University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Duty Of Intellectual To Oppose War

To quote one of Mr. Jefferson's
purposes for creating the University
of Virginia, "To develop the reasoning
facilities of our youth, enlarge
their minds, cultivate their morals,
and instill into them the precepts of
virtue and order . . ." All wars are
immoral, the Vietnam conflict
perhaps more so than others. It is
about time that Professor Battestin
(See Cavalier Daily, Oct. 7, 1969),
indeed President Shannon and all
those others who have vocally
opted for "freedom of choice"
concerning the October 15th Moratorium
stop hiding behind the
cliche of the past — "academic
freedom" — and realize that war is
a moral, not a political question.

True, it is the politicians who
have gotten us involved in the
horrendous Vietnam morass. It is
now the responsibility of the
intellectual of the country, especially
those here at the University
dedicated to carrying out Mr.
Jefferson's principles, to oppose the
war. This is as vital a part of our
education as Professor Battestin's
English lesson. It could even be,
perhaps, a bit more important. It is
time that some of our teachers and
administrators begin to look at
these things in perspective.

As a long-time opponent of the
Vietnamese war who spent part of
the summer of 1968 campaigning
for Senator Fulbright, 1 certainly
do not support the call of the
Young Americans for Freedom
(YAF) for "victory" in Southeast
China. Yet I cannot help but feel
that, in objecting to a compulsory,
University-sponsored moratorium
against the war, the YAF has raised
an important civil liberties question
which deserves a respectful hearing.
For the University to close classes
on October 15 as suggested by the
Student Council, would be an
unfair imposition on those in our
community who honestly do not
endorse the moratorium's aims.
These people should not be required
to, in effect, protest against
their will. Compulsory moral protest
is as much an impossibility as
compulsory worship — something
Bud Ogle, a man of the cloth, must
surely realize. Worrying about compulsion
versus voluntarism is not
simply quibbling over "tactic;"
freedom of conscience is an intrinsic
value in itself, and should be
defended regardless of how one
feels about the war in Vietnam.

Basically in fact, I disagree with
the concept that the University
should act as some sort of moral
witness to the nation, because such
a concept presupposes a nonexistent
consensus about what is
right and wrong. An academic
consensus never can or should exist.
The University is not the Church,
militant or otherwise. At best, it is
a free and open forum for an
exchange of different ideas in a
mutual search for truth. When the
University stops searching and begins
deigning and pronouncing,
when it assumes that is, a preaching
or ministerial role, then it becomes
untrue to itself.

This is no plea for the Ivory
Tower. Students and faculty, individual
and in groups, can involve
themselves in the needs and concerns
of the larger world. No one,
however, has the right to use the
University to draft others into
support for their own beliefs and
causes.

When Mr. Jefferson founded the
University 150 years ago, he hoped
that it would become a great
secular institution dedicated to free
inquiry. Regardless of what might
happen elsewhere, here in Charlottesville
we would always be so
devoted to liberty that we would
"tolerate any error" — even on
Vietnam.

As coordinator of the petition
to influence cancellation of all
University activities on Oct. 15, I
feel it necessary to reply to some
issues and criticisms forwarded in
the last few days.

First, it has been frequently
asserted that the University, as an
environment for higher learning,
should not involve itself officially
in the political arena regardless of
the worth of any issue. The
underlying premise of this stance is
that the University is presently
neutrally oriented or at least close
enough to center to consider
modest reforms such as expulsion
of ROTC from the campus as
sufficient to achieve a balance. The
facts of course are completely to
the contrary. For neutrality is only
achieved when both sides of the
issue are examined. This is clearly
not the case at an institution where
the faculty and administration are
periodically purged (as was the
Economics Dept. two years ago and
the Sociology Dept. last year) to
insure that the consensus rests far
right of center, in an academic
community where a realistic consideration
of whether a Black woman
who is a member of the Communist
Party should be allowed to conduct
a course for credit is inconceivable.
In fact what is meant by neutrality
is passive resistance in the face of
an attempt to change the status-quo.

Secondly, it has been forwarded
by another faction that the Moratorium
will be much more dramatic
and influential if each person
decides individually to cut classes
on that day. While this school of
thought has some honest appeal, it
stems from a misunderstanding of
the major purpose of the Moratorium.
For the primary theme of
that day is not a passive absence
from class but an active devotion of
twenty-four hours to educating
ourselves further on the implications
of American involvement in
Vietnam as well as encouraging
others, some of whom would
otherwise be in class, through
rallies, speeches, and symbolic gestures
to re-examine their positions
on the war.

Thirdly, in answer to those
critics who claim their payment of
tuition fees entitles them to the
opportunity to attend class on that
day, I refer them to the promise
made at Geneva in 1954 by the
United States to the Vietnamese
people concerning elections to be
held. Since that contract was
violated over one million people
have died. To a man bleeding in the
field your legal threats would seem
nauseatingly absurd.

Finally, to further clarify a
point overlooked by most people,
the petition requests that all official
functions at the University be
cancelled that day. This was intended
specifically to include employees
of the University by giving
them the day off with pay and to
remind students that they are
hardly alone on the battlefield. For
D.O.D. statistics show that the
major burden of this war and all
wars falls heaviest on the shoulders
of the poor.

This letter is in reply to the
editorial "Consistency, Please"
which appeared in the October 8,
edition of The Cavalier Daily. By
the end of this somewhat irrational
argument, it is evident that the
author has completely missed the
point contained in Mr. Shannon's
statement. The author's case against
ROTC is totally irrelevant; it has
absolutely nothing to do with the
University's policy regarding the
Moratorium. The author seems to
be unaware that there are students
attending the University, who by
virtue of the fact that they are
paying for an education have a right
to pursue that education. This
freedom to pursue an education is
not to be denied by a minority (or
majority, for that matter) of
students who seek to close the
University, regardless of their reasons.
The basic freedom to pursue
one's education is the point in
question as applied to the Moratorium
issue. The equation of the
Moratorium issue with that of
academic credit for ROTC is,
indeed, a very poor one.

Regardless of what The Cavalier
Daily chooses to say in context or
by false implication let it be stated
that our fraternity and every
brother and I emphasize every
brother in it has and will continue
to rush University students regardless
of race, religion, or national
origin. We are not looking for a
"token" anything. We look for
individuals who will enjoy the
fellowship of our House and who
will without hesitation accept our
National Creed, the first sentence
being "That all men are created free
and equal."