University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Law School Head Scores Murdock

Mr. Charles Murdock, candidate
in the College elections, recently
stated in your paper "the President
[of the Law School] has taken an
active role in 'conservative' political
activity to the point of proposing
'conservative' legislation to the
Student Council." I would like to
provide some specifics about my
actions that Mr. Murdock saw fit to
omit.

I have appeared before the
Student Council once in my three
years at the law school. On that
occasion, to the best of my
memory, I proposed to the Council
that it go on record as favoring "the
laudable goals of racial justice
achieved through orderly means"
and that the Council state that such
means do not include the disruption
of classes or occupation of
buildings. Since Mr. Murdock himself
espouses the goal of racial
justice, I assume that my 'conservative'
legislation was that such goals
be sought by orderly means.

It seems clear that Mr. Murdock's
characterization of advocacy
of observance of orderly processes
as 'conservative,' indicates that it is
not a position that he would chose.
I submit that his refusal to adhere
to such means in achieving his goals
should give pause to members of
the College Community before
making him their spokesman.

Keeping The Pace

It seems to me that the most
meaningless issue injected into the
current College Honor Committee
election is the fear of the Honor
Committee's embroilment with
real-live problems. The assumption
is that the Presidency of the College
has not been used in the past to
lend weight to a political position,
and that assumption is simply false.
One only has to go back to the
spring of last year when Pete Gray,
retiring Honor Committee Chairman,
by inference threw the not
inconsiderable prestige of the
Honor System behind his impassioned
plea to the Student Council
not to recognize the S.D.S.

One might also point out the
recent apoplectic orientation
speeches of Dean T. Braxton
Woody, the University's evidence
that rumors of the extinction of the
troglodyte are still premature, in
which the inviolability of the
present Honor System is seen as a
last bulwark against not only
"anarchists" but liberals of the
pinkish Hubert Humphrey hue,
surely as political a use of our
famous tradition as could be
conceived.

The candidacy of Mr. Murdock
and his stated intention to support
liberal programs are surely more
honest than his opponents' claim
that the office is "traditionally" a
non-political one. (If so, why elect
anyone? In the absence of a
popular mandate, perhaps a simple
anointing by Dean Woody would
suffice.)

The candidacy of Mr. Murdock
is yet another indication of healthy,
well-considered change at the University,
as his impressive platform
devoted in toto to the Honor
System reveals. His election will
allow the Honor System to keep
pace with that change; any other
course would ultimately abandon it
to oblivion.

Tuesday's Child

Let me assure you that not
"everyone" is laughing over what
happened in Rouss Hall with regard
to Tuesday's election.

I am not laughing. My vote
helped to provide Mr. Wenzl with
his margin. It was cast in the hope
that he would courter the Neanderthals
of the "new Left" currently
seated in the assembly, rather than
add to them. This seemed to be the
only inference one could reasonably
take from the poster by the ballot
box in Rouss Hall, which purported
to represent him.

Nor do I think those who
believed in representation derived
from an informed electorate are
laughing at what went on in Rouss.
For according to The Cavalier
Daily, 11 of 12 votes cast in Rouss
Hall were marked for Wenzl.
Though figures weren't published
for Mr. Roebuck, it is known that
he got over 75% of the votes of the
entire Grad. A&S for the other
position. So presumably most of
the Rouss votes were Roebuck-Wenzl.
A switch of 4 of these votes,
besides mine, to Roebuck-Ford,
would have changed the results of
the election, One must admit this is
not an improbable result. But even
whether the outcome would change
is beside the point. It is impossible
to know everyone running for
office or his qualifications. If a
voter cannot believe what he reads,
he cannot make an intelligent
choice. In short, whether Mr. Wenzl
was responsible for that poster in
Rouss Hall or not, a dangerous
precedent will be established should
this election be validated. If future
candidates are passed off as pro-X
to one group and anti-X to another,
as Mr. Wenzl was, then, the will of
the electorate is effectively frustrated.

Yet, it would be inconsistent to
challenge this practice at some
future time, if we allow it to go
unchallenged now. How about it,
Mr. Wenzl - I'm sure in your
association with SSOC you have
had a lot to say about social ethics
- do these tactics fit into your
definition of justice? Whether responsible
or not, you probably owe
your election to the fact that they
were employed on your behalf.

Are you willing to abide by the
results or another vote, now that
the voters know something about
you? Why not write in to The
Cavalier Daily and let your new
constituents know just where you
stand on a re-vote? Otherwise, I am
sure there are other ways to get the
same result.