University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Reader Dislikes Concert Reporting;
'Barber Bigot' Prompts Ironic Reply

I would like to ask your roving
reporter Tom Jenks what the hell
difference it makes whether the
segment of the concert audience
which moved nearer to the stage
was "primarily black" or had
"primarily blue eyes." All who
gathered near the stage — and as
one among them I assure Mr. Jenks
that there were all sizes, shapes, and
colors — were trying as best they
could to hear the muffled sounds of
the Temptations and Co. And to
suggest that blacks or any of us
"rowdies" were responsible for the
confusion is to point the finger
away from the "primarily white"
planning committee which
pathetically botched a great show.

Ironic Irony

Perhaps while seeing the irony
of a barber shop on the corner
refusing to cut a Negro's hair within
100 yards of the "so-called bastion
of intellectuality of the state of
Virginia," you missed some other
ironies.

What about the irony of your
highly-moralistic editorial on page
two, on page one you find it
necessary to describe as Negroes
those who disrupted a University
concert.

And it is ironical that the
University newspaper has never
spoken about the fraternities being
a last bastion against integration at
the University.

Of course, you will say you
were only quoting Mr. Shipley on
the disturbance and point out that
no Civil Rights Act applies to
private associations.

How ironical!

Editor's Hypocrisy

Yesterday's editorial entitled
"Barber Bigots" would have been a
credit to The Cavalier Daily, it
would have been a credit to the
freedom granted thinking people,
and a credit to this University, if
only page two had not been
destined to follow page one. For a
sentence in the feature article
concerning Saturday night's concert
doomed the editor to hypocrisy.

That sentence read: "In the
meantime, Mr. Shipley went on, a
segment of the audience, mostly
Negro, had begun moving their
chairs. . ."

The statement was not put in
quotations by the paper, and
therefore the reasons that The
Cavalier Daily found it necessary to
point out racial distinctions of the
audience are far from clear.
Nevertheless, the implications,
although a bit more subtle than the
Barbers', are potent. And I wonder
if Mr. Gwathmey, who was so quick
to catch the irony that "occurred
within 100 yards of the Grounds,"
caught his own.

Clay Spencer
College 2

We regret that Messrs. Rochester,
Bryan, and Spencer would prolong
this matter for the simple reason
that nothing good can come from
prolonging it. We feel, however,
that we have a responsibility to
print letters we receive, and so we
have printed theirs; in printing
them, though, we cannot leave
them unanswered.

The confusion, we suspect, has
arisen from a lack of understanding
of the nature of a newspaper. The
news department and the editorial
department are two distinct
divisions of the paper's operation,
as are the sports and features
departments. Each department has
a different function and a different
responsibility to the reader.

The function of the news
department is to inform the reader.
A newswriter must present before
his readers the "whole story,"
whether or not it is pleasant. The
function of the editorial
department is to instruct the reader
or to comment on those things
which are the business of the other
departments. The editor-in-chief is,
of course, ultimately responsible
for everything in every department.

In this case, the news
department presented the news as it
happened with no value judgment
thereon. The reason for which it
"found it necessary to point out
racial distinctions of the audience"
is that they were relevant to the
overall situation described. In other
words, as unhappy as it is, there
were racial overtones in the activity
around the stage. This is evidenced
by the nature of the University
Union's charges against the two
Negro policemen who were on duty
there by reports that
Negroes who were told to clear the
area refused to do so — and rightly
so — until whites also cleared the
area, and by reports of what some
whites said to the Negroes. Thus
the unhappy fact is that there were
racial overtones.

The news department would not
have fulfilled its responsibility to its
readers if it had ignored those
overtones. It has a responsibility to
print the facts of a case whether or
not they are pleasing to us or to our
readers. Thus it was significant that
the crowd which approached the
stage was "mostly Negro."

The main point is this: the
simple report that the crowd was
mostly Negro implies no value
judgment; the fact that the report
was what it was — indeed, the fact
that the crowd was mostly Negro —
casts no aspersions on the crowd,
on the policemen, on the
improperly briefed ushers, on the
officials who "botched a great
show," or on anyone else. It's no
more than a fact: implications
derived from it or from the fact
that it was included, value
judgments made on it or on the fact
that it was included, are entirely
within the minds of those readers
who derive or make them,
respectively. They cannot fairly be
attributed to the author of the
story or to anyone else on the
paper. The news is what was
printed; if anything was unpleasant
it was the news itself, not those
who wrote it.

Thus the "irony" which Messrs.
Bryan and Spencer find in our
presenting that particular piece of
news along with the stand taken in
the editorial is not really irony at
all. It's a matter of reporting what
happened in one department
without comment thereon, and of
urging needed reform in another.
The only connection between them
is that they happen to concern the
same general issue.

Messrs; Bryan and Spencer will
be interested to know that we
anticipated charges of the sort
made long before that paper was
"put to bed." We did not feel,
however, that we had a right to
interfere with the news
department's reporting the news as
it happened just because it might
cast aspersions on our editorial
integrity in the minds of those who
are legitimately sensitive on the
matter.

