University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

'Joe McCarthy Has Been Slandered'

I take issue with the Cavalier
Daily's "Catching a Commie" (4/8),
an editorial which "insults the
intelligence of those who will read
it."

You state that "both (Kunstler)
and the Communist Party in this
country have frequently fought for
civil liberties." I suggest you do
some research. Communist support
for causes like social justice and
civil rights is designed less to
promote those ideas than to pull in
supporters for more radical causes,
excite passions, and create greater
national division and discontent -
all a part of a drive to shatter the
system and pave the way to
Communist rule.

Dr. Bella Dodd, who became
involved in the CPUSA to promote
social justice and, disillusioned,
ultimately dropped out, has written:
"I had regarded the Communist
Party as a poor man's party...
Now I saw this was only a
facade...it was in reality a device to
control the 'common man' they so
raucously championed."

As for McCarthy witch hunts,
one of the few people actually
smeared in those days was the late,
human and imperfect but more
frequently than not justified, Sen.
Joseph Raymond McCarthy, still
being slandered over a decade after
his death.

It is indeed questionable
whether Kunstler is more interested
in making the system work or in
destroying it. To HISC and the
Progress: Good work, brothers.
Right on!

No Powerhouse

Your comments on "Athletic
Professionalism" (Cavalier Daily
April 7) were, I feel, most unfortunate,
for they further muddy the
already far-from-clear philosophy
on athletics held by the school's
paper. There are, I feel sure, college
campuses where your editorial
would have been welcomed and
supported. Football and Basketball
powerhouses all over the country
are yearly confronted with the
dilemma of justifying their large
athletic machines in light of needs
which many claim to be more
pressing. May I suggest, however,
that Virginia cannot with any
degree of sincerity be ranked
among such colleges.

The editorial's basic flaw is its
assumption that Virginia is "on the
top of the heap" athletically and
that the sacrifices which we are
making to stay there are beyond
justification. In what sports, major
or minor, is this University continually
a Number 1 contender?
The cold hard fact is that we have
had to increase whatever semblances
of "athletic professionalism"
there are here in order to remain
mediocre. Virginia's reputation as a
"doormat" in many sports is
well-known. I would think that any
"status quo" or "de-emphasis"
approach would only serve to
perpetuate that none-too-glorious
record, at the same time negating
what now appears to be, in many
sports, a promising athletic future.
Furthermore, your article states
that the question "boils down" to
whether we want "powerhouse
teams to compete with Purdue or
Notre Dame" or whether we want
to "maintain a rather homogeneous
student body which does not have
any special class of jocks." It seems
to me that such is not the question
at all. A more accurate statement of
the question is whether or not the
sacrifices to produce top ACC
teams are worth the degree of
"professionalism" required to attain
such teams, and anyone who
thinks that the trend here (athletic
dorms, long practice hours etc) in
any way approaches the degree of
professionalism to be seen at
schools such as Purdue or Notre
Dame is viewing the playing field
through rose-colored binoculars. As
Virginia does no more than many
Southern Conference schools, any
comparison with the Big 10 is
totally unjustified.

I cannot help but sympathize
with coaches here who are told to
produce winning teams but instructed
not to employ any of these
methods which are being used by
the very teams who are beating us
- and those teams are not Purdue
and Notre Dame.

May I suggest that it is time for
this paper to take a firm and
unequivocal stand on athletics.
Either it favors top-flight ACC
competition or it favors the mediocre
doormat traditions of the past.
If it favors the former it should
support all reasonable means of
attaining the end to which it is
committed, and if it favors the
latter, it should keep that in mind
when being critical of programs
which continually produce inferior
athletic representatives.

John Warley
Law 3

— Ed.