University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

I am writing this primarily to
inform other students, but also to
express my personal disgust with
the apparent policies of the "corner
bookstores."

Along with most other students,
when I received my text list for fall
courses, I went to one of the corner
bookstores to purchase them. Upon
returning to my room, I noticed the
price marked on one paperback,
Readings from the Wealth of
Nations, a required text for Economics
I, was a paper sticker
pricing the book at $0.65.
Under this sticker, printed on the
cover, was the original $0.50 price.
An even more flagrant example of a
price markup on a required textbook
is the paperback Scalar and
Vector Fields, necessary to EE 307.
On the cover in the left upper
corner is a paper sticker with the
publishing company's name printed
on it. Underneath this the original
price of $2.95 is printed on the
cover. Inside, stamped on the title
page, is the price being charged for
the book, $4.95. This means a price
markup of 67 per cent!

I can't help but suspect that
such price markups occur on many
other texts. It would seem that
book costs are in fact not dictated
by the publishers, as claimed by
bookstore owners, but set by them
to exploit students faced with
purchasing required texts. Perhaps
this is the accepted way for
text-supplying bookstores to make
their profit. I for one, however,
cannot shake off the feeling of
having been taken.

Mr. Joel Gardners article concerning
the Radical Student and
other "pro-Marxist, irrational, ludicrous,
and anti-traditional" radical
left movements must be a study in
sour grapes. Or perhaps it represents
an attempt by Mr. Gardner to
reassert his conservative credentials
after posing as a liberal candidate
and still losing in last year's Student
Council elections?

The booklet that Mr. Gardner
discusses was written by two
members of the Union. However, if
Mr. Gardner had taken the effort to
attend the organizational meeting
(there were other members of the
Right there), he would have heard
Tom Gardner note that there's a
great difference in the group's views
- but we are united on the goals. I
for one, am not pro-Marxist,
Leninistic, etc. I don't even have a
sunburn. I reject much if not all the
rhetoric contained in the booklet;
however I subscribe completely to
the Union's goals.

Let us though examine Mr.
Gardner's other grossly inflated
charges. It might be noted that SDS
sparked last year's demonstrations
on the Grounds and were later
joined by many at the University. It
might also be noted that President
Shannon's Committee on Equal
Opportunity has agreed with many
of the protest's allegations. Problems
located by "pro-Marxists" do
not simply disappear for that
reason. Ludicrous and irrational?
Hardly.

But if all else fails, there's
always the Honor System i.e.
those who attack the Honor System
are bad and ridiculous. Hardly. Last
year it might be related that Mr.
Murdock ran on a revitalize the
Honor System platform and was
almost elected. It might also be
recalled that Mr. Murdock garnered
more votes in that election than Mr.
Joel Gardner could in the subsequent
election. Perhaps, people
don't think that revitalizing the
Honor System is absurd after all?
Only Mr. Gardner.

The letter from Misses Mathiowitz
and Moore of Sept. 18 speaks
of the "joke" about the road-tripping
Virginia male and his
"tradition of male chauvinism"
here. Indeed! Is that a note of envy
one detects, aimed at the sweet
young belle from afar who takes
the time to cater to that male
chauvinism and gets her hubby and
her toilet bowls? Or rather, is it
that familiarity, having bred
nothing better than contempt, now
forces the local sort to admit that
they (begrudgingly) really want a
little of that male attention after
all. (C'mon guys, you can see it's a
joke; all that serious bit about stud
farms and arrogance and you're
going to take her to the game this
Saturday?) Shucks.