We did and still do earnestly
believe what we wrote in the
editorial. We are glad to know that
there are people who feel as
intensely as we do on the subject.
Happily for them, though, they
don't have to report the so often
unhappy news. —ed.

Sickening Sight

As a resident of the Rugby
Road area I was greeted Saturday
and Sunday morning by the sight of
an uncountable number of paper
cups, bottles, and cans strewn
indiscriminately along its axis. This
was particularly disturbing to me
and I hope a great many others.
The wholesale littering of the area
in which the fraternities are located
is inexcusable. It surely did not
improve the community's image of
them. Instead it was extremely
unsightly and extremely wasteful,
requiring a considerable expense to
pick up the refuse, borne
undoubtedly by someone other
than those responsible for the ugly
conditions. This is clear example of
the disregard for maintaining a
healthy, nice-looking environment
shown by most people as long as
they are not personally affected.

As a fraternity member, I well
realize that the major cause of the
unfortunate performance was due
to the rush functions held Friday
and Saturday nights. There should
have been better provisions made to
accommodate the number of items
which were discarded by the
first-year men as they wandered
from one house to another. To be
sure the littering was not the work
of the first-year men alone.
However, I feel that they hold a
large share of the responsibility for
the fact that it did happen.

If we students profess a genuine
interest in problems which exist
around us and demand a greater say
in the decisions which affect our
lives and those of others, we should
be able to care enough to not drop
our trash wherever it is convenient
to do so, we should care enough to
want to keep our surroundings well
kept and uncluttered by disposed
disposables. If we aren't able to
keep our present environment
clean, will we ever be able to create
the better environment we need. Or
shall we live in an endless Barracks
Road sprawl covered with several
layers of debris cast off by lazy
complacent people.

I urge the students, the
fraternities, and the IFC be
concerned with what happened on
the past weekend. I hope that steps
will be taken to prevent its
reoccurrence. (Refuse containers
should be available for use.) Let's
make sure that we don't have to
again be repulsed by the sight of
litter covering the Rugby Road
area. Better yet, let's stop littering
over the entire University. Its
wrong any where, anytime.

Poetic Letter

The Cavalier

Law And Order

Ah, it's good to hear from an
avid supporter of "Law and Order"
(i.e. Up Against the Wall
Mother....), and let us all hope
the prominent Charlottesville Police
will continue to thwart crime by
upholding the strict letter of the
law.

Not long ago John Lindsey told
the Republican Convention that
there could be no law and order
without justice. Evidentially the
majority of judges and police were
not listening. It seems that a $37
fine for exceeding the speed limit
by 3 MPH might possibly be
excessive. Or six months in jail plus
a fine for the first violation of a
cease and disperse order. Or bloody
heads, cracked ribs, and broken
arms for failure to move from a city
street.

For a significant number of
Americans justice does not exist.
Peace marchers are beaten, the
Black man is treated despicably,
and those with non-Establishment
characteristics are judged as
sub-human. There are many more
who join these. Where the cry for
"Law and Order" will end is
questionable. However, it is hoped
that the Wallace-Nixonites et al.
will remember the now famous
words of a past "Law and Order"
advocate. "To the showers...."

Paid Parking

As a resident of Monroe Hill I
protest the irresponsible parking
regulations which the Student
Council recently ruled on. Monroe
Hill residents PAY to live on
campus. These are our LIVING
quarters and proximate parking
facilities are a convenience to
which we should be entitled as
dormitory residents of the
University. Do the commuters
have to park a great distance from
their apartments or homes to insure
others equal opportunity as to the
parking facilities of their living
complex? I doubt it very much! If
there is such a parking problem
then the Student Council should
not waste its time making
ridiculous parking regulations
depriving dorm residents of their
rights but should investigate the
possibility of the construction of
new or temporary parking facilities.
Also, commuters themselves should
investigate the possibilities of car
pools and other methods to lessen
the number of cars. I don't think
any alternatives were put forth at
the Student Council meeting for
the parking problem of the Monroe
Hill residents which would be a
reality if the parking problem of
the commuters was alleviated. Why
cannot the Student Council
investigate into temporary parking
facilities being the Emmet Street
basketball courts? Something must
be done to bridge the gap between
present parking facilities and the
future parking plans of the
University, BUT NOT AT THE
EXPENSE OF DORM RESIDENTS
OF THE UNIVERSITY, who pay
to live on campus. Making
regulations which transfer parking
problems from one group of
students to another does not reflect
the work of responsible student
government. For not only is it
creating a new parking problem but
it is also creating a residential
problem for we of the Monroe Hill
Complex.

I hope all the facts I have
presented, plus the fact of the great
distance the women of the Monroe
Hill Complex will have to walk late
at night, will be considered and the
motion for new parking regulations
will be repealed.