University of Virginia Library

Progressive s Discussed

By Rod MacDonald

"Student Council too long has looked at
the trends and offered its support" said the
Virginia Progressive Party in Monday's
Cavalier Daily. The attitude of this party in
its emergence reveals the frustration of
many students in seeking leverage to "get
things done" at the University.

Many of the new party's top figures
(such as Robert Rosen, Pieter Schenkkan
and Charles Murdock) were founding
members of the Coalition; this dual
membership is the root of the new party's
thrust. For the Coalition's major failure was
in the realm of power - it had none. It
could exhort, demonstrate support, and
attempt to negotiate, but at no critical point
could it apply power where it was needed.

President Shannon, beneath his agreeable
exterior, understands the use of power well,
and consistently denied it to the Coalition;
his method precluded any administration
recognition of their legitimacy by referring
everything through "channels," i.e., the
Student Council, where red tape and lack of
unity prevailed in watering down the
Coalition's strength.

Not could calls on public opinion be
effective. Here is the area where the
President is most sensitive. Rick Evans
summed it up best when he said of the drive
for a black recruiter "We have to make the
bad publicity stronger than the good
publicity, so that hiring a black recruiter is
the easier alternative." But the types of
demands the Coalition brought up, such as
higher non-academic wages, could not be
settled by the President alone. They had to
be decided by the legislature, whose
intransigence was reinforced as voters "back
home" favored opposing "student
radicalism" in any way possible. Nothing
was done; nor could the state be moved
when constituent popularity varied directly
with anti-student reaction.

The Virginia Progressive Party thus
typifies the frustration of the Coalition in
seeking change. Referred to channels, its
leaders now strive to win a major share of
the channels and erase the artificial distance
President Shannon has used so effectively in
thwarting the student movement. But the
VPP is doomed as well, for the Student
Council has traditionally been unable to
mobilize support for its policies and follow
through in major normative areas. With the
exception of parietal and car regulations, its
success has been scant; save the black
recruiter (which was only a part-time
success) the Council has been weakest in the
area the VPP is most concerned with -
pushing the University along student-desired
lines in major areas of policy, such as
recruiting and hiring. It is doubtful whether
a more liberal Council could increase its
effectiveness here under the present system.

For a time the Coalition and the Council
seemed to be competing for the role of
"student voice" while endorsing the same
goals. President Shannon's non-recognition
policy towards the Coalition deprived it of
any chance of escaping the "radical" tinge
where it counted - in Richmond. While it
could mobilize 1500 students for a rally, it
had no legal standing. Conversely, the
Council, which can call on no popular
mandate because nowhere is a
University-wide election held, has the
legality but lacks the public backing. The
students are effectively deprived of any
chance at using the only legal power they
have - mobilizing public opinion.
Legitimate channels are becoming ever more
ineffectual - the next step may be force if
changes are not made.

Charles Murdock perhaps sensed this
flaw in the student arsenal when he ran for
President of the College, and offered to use
the post as a shouting board backed by a
huge election vote to seek change. Many
voters, including this writer, felt he picked
the wrong office, infringing on a distinctly
non-partisan area. But the need still exists,
and more such candidacies will be pushed
until the void is filled.

Other students have tried to fill the gap
of the "student vice." Richard Gwathmey,
past editor-in-chief of The Cavalier Daily,
was undoubtedly the most effective in using
public opinion. Largely through his efforts
in the paper's editorial columns in
conjunction with his leadership position in
the student body he was successful
(although not by himself) in getting rid of
the $100 dorm deposit in the fall, the
sprinkler ruling for fraternities later on, new
parietal hours, and breaking the blatant
pattern of discrimination in the local barber
shops. In these efforts he was greatly helped
by the political power of Ed Hayes and Rick
Evans with the IFC and Student Council;
but the sad fact is that this leadership was
largely personal. Their departure from active
roles has left a void that remains open in the
wake of the Coalition confusion.

For two years the liberal faction of the
Student Council has sought to pass a new
constitution greatly strengthening the
executive power of the President, and giving
him a handy constituency through the
means of popular election (instead of the
present system of the Council choosing its
own President). Such a position would be a
leadership office for the entire student
body, not just for the Council; it is
unfortunate that each time the new
Constitution has been defeated. In 1967 the
document had many objectionable features
that overrode the popular election
provision. This year the idea of popular
election was itself defeated by the Council
by a 9-10 vote. The Council thereby ratified
its own weakness.

Conservatives will oppose the popular
election, for it is their strategy to sit tight; a
strong President that they could not control
(and most conservatives remember the
overwhelming Anarchist victory last spring)
would be dangerous for them. As long as the
Student Council prevents itself from
exercising any real influence in the
University it will remain weak, and no
victory by any political faction will make
any difference in that status.