University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Nixon's 'Political Thugs' Exclude Long-Hairs

On Friday, October 15th,
President Nixon was in Charlotte,
North Carolina to take part in
ceremonies honoring evangelist
Billy Graham. Many students were
among the large crowd seeking
admission to the rally in the
Charlotte Coliseum that afternoon.
But when the students, or at least
those with long hair, reached the
doors, they were turned away by
policemen and Secret Service
agents. When the agents were asked
for a reason for denying the
students entrance, the replies varied
from "your ticket is counterfeit"
to "no speaka English." After
trying in vain at other entrances,
the students were driven back from
the doors and five were arrested for
disturbing the peace.

Meanwhile, inside the building,
the few students who had been
allowed to enter were questioned,
frisked, and then thrown out by
Secret Service men, who would
only say they were following
orders. A religion professor from a
nearby college was likewise forced
to leave when he demanded that
two of his students, who held
legitimate tickets, be admitted.
Even a middle-aged housewife with
her 10-year-old son were ejected
when she was seen talking with a
group of long-haired students.

Later, when asked comment,
the head of the Secret Service
detachment at first claimed to
know nothing about the incidents;
then he tried to place the blame on
the "local redneck police."
However, The Charlotte Observer,
the rather conservative local
newspaper, saw through these
excuses and severely criticized the
Secret Service for their actions.

In Charlotte Richard Nixon
again demonstrated his true regard
for the ideals of American
democracy in a manner reminiscent
of Hitler's Brown Shirts, he used his
Secret Service agents to forcibly
exclude a group of citizens from a
public meeting. But at least Hitler's
storm troopers were private citizens;
the Secret Service is a
government-paid unit, hired to
protect the President from physical
attack, not to be used as his
personal political thugs.

Distorted View

Mr. Saunders' article (11/1)
"End Elitism...Expand" is based on
a distorted view of liberality. He
argues: "The University of Virginia
as a state University, has very
definite obligations to the
constituents of Virginia. Namely
that of educating these individuals
who are qualified for a higher level
of education." The obligation lies
with the state generally. The
individual university's responsibility
to educate is confined to its
"academical village."

Where physically and
environmentally feasible, the
University should expand.
However, not only are we
overcrowded, but there is no place
to expand on the central Grounds.
As is done in decentralized primary
and secondary educational systems
to alleviate overcrowded
conditions, an entirely new state
university should be built. The
American ethos of bulldozers, steel
and concrete have limited
application—that is, expansion
cannot be infinite in a finite area.

Lastly, there is nothing
"criminally deficient" about the
University of Virginia whose
admission standards are higher than
minority peoples typically score.
Eliteness based on academic
excellence is similar to merit in the
civil service system. The
discrimination is proper.
"Congruent level of student
enrollment" of proportionate
representation of the different races
and classes of people within the
state would be a naive admissions
policy requiring the selection of
applicants irrespective of past
achievement, i.e., randomly. It is
absurd to contend that liberality is
prima facie violated by the lack of
such representation or that all state
residents cannot matriculate at the
university of their choice.

A Reminder

May I recommend cheese
souffle a la Alka Seltzer for Teri
Towe's dinner before the next
Tuesday Evening Concert.

I can neither agree nor disagree
with the review of Mr. Anlevas'
performance, since I am not that
knowledgeable in the fields of
music interpretation and criticism. I
would, rather, remind reviewers and
audiences of concerts, plays and
other entertainments that their
basic functions are usually in
opposition to each other. An
audience's purpose is to enjoy the
performance and appreciate the
performers as much as possible. A
reviewer's purpose is the artistic
evaluation of the total result.
Therefore, except in extreme cases
of rave hits or utter bombs,
complete agreement between
everyone concerned cannot be
expected.

The reviewer's analysis of this
concert was probably quite correct,
yet so was the audience correct in
their standing appreciation of a
very enjoyable evening's
performance.