major source of bigotry, as if
their case were unique from the rest
of the University community? I
think not.

I feel the attitudes shown
toward the black rushees is symbolize
of something far greater than
the fact that few, if any, blacks will
be asked to pledge a fraternity this
semester. It is a fact that bigotry
exists in the student body at the
University of Virginia. Who comprises
fraternities? — students at the
University. I think it is a rash and
absurd generalization to associate
fraternity men with the image of
the "traditional White Anglo-Saxon
Protestant bigots from New
England prep schools," as Cavalier
Daily writers insist upon doing.
Bigots come in many different
disguises than this.

My objective in this letter is not
to defend the treatment shown
during fraternity rush to the black
students interviewed yesterday. I
was repulsed by it. But I want to
emphasize that while the criticism
was reasonable, the scope of the
criticism was amazingly narrow. As
long as there are those in the
student body who do not believe in
racial equality, there will be fraternity
men who are bigots. But a
fraternity pin is not the symbol of
racism, nor is the fraternity an
institution fostering bigotry. There
are as many open-minded fraternity
men as open-minded independents.

To criticize the treatment shown
to black students at the University
is valid and essential; but to
repeatedly emphasize that the situation
is worse in fraternities at the
University than in other segments
of the community is viewing the
subject out of context.

Artie Friedman
Vice-President, IFC
Dear Sir:

In reference to your article
'integrated' rush on Oct. 6. I would
like to clarify the facts in one of
the items you offer as an instance
of racism in the fraternities. The
paragraph concerns a white frat.
man and his date talking to a black
rushee and the black rushee asking
to dance with the "fraternity
man's" date. That white frat. man
was me and the incident occurred
at the S.A.E. House (which The
Cavalier Daily seems to think is the
Hitler Youth Corps of U.Va.) on
Friday night of Homecoming weekend.

First I would like to explain that
I am not the typical fraternity man
so abhorred by The Cavalier Daily
staff writer. I entered U.Va. four
years ago and was pledged to S.A.E.
at the end of my first year I
withdrew and just this summer
returned to college life at Virginia.
As most of us know the social life
here centers around the fraternities
and upon returning to school I
asked for and was given a social
membership in the S.A.E. House.

Now as for the incident itself, I
would like to give people the whole
story, which The Cavalier Daily did
not see fit to do.

My date and myself were standing
inside the S.A.T. House listening
to the band when a black rushee
walked up. We struck up a conversation
and talked for 15 or 20
minutes about nothing in particular,
after which time he asked me
if it would be all right to dance
with my date. I said certainly it was
all right with me but it was up to
my date whether she danced or not.
At this point the girl I was with (a
blind date from Columbus Ga.)
nearly feinted and blurted out a
string of cacophony amounting to
save the confederacy, keep the
magnolias and mint juleps, and
daddy would shoot me if I danced
with a "Nigrah." The black rushee
then turned to me and angrily
stated that the only reason my date
wouldn't dance with him was
because he was black and she was
white. I then said that if that was
her reason I didn't respect it any
more than he did, but don't put me
on the spot because I can't push her
out on the floor and make her
dance with you. After I said this
the black rushee turned around and
walked out of the S.A.E. House. An
unfortunate incident, yes, but
Sandy Southern-belle was not
about to dance with the black
rushee and there was nothing I
could do about it, except pray for
understanding when he heard her
accent.

I could not agree more with the
statement "This place has got to
change" but witch hunting for
racial incidents and slanted journalism
will not hasten this change. A
lot of understanding (on both sides,
patience, and I am afraid a lot of
time will be required before we
become an integrated community
at the University of Virginia.

The fraternities do tend to be
racial, but as has been stated, as the
University community changes so
will the fraternities, and even the
S.A.E. House has a number of
liberals working for a change within
the house. So I will continue to
drink my black Russians, cat my
fried left wing of chicken, but not
to digest the news of The Cavalier
Daily.

Justin P. McCarthy
College 2

The incident you described was
related to The Cavalier Daily by the
rushee in question. It happened
totally separately, however, from
the one described in the story. We
did not feel it necessary to include
two such similar incidents.

—ed.

Dear Sir:

This past weekend, another
tragic incident occurred on Lambeth
Field in which a girl was raped
and a student seriously injured.
This has been only the latest of a
series of similar incidents.

We, the University of Virginia
Hospital House Staff, feel that
there has not been sufficient
publication given to this problem.
Firstly, we would like to see
something done to prevent a
recurrence of these events and
secondly, to warn students and
other personnel that such a situation
exists. Both these places where
risk is high and where protection is
poor, should become better understood
and avoided.

F. Ellison Conrad, M.D.
President
Univ. of Va. House Staff
Dear Sir:

"Business as usual" at the
University and in Charlottesville
must be halted on October 15. The
call has been issued by the Vietnam
Moratorium Committee, and each
individual member of this community,
as well as other individuals in
localities across the nation, must
come to the conclusion that his
participation in this demonstration
of public distress is absolutely
necessary for the success of this last
ditch non-violent and democratic
effort to reverse the nation's war
policy.

We may attend up trapped a long
time if we continue to express a
passive faith in the wisdom of our
policy-makers. The Vietnam pit is
bottomless. Those who see in the
agonizingly gradual withdrawal of
troops and the stalemated peace
talks an opening in the clouds and
thus feel justified in leaving to
Washington the supposed final
disposition of the war must be
confronted with the magnitude of
their illusion and rationalization.

The practical fact remains,
whether the war is viewed in moral
terms or not, that the balance of
power in the political arena in
Vietnam is not and has never been
with us. It should be apparent that
the settlement the U.S. seeks is out
of the question because it requires
abject surrender of the adversary.
Hanoi and the NLF have shown
over four and one half years of
intense fighting that they cannot be
bludgeoned into relinquishing their
commitments to the withdrawal of
Western military and political influence,
to strong representation in
Saigon, and to the ultimate unification
of Vietnam. Without let-up for
nearly thirty years, the insurgents
have suffered incredible human and
financial costs in an effort to secure
these non-negotiable political goals.
The U.S. cannot and most of this
nation does not want to make the
overwhelming commitment and
giant sacrifice on a long-term basis
that the soldiers of Ho have and
will continue to make.

The Vietnam policy, like many
others in government, has an almost
mechanical momentum to it. "Few
defend the war, yet it continues"
(The Cavalier Daily, Sept. 22)
because men in Washington cannot
admit to themselves the tragic
dimensions of their error. It remains
for us, distressed individuals
from all political persuasions, who
are somewhat removed from those
decisions to take the initiative and
show our supposedly responsive
policy makers that we will not sink
further with them into this bottomless
pit. In this time of calling, we
must vindicate our right to popular
sovereignty.

Rick Kaplan
Law 2