University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

JP Running On Shaky Platform

It's that time of the year again
when Student Council candidates
are making their inane promises in
order to solicit votes: this year,
however it seems the Jefferson
Party Candidates have gone a bit
too far in their proposals. I refer
specifically to the policies they
intend to follow for solving traffic
problems at the University.

At the present time the proposal
seek sub-ground parking facilities
is expensive and unnecessary.
University funds to be allocated for
this could be used for more
worthwhile projects such as
expanding black recruitment and
helping to improve the Alderman
Library. The only sacrifice students
would have to make is to leave their
cars at home and walk to class.

Busing students to class seems
equally absurd. Who would be
bussed to class? Those not living
within walking distance of the
University? Students living in the
city are so scattered that it would
be almost impossible to reach all of
them. I suspect that this promise,
however, is aimed at the vast
majority of the students living
within walking distance of the
grounds (i.e. dorms, Rugby Rd.,
etc.). We should all pity Messrs.
Stephens. Voyles, and Warner if
they can not wake up fifteen
minutes early to walk to class.

If students need the parking
space badly enough maybe
something could be done to convert
the Lawn into a parking lot, it is
not really needed, it would be as
close as possible to most classes,
and it would save us money on
having to reseed it every year.

Grasshopper?

I realize that the Contract
Cafeteria is trying to have
more variety in their diet, but
when I found a decapitated
grasshopper in my salad today it
really amazed me.

I know that we pay a very small
amount for our food in the
Contract service, but I thought that
people cleaning the food had
enough sense to recognize a
grasshopper from clods of earth.

This food is really what people
say it is - food that Genghis Khan
served to his Golden Horde.

It would help if the Contract
would refrain from putting a fly or
even a few grasshoppers in our diet.
It would also help if the
management was not so ignorant of
the complaints that come in.

A Nomination

We would like to comment upon
the arbitrary and self-serving action
of the University which, through its
agent the Director of Housing,
deliberately makes owners of
refrigerators who reside in the
University barracks indemnities for
the speculative projected losses that
could be sustained by Food
Services.

Let us address the question of
the objective of Food Services. Is it
to be considered as having the right
to a monopoly on all business of
students living on the Grounds? We
think the answer is clearly, no. By
its very name, Food "Service" is
just that - a service provided for
the convenience of the students -
not for its own convenience, not
for the University's, nor for Mr.
Ralph Main's (Director of Housing
Division).

There is no right to monopoly.
That being the case, by what
possible stretch of the imagination
does Mr. Main correlate the owning
and use of refrigerators in his
barracks with profits to be enjoyed
by the University Food Service?

We consider this action
indicative of a callous disregard for
the welfare of the students, whose
rights take second place to the
featherbedding bureaucracy of the
University. It is significant to note
that the unreasonable size
limitation imposed by Director
Main precludes several persons on a
floor from sharing a single
refrigerator.

The intent is obvious: Less food
can be kept per refrigerator, and
hence more ten-dollar fees, and
more gratuitous profits for Food
Service. We might also point out
that VEPCO informs us that a
refrigerator meeting Mr. Main's
specifications could cost at the
maximum two dollars in electricity
bills for the remainder of the year,
leaving at least eight dollars per
refrigerator for the use of Food
Service.

We feel that both the size
limitation and the fee designed to
subsidize Food Service are
capricious, unwarranted,
unconscionable and outrageous
abuses of authority by University
officials at the expense of the
persons they are supposedly
serving. We see no reason for any
size limitation, and we totally reject
the notion that students should
subsidize an agency that may lose
profits because its customers
exercise their free choice of having
food in their rooms.

It is high time the University
stopped looking at students as its
pawns and recognized that it has
obligations to them as citizens of
the University Community.

Donald K. Woodman
Law 1

—Ed.

Obscene Dave

Why do you allow such
irreverent obscene radicals such as
David Giltinan to promote his
revolutionary propaganda in a
paper which is supported by funds
produced by the entire student
body? Surely there are others who
take objection to the manner in
which he desecrated some of our
most cherished customs and
institutions.

Perhaps they are not perfect
but neither is he, so why should we
allow him to profane our
long-established traditions such as
racism, sexism, and capitalism?
America has existed three hundred
years with such honored practices,
so perhaps they are the key to a
glorious age.

Anarchists like Giltinan should
not be allowed to corrupt the
education of college students
before they are taught how to
think. Censor him before other
individuals are encouraged to rebel
against our established institutions.
God forbid!-and so do I.