I protest your implicit suggestion in the
April 24 editorial that Allard Lowenstein is
a new Messiah, That editorial stated: "His
philosophy is considered radical by many,
but those who listened came away most
impressed by his rejection of senseless
violence at universities." What this is
supposed to mean is unknown.
Is Lowenstein against just "senseless"
violence, like that which occurred at recent
fraternity parties, and, therefore, in favor of
violence which is goal-oriented, such as that
being employed against university administrations?
Or, does it mean that Mr.
Lowenstein is not a radical because he
disavows all types of violence? If the latter
interpretation is correct, i exhibits a strange
twisting of political reality on your part.
Those who espouse violence are hardly the
only radicals, and, moreover, they are not
even the only dangerous radicals.
Apparently, The Cavalier Daily wants to
play down Mr. Lowenstein's extremism by
extolling him as "a man who refuses to be
cowed by extremists of either fringe..."
While it is true that he is not "cowed" by
extremists, the reason for this is that he is
leading a large portion of them. Implying
that a radical is not a radical amounts to
double-think. Even worse, you might even
be creating a non-establishment credibility
gap.
As for Gov. Godwin and the legislature
being unable to understand Lowenstein's
concern for student opinion, this opinion on
your part seems incorrect. Gov. Godwin and
the legislature may understand, but they
also reject this "concern for what it is: the
political evangelizing of a radical demagogue.
Why anyone would want to include the
opinions of juveniles in policy decisions is
beyond my comprehension. Certainly the
only possible reason one might do so is if
they held a participatory theory of democracy,
which like Mr. Lowenstein's, is pure
nonsense. The proposition that "the people
govern in a democracy; that students are
people; and, therefore, that students should
also govern" is in error. All people do not
govern, nor ought all people to govern.
Infants, cretins, and others who cannot
exercise consistently mature judgments are
rightfully excluded. Merely reciting the
naked assertion that, because students exist
(e.g. in society, in the university, etc.), they
ought to be allowed some degree of control
appeals to the power hungry desires of these
juveniles, but not to reason.
