I have before me your
treatment of Wednesday's
developments in the matter of
the GSU appropriation and I
find it disgusting. Among the
factual inaccuracies is your
headline: no legal action has
been launched. We have filed
neither a bill of complaint nor
any other process, we haven't
even gone to see a lawyer to
discuss the matter. Gentlemen,
was that title worthy of your
calling?
You say that the student
council has the right to allocate
student activity fee funds
'without resorting to
plebiscite'. Leaving aside the
logical irregularity of that
statement–the Committee is
'resorting to plebiscite', not
the student council–when the
council, which is supposed to
"represent the students",
contravenes student opinion,
would the council not be
restrained?
When councilmen
themselves raise evidence
which indicates that the
student body disagrees with
the council's action, which
happened at that meeting,
should there not be a test of
the matter? Where is your
vaunted belief in Democracy,
gentlemen?
You characterize us, and
presumably our motives and
ideas, as 'reactionary'. There is
no basis for such a charge.
Biblical Christianity, the main
source of moral opposition to
the council's action, is quite
up-to-date: read any book or
article on the Jesus Freak
movement. And Mr. Hurd and
I have been mainly set in
motion by a fear that the
public and governmental
reaction to this piece of idiocy
on the Council's part may
seriously harm the University.
The state legislature may well
decide to control, or even
destroy, the student activities
fee; if public anger is great
enough, they might decide to
control or destroy the student
council. We might wind up
with a statute limiting the
number of out-of-state
students that can come here,
rather than a reversible Board
of Visitors regulation. We will
surely have even greater
problems getting the money we
need from the state legislature
and the alumni.
Now, this is far from being a
complete list of possible
consequences, any one of
which would be extremely
harmful. Is it 'reactionary' to
fear these things? I think the
term 'pragmatic' fits better.
Whether one likes it or not, it
is a fact that Virginia is a
conservative state, and utterly
certain that there will be anger,
and damage: very possibly
great damage.
Outside of the matter of
inaccuracy, I wouldn't mind
your application of the term
'reactionary' to me–coming
from your paper, it's a positive
honor, entailing as it does
opposition to such things as
strikes–except that it seems to
have done me some
harm. Teri Towe, a
contemporary of mine in the
law school, came up to me in
Mural Hall this morning and
started poking an umbrella in
the direction of my chest while
saying something about
'second rate bigot' and 'never
speak to me again'. He
probably took your editorial at
face value and acted on it.
The problem is this: I like
Mr. Towe. He's honest, witty,
literate, skilled at music and far
from dull. Your editorial,
gentlemen, seems to have
raised a barrier between him
and me, and that displeases me.
