University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Newton Invitation 'Absurdly Unpatriotic'

I read with interest in the current
issue of Topics President
Shannon's "Statement of Conduct."
That is all very well but I
recently read in the paper that a
student organization had invited a
Black Panther official to speak at a
meeting of theirs, and the program
was called off only because this
official insisted on having Black
Panther guards at the door to
search those attending.

Now, why in the world should a
UVa group dignify the subversive,
revolutionary, negro (sic) organization
by inviting an official to
address them.

That seems absurdly unpatriotic
to me, and indicates the U. Va. is
not worth supporting by its old
alumni.

Last One To Know

It has recently come to my
attention that there is a report
abroad to the effect that a local
radio station broadcast as news that
Tom Doran was the central figure
of the final news-conference about
the Huey Newton speech, and that
Tom played no part in that
news-conference, and that I am
supposed to have put the newscaster
up to letting that fib out on
the air.

Why is it that I am always the
last one to know of my horrible,
shameless, wicked, soulless,
miserable, conniving, evil, mindless,
terrible, scarifying...!!! Deeds?
Always it is that I'm informed by
my friends that I've perpetrated
some new outrage upon innocent,
unsuspecting mankind (such as
breathing....).

Granted that as a (Oh, horrors!)
conservative I'm obviously a Devil
From Hell, a Fiend Incarnate, a
Monster, an Ogre, and a Total
Outcast from The Human Race
Whom Even The Untouchables Will
Not Deign To Touch, a few other
Y.A.F. members may also be found
crawling under various rocks at the
University.

As long as causeless Kudos are
being tossed around so freely, is it
at all just to deny them some of the
credit for something or other?

By the way, if anybody heard
any such newscast, I'd like to know
about it. Please write 109
Shamrock Avenue, Charlottesville,
Va. 22903.

Alumni Amendment

According to the announced
amendment to the proposed
Constitution of the local
alumni chapter, graduate students
who have degrees from the
University are now eligible for
membership under the "same
qualifications as other graduates."

The membership are article in
that proposed constitution details a
special procedure for admittance
into the chapter which merits
mention.

Applications are to be made in
writing to the Membership
Committee on a form they
prescribe. And Article III, Section 2
authorizes the Committee to use
"its discretion, to elect or refuse to
elect to active membership any
eligible applicant."

When a person is cleared by the
Committee, he then pays $10 to
become a full-fledged member for
the first year. It is, or course, what
the leadership of the chapter
considers its current membership
and its perspective membership
who will be allowed to vote on the
constitution.

Hopefully, then the controversy
about the formation of this
Charlottesville alumni chapter has
been in Cavalier Daily writer Rob
Pritchard's words "nullified."

But under the circumstances we
urge interested students who have
received degrees from the
University to be present at the
meeting Tuesday night, November
24, at 5:00 p.m. in Alumni Hall.
There they can make their interest
known and hear the constitution
they will be voting to accept or
reject read in its entirety.

Hooray, Dixie

In all due respect to Mr.
Williams it seems he used grossly
ambiguous arguments against the
playing of Dixie at school
functions. He comments on the
meaning of Dixie as if it were a
song proclaiming human bondage
and disloyalty to the United States.

Mr. Williams, evidently from up
North somewhere, should take into
account that the singing of Dixie
and the waving of Confederate flags
is done solely in tradition and is
meant to express sentiment for
Virginia and the South as it exists
today.

Certainly this song brings far less
danger to our "academic
community" than the perversion
that accompanies the Panther
movement.

(SING IT LOUD!)

Ignoring Facts

Robert Gillmore regards the
"Obscene Affluence" of the
Playboy life-style (November 17) as
the exclusive property of
Nixon-Agnew supporters.

Has he ever READ Playboy? Any
casual perusal will reveal that its
editors and the vast majority of the
people who write articles, reviews,
and letters to the editor HATE
Nixon and Agnew and admire
George McGovern, Tom Wicker, the
Fonda kids, Dr. Spock; Nat
Hentoff, William Douglas, Charles
Reich, etc.

The young Republicans I know
all detest Playboy both for its
fashionable materialism and its
fashionable left-liberalism. The
"rich and spoiled brats" aren't
Republicans these days, they're
radicals.

With his line ability to
the most basic facts Mr. Gillmore is
plainly headed for a brilliant and
successful career in advocacy
journalism.

Racial Slurs

For a newspaper that disclaims
all vestiges of racism and racial bias
as much as The Cavalier Daily does,
your paper certainly seems to have
a Freudian tendency to let racial
slurs slip through, Not only did you
print the picture in the College
Topics issue (which you yesterday
expressed regret in doing), but also
you made a pointed reference to
race in a news article in the
Wednesday edition.

It seems very unnecessary for
your reporter to write that a
'second-year student' was attacked
by 'three young Negroes.' Damn
all if you really believe in what
you have written in the past, report
that the student was attacked by
three 'muggers' or merely three
'youths.'

I feel that it is not important to
know that a newsworthy action has
been perpetrated by a 'black' or a
'white,' but that it was performed
by a person. Calling for racial
identification to be excluded from
admissions forms and registration
material and then reporting the race
of three muggers on Beta Bridge
seems to be the ultimate in
hypocrisy.

I think that some sort of
clarification of editorial policy
should be made for future
reference.

Newton Speech

I write concerning the Virginia
Weekly's accusation that the University's
administration has cancelled
Huey Newton's speech on purely
political grounds. This accusation
troubles me for several reasons.

First: if the administration does
cancel speeches on purely political
grounds, why did it allow both
William Kuntster and Jerry Rubin
to speak at the height of the civil
crisis over Cambodia last year?

Second: the University has a
valid interest in having its own
guards present in at least part of
University Hall to protect
University property. The Panther
contract would have forbidden such
guards.

If Mr. Newton's sponsors were
so intent on having him speak here,
why did they not modify the
contract demands so that both the
University's interest in protecting
its property and the Black Panther
Party's interest in protecting its
Minister of Defense could be met?

Undoubtedly, there are some
members of the administration who
would like to keep Mr. Newton
from speaking here. Perhaps - and
this is pure hypothesis - they are
glad that a valid reason does exist
for cancelling the speech.

But even if this hypothesis is
true, it cannot obscure the basic
fact that the administration has an
obligation to protect University
property, and it cannot rightly
forsake this obligation without
some good cause.

Let me add that I am personally
anxious to have such a major
historical figure as Huey Newton
speak at the University, and that -
as I have indicated above - I do not
suppose the administration to be
politically or culturally neutral.

In spite of these personal biases
in favor of Mr. Newton, I see no
grounds for a charge of political
repression and will not accept such
a charge unless it has been
specifically proved.

Henry L. Bowden, Jr.
College 4

— Ed.