University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Housing Policy Needs Change

I would like to comment on a
few of the "glittering generalities"
expressed by Mr. Holleman in his
letter of 19 November. Though
flexibility in any rule has its merits,
I feel that one should be equally
aware of the merits which it lacks.
It wasn't very long ago that our
state allowed for "separate but
equal" facilities in schools, public
dining areas, etc. To our legislators
then, it was "sadistic to force a
black to eat with or go to school
with someone whom he knows he is
uncomfortable with. And it is
equally sadistic to force a discontent
white to enter into a
totally new environment of eating
with or going to school with blacks.
This would be more pressure than
any White-Anglo-Saxon Protestant
could bear.

Participating in a program with
eleven blacks and four whites for a
ten week period may, in some
sense, give an indication of the type
of pressures and problems that a
black man at the University faces,
but I doubt it. One must remember
that this program presented a
unique situation - the blacks were
in a majority, therefore not portraying
characteristics which a
reversed situation in the fall would
cause. I feel that no white man will
ever understand these problems and
pressures. I worked in the same
program, and experienced the same
situations as Mr. Holleman, but I'll
go him one better - I am a Black
student at the University.

Heretofore, a black man has
never come out with a public
statement concerning Housing at
the University; everything has been
"acknowledged and approved," and
the public finds out second hand. I
take this opportunity to speak for
myself and say that I do not agree
with the Housing Office's Policy,
and I see a need for a great deal of
improvement.

I respect Mr. Holleman's capability
as a counselor, and I appreciate
the detailed description of
room change procedures as he gives
in his letter. However, that "ain't
tellin' it like it is." I have
encountered case after case in
which this formal procedure has
been undergone. The person remaining
in the room has hardly ever
been involved - except for the fact
that he is a victim of circumstance.

As Chairman of the Student
Council's Housing Committee to
study this problem, and as a
counselor, I have talked with black
students and with Mr. Main, Acting
Director of Housing. I find that
Blacks are concerned and are in
disagreement with the content of
Mr. Holleman's letter and the
Housing Office's Policy. Mr. Main's
comment to the recommendations
from Student Council was that
"room changes are personal and
must be confidential with the
individual requesting the change,
the counselor involved, and the
Housing Office." This is all the
flexibility one needs to maintain
the University's quota of bigots.

There is one glimmer of encouragement
given to me by Mr.
Holleman's letter - there are still
men in our University community
who can think and reason intelligibly,
as our typically good Directors
of Housing.

First, he sent a letter to The
Cavalier Daily. Then, one of his
letters appeared in The Daily
Progress. And on Thursday, he was
a featured speaker at courthouse
square. This is an account of our
own Mr. Bud Ogle's activities last
week.

I applaud Mr. Ogle's devotion to
the Vietnam problem, and I recognize
his right as an American to
voice his opinion as his conscience
directs. The fact that he and I hold
divergent views on the means of
ending the war is not the basis for
this letter.

I wish rather to question
whether Mr. Ogle is not in fact
considering "self" over and above
the interests of the student body as
a whole. I believe I am correct in
saying that Mr. Ogle was elected to
the office he currently holds. It was
the students, with varied beliefs and
interests and belonging to numerous
different groups or organizations,
who put him into that office.
If my memory holds once again, he
campaigned on issues pertaining to
the University, and the Student
Council in particular.

Mr. Ogle: Lately, you have
become the "mouthpiece of the
University," booming your opinion
throughout Charlottesville. Once
again, I repeat, I do not wish in this
letter to argue the issue of Vietnam.
But, I must ask whether you have
considered the implications of your
actions?

First, Mr. Ogle, in protesting
President Nixon's Vietnam policy
publicly, you, as President of the
Student Council, are taking the
position of the minority and
subordinating the majority voice of
the University students. I believe
that it is essential that the Student
Council head should attempt to
maintain a semblance of neutrality,
at least in public utterances, on the
"heated" issues. Second, you were
not to my knowledge elected on
the basis of your Vietnam views.
You were chosen because the
students thought you could serve
the University as a whole. It was
not expected that you would use
your office solely to further your
"protest" ideas. Finally, your expression
of your opinion on this
national issue, both vocally and
through the media, cannot help but
polarize thought and create division
at the University. This will occur in
two ways: student vs. student on
this issue itself, and among students
who support you vs. those who do
not.

For these reasons then, Mr.
Ogle, I think it would be better -
indeed, it is required of a person in
your position as spokesman for all
the students - that you confine
your public utterances to intraUniversity
issues.

Because you found it necessary
to take a public position on this
issue, you may have lost the
support of the majority who
elected you. One cannot help but
consider whether one of those
other candidates who was not
elected would have handled the
situation more adequately.

Mr. Ogle, your name is rapidly
becoming a household word. But,
which do you consider more
important: "self" or the University?

Silence is golden, Mr. Ogle.

Peaceful Protest

Despite Dick Nixon's silence on
the matter, his subordinates have
begun to reveal the administration's
official reaction to the November 15
Moratorium. Attorney General
Robert Mitchell has accused Mobe
leaders of initiating and condoning
radical violence at the Justice
Department and at DuPont Circle.
Communications Director Herbert
Klein credited beefed-up city defenses
with keeping disruptive activities
at a minimum. Simple
observation would have proved
both allegations clearly false.

This response however should be
no surprise to anyone who caught
wind of Nixon's subtle attempts to
discredit the March beforehand. His
October 27 plea for unity obviously
indicted the demonstration and
other forms of political dissension.
The Justice Department, too, added
its weight to the effort. But the
only purpose served by its hesitation
to issue permits was to
encourage violence by discouraging
moderate participants.

These prophesies of violence
were not fulfilled. But contrary to
what Klein would like us to believe,
the march was kept peaceful by the
marchers and marshals themselves.
The police must be commended in
their handling of the few revolutionaries.
But the march, in general,
was kept peaceful by the moderate
attitude of the vast majority of
protesters. If 250,000 peace
demonstrators had come to make
trouble, even the Defense Department's
hidden guardsmen could not
have contained them. "We come in
peace," is what the protesters said.
And they did.

To say that the mobilization
leaders were responsible for the
violence is ridiculous. Their efforts
to control violence were readily
apparent. In anticipation of the size
of the crowd and of any potential
for disruption, for the first time in
history of peace marches, marshals
were recruited to maintain order.
They worked their hardest to
prevent violence. Any failures in
isolated incidents were no fault of
their own. To hold the majority of
the demonstrators responsible for
the actions of a few because of
faintly similar objectives is as
absurd as drawing parallels between
Nixon's desegregation slowdown
and Klan violence.

Sooner or later Dick Nixon will
have to realize that the force which
moves the moratorium is one to be
faced, not ignored. Responsibility is
the theme of the moratorium, and
patriotic fervor its fuel. Organized
peaceful protest by persons under
25 was proved viable on November
15. These truths cannot be lied
away.