University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Teacher's Attitude Called 'Injurious'

The recent "coat and tie"
demonstration on the Lawn may
have given greater insight into the
attitudes which stand in the way of
change at this University than even the demonstration's organizers
could foresee. I refer to the actions
of a particular faculty member in
one of his classes last Monday. The
following description is admittedly
second-hand (I am not in the class)
but I feel it bears relating since I
consider the source reliable.

The instructor opened his hour
by stating that he would not cancel
his class for something such as the
announced demonstration, which
he thought (in words to the effect)
ridiculous. A student then queried
whether the teacher would cancel
the next Monday's class because of
the inevitable hangovers from the
grain parties of Midwinter's Weekend.
The instructor readily assented
(after some discussion whether Friday's
or Monday's class should be
dropped) and canceled the class.

Each of these two actions (the
refusal, and then consent to cancel
a class) might be innocent enough if
they had happened apart from one
another, but taken together they
represent an attitude which is fundamentally
opposed to any change
within this Institution. It is an
attitude which sees more importance
in a Big Weekend than in a
non-violent attempt to erase the
racist character of this University.
Such an attitude will be injurious
enough to the future of the University
if confined to the students; it is
intolerable in a member of the
faculty.

It is indeed regrettable that, in a
time when more and more faculty
members (such as Mr. Elwood) are
concerning themselves with the
need for reform, we must now be
faced with other faculty members
(assuming there are more than this
one) whose opposition to change
differs little from the opposition of
those to whom we are now voicing
our discontent. I can only hope, for
the good of this University, that
this attitude is present only in a
small minority of its faculty.

Fraternity Disgrace

Dean Alan Williams is strangely
unaware of the laws against discrimination.
The Fourteenth
Amendment prohibits any state
from discriminating against anyone
on the ground of race. The
University of Virginia is an arm of
the state, being financed by (and
considered a part of the state by)
the state.

The fraternities at the University
are not officially parts of the
University, but a strong argument
can be made that, under the
Fourteenth Amendment, they are
to be considered as such. They
house students, and the University
claims the right to regulate all
student housing. Students eat there.
Leaders of the fraternities are
considered by the University to be
student leaders merely because of
their fraternity offices, and University
committees and other groups
contain fraternity officers merely
because of their offices. The intramural
program (sponsored by the
University) is run solely on the
basis of fraternity groupings. The
grade-point averages published
twice a year in The Cavalier Daily
emphasize the "standing" of the
fraternities. The University regulates
other aspects of fraternity life
(as fraternity members sometimes
find to their embarrassment) and
the University has never
relinquished its claim to a large
residual area of potential control of
the fraternities and the fraternity
system. I would conclude that
fraternities are part of the University;
and I would be that, for
purposes of prohibiting racial discrimination
at least, the Supreme
Court is just itching to tell us so.

I hope that Dean Williams
realizes the legal situation and
exercises some of the gentle coercion
for which Dean Runk was
beloved, to force fraternities to
integrate before the federal courts
do. The existence of racial discrimination
by any group or organization
formally recognized and encouraged
by the University is a
disgrace.

"Well Done"

Whether or not one likes the
controversial Wilson Hall, appreciation
should be expressed to
those workmen who struggled during
the scorching heat of summer
and penetrating cold of winter to
build it, whatever one wishes to call
it. Since they are not responsible
for the design (which, by the way, I
have no complaints about), it must
be a blow to morale to hear the
"never-satisfied" students degrading
their arduous efforts before the
building is even completed.

So let's put aside opinionation
and give some credit to those who
deserve it. All will agree, after some
soul-searching that a "well done"
from the Gentlemen of the
University to the real and innocent
creators of Wilson Hall is in order.

Fresh Air

Thoroughly deluged by all the
articles, letters, ad nauseum concerning
the "disgraceful" Wilson
Hall, I would add only one statement
— the 'No Smoking' rules are
great! I am only sorry that these
rules are not permanent or applicable
to all University classrooms.
To those smokers who would normally
grind cigarettes butts into the
floor, litter desks with ashtrays and
smell up themselves and everyone
around them; my only advice is to
be patient. In all probability, you,
who cannot withstand 50 minutes
of fresh air, will be able to smoke in
Wilson Hall after acceptance of the
building this Spring. Until then, I
suggest you lock yourself in a small
closet and smoke six packages of
cigarettes for each class you have in
Wilson Hall to make up for lost
time.

Grounds Ban

The F.C.C.'s recent proposal to
ban all cigarette advertising from
radio and T.V. alerts us again to the
dangers of smoking. The banning of
all cigarettes from the Grounds
might be too much to expect from
the University authorities. But, at
least, they can cease encouraging
this dangerous habit (and profiting
from it) by removing all cigarette
vending machines from the
Grounds.

The Walk to the Corner for
cigarettes won't hurt those who
wish to impair their health — it may
actually help them.

UPI

Would you please stop including
the UPI fillers in your University
newspaper and concentrate on at
least semi-complete coverage of the
University community?