University of Virginia Library

Letters: Damnation Admitted
Over 'Blueprint' Meaning

Last week I was able to glean a
little bit of intelligent thought from
some of the points made in Mr.
Rosen's "Prospectus For the
University" printed in The Cavalier
Daily. And the letters to the editor
which followed it showed that,
agreeing or not, the students also
grasped some of the statements he
made in the article. But I'll be
darned if I can see what Mr. Meade
Whitaker is trying to say in his
"Blueprint" printed in September
25's Cavalier Daily.

To be sure, he uses all the right
words - even sounds a little like
Rosen's article. Let's see, he's got
"confront," and "open channels of
communication," and "relevant
innovations," and "constructive
criticism," and even "the university
scene" (!). But what do these words
(and that's all they are in the
context he employs) mean? Aside
from sounding very impressive, Mr.
Whitaker's article says, upon
analysis, very little.

"Students can and perhaps
ought to be indignant" - now what
does that tell us about how to
effect a radical change in
administration policies? Of course,
his answer is clear: we must
"channel [our] thoughts and ideas
in a constructive manner." Huh?
What does that say? Very close to
nothing. And, unfortunately, that is
the same course that the rest of his
essay pursues. We should "change
what needs changing," hold our
student activism "within reasonable
bounds," "think before [we]
speak," and keep open "the
normal, ordinary channels" of
dissent. I fail to see any meaning in
this excess verbiage. Where is the
substance? To change what needs
changing is the goal of the most
rabid revolutionary to the most
hidebound conservative - the
question is about what needs
changing, and on this matter, Mr.
Whitaker has nothing to say. What
are reasonable bounds for dissent?
If Mr. Whitaker knows, I wish he
would tell us, for that's what the
dissent is about, in part! Who
doesn't claim to "think before he
speaks?" And how can you prove
he doesn't? And finally, isn't it
through the normal, ordinary
channels of progress and change
that the University got where it is
today? How can anyone urge us to
roll along in the same rut that got
us here; we want to change over to
a new groove!

It is unfortunate that Mr.
Whitaker's essay spent so much
time on "the university scene" and
"the Sons of Eli," instead of telling
us how we can change the very
much different University here in
Virginia. Perhaps some of the U.
Va. undergrads have learned
something about the "lively
discussion" of the issues at hand in
New Haven. But it is only through
failure to search for the issues here.
Mr. Whitaker, at no point in his
article, gets down to he specifics
that Mr. Rosen has mentioned -
the draft, Black Power, admissions
policy on Negroes, the University's
visitation hours, a student
bookstore. He fails to say one
thing, constructive or destructive,
about anything which may fairly be
termed an issue. He sidesteps
everything.

Is there any meaning in his
article at all?

Agnew A Buffoon

While I agree with Robert Rosen
that Spiro Agnew is a buffon, I
must take issue with Mr. Rosen's
light-hearted view of the
Republican Vice-Presidential
candidate. Agnew may be a clown,
but he is a very dangerous one.
Assuming a Republican victory in
November, what if, through some
disaster, Agnew should suddenly
become President. The man's only
qualification is that he is not
objectionable to Strom Thurmond
and the Yahoo wing of the party.
We would find ourselves with a
chief executive beside whom
Lyndon Johnson would appear a
champion of dissent, Dwight
Eisenhower a model of
articulateness, and Karl Mundt a
great intellectual. As the
Washington Post recently
commented, Nixon's selection of
Agnew may come to be regarded as
"the most eccentric
political appointment since the
Roman emperor Caligula named his
horse a consul."

One searches in vain for
glimmerings of intelligence and
compassion in Agnew's
pronouncements. Instead, there are
only ethnic slurs, witch-hunter cries
of "soft on Communism" and
"Reds on the campuses," appeals to
the white backlash rivalling those of
George Wallace, promises of
suppression of dissent and the one
vitual abolition of the Bill of
Rights, and the various grotesque
mistakes which Mr. Rosen pointed
out. Four years of Agnewism may
result in the politics of stupidy, the
politics of fear, or the politics of
oppression, but never the politics of
joy.

Changing Climate

Your editorial "The Lively
Ones" (Sept. 25, 1968) observed
correctly the changing climate of
state Democratic politics. Through
a careless choice of metaphor and
the chauvinistic aversion The
Cavalier Daily exhibits toward
anything un-UVa., you have
presented a distorted picture of one
of the candidates.

T. Marshall Hahn can be no
streach of the imagination be
placed in the Conservative/Reactionary
political spectrum.
Admittedly, Henry Howell does
stand to the left in Virginia politics;
but to imply that Marshall Hahn is
significantly to his right is a
misrepresentation of the VPI
president.

More to the point, is the
catagorical dismissal of Hahn
simply because he is: 1) not a
graduate of this institution, 2) is
affiliated with VPI, and 3) is less
hirsute than most.

In the short time he has been at
Tech he has revitalized and
developed a "new college" into a
highly respectable university. A
recent state poll indicated that VPI
was ranked over this institution as
the first choice of Virginia students
seeking college entrance.

Irrelevant to his candidacy,
through of seeming concern to The
Cavalier Daily, are his academic
credentials which outstrip the other
candidates. More important,
however, has been his working
relationship with the General
Assembly in which VPI has received
more appropriation funds than has
an equally competitive U. Va.

Presiding over the '66-'67
Virginia Metropolitan Areas Study
Commission, which popularily bore
his name, he demonstrated his
knowledge of urbanizing Virginia
and suggested some radically
innovative solutions.

If he decides to run, and makes
it to the Mansion, he will be a most
able and exciting Governor. Indeed,
something good can come out of
Blacksburg.

Cheerleader Conduct

Don't our cheerleaders have any
consideration for our guests? One
would hardly think so after
witnessing their conduct during
halftime at the VMI game. The
William Fleming band journeyed all
the way from Roanoke, presumable
in response to an invitation from
the Athletic Department, to
perform on the field. The
cheerleaders' shouting over the
loudspeakers during the marching
show was rude, to say the very
least. How are visitors in the
stadium supposed to believe
anything about our gentlemanly
tradition when the cheerleaders
show apparent distain for common
courtesy?

I heartily suggest that in the
future the cheerleaders make an
honest effort to behave as true
representatives of a community of
gentlemen, rather than repudiate
the gentlemanly image.

Thanks To Newcs

I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the student
employees at the Newcomb Hall
Main Desk for their friendly
assistance concerning the recent
S.D.S. meeting. I approached the
desk desiring information as to the
whereabouts of the meeting room.
The student in charge graciously
answered my question and then
quickly added that the meeting was
to be held at 8. All the posted
announcements declared the
proposed time to be 9; however, I
took it for granted that this very
knowledgeable young man was the
better informed. I thanked him for
setting straight this misguided
first-year man.

Unfortunately, the meeting was
not held at 8, but rather at the
originally declared time. Curiously
enough, the few students who
arrived at eight were also informed
by the Newcomb Hall Main Desk of
the time change. The five of us
were joined by the rest of the group
at nine, whereupon I learned that
an eight o'clock meeting time was
never announced to anyone.

I found these facts very
interesting. I even had the audacity
to suspect that certain people in the
University did not wish people to
attend this meeting. I quickly
discarded this thought in view of
the fact that such a liberal-minded
University would never interfere
with student affairs. Besides, no
person bounded to the honor
system would ever mislead a fellow
student.

To this moment I have not
found a suitable explanation for the
preceding affair. I sincerely desire a
viable solution to this enigma.
Anyone having information
pertaining to these events may wish
to contact me personally or perhaps
through The Cavalier Daily.