University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

'I, For One, Am Not The Enemy'

I don't wish to drag this out, but
I would like to make a reply to the
letter of the Women's Liberation
Movement.

It's true that the Movement
made no attempt to stop my
reading their literature at their
table. But I hadn't the time - I was
on my way to work, late as usual.
That's why I asked to borrow the
pamphlet for an hour, since I only
had to work for an hour, and I
would be just one floor above them
at my job.

That they refused my request
makes the whole situation not only
a question of discrimination but
also a question of honor -
something the rest of the University
community takes for granted I
have.

It's also true that one of the
ladies behind the table, forgetting
her training, was kind enough to
suggest to another of the ladies,
whom I knew, that she lend me her
own copy. That lady agreed
(though, to my mind, reluctantly),
and I said, in effect, Great let's have
it! Unfortunately, she didn't have
her own copy with her, and I had
to settle for vague promises of
future encounters. That's why I
wrote my original letter.

I don't want to appear unreasonable.
I can see the Movement's
point about having limited supplies
of literature, and wanting that
literature to reach members of its
own sex first. But it seems to me,
then, ridiculous that the Movement
should be offering its literature
within an area in which at least
eighty per cent of the population
does not qualify to receive it. Since
this is an affront to that eighty per
cent, may I suggest to the Movement
that it withhold its literature
from this area until it has an
adequate supply for the whole area.

One other point: the Movement
claims that it does not want to
"deny enlightenment to interested
men." Why is it, then, that the
course which it is offering within
the Experimental University this
semester, while it has no class limit,
requires that its members "must be
female?"

What "limited supplies" are
involved here? Space? I'm sure that
a large enough room could have
been secured to accommodate all
who wished to join the class. I can
only conclude that the Movement
does not so much wish to "enlighten
interested men" as to create
an enemy (i.e., all men) and then
focus upon him.

It's sad, because I, for one, am
not the enemy. I've always thought
of myself as wholly sympathetic to
any movement that seeks to combat
discrimination. But I surely
can't be sympathetic to a movement
that seeks to combat discrimination
by practicing it. I'm not that
schizophrenic.

To continue the controversy
over the sale of Women's liberation
materials by the Charlottesville
Women's Lib at their desk in
Newcomb Hall, I would like to add
an experience and an opinion.

Last week I attempted to buy a
pamphlet by Roxanne Dunbar,
mainly because I had read an article
critical of her in the most recent
Playboy magazine and wanted to
form a more balanced opinion of
that female-revolutionist.

I was denied access to this
material because I, like the gentleman
who wrote earlier, am a male.
Because the feminists are protesting
discrimination by sex, I found the
position taken by the persons
operating that desk to be hypocritical.
Their justification was something
to the effect that the females
at this university were oppressed,
and until that is taken care of the
discrimination by female won't
matter. This argument was supplemented
by a copy of their letter in
the Thursday Cavalier Daily.

I instead hold to that old cliche
that two wrongs do not make a
right. There are legal arguments,
also, against a refusal to sell to any
group on such grounds. I and others
would like to see the Women's
Liberation table removed from
Newcomb Hall until they agree to
sell their wares on an open basis.

I would like to take this
opportunity to commend you and
the staff of The Cavalier Daily for
your recent productive work on
behalf of the preservation of the
natural beauty of "the Grounds."
This crusade is necessary and well
worth both time and effort.

In view of your success in having
the area near Wilson Hall beautified
and having the well-worn path
across the south end of "the Lawn"
returned to its former grassy state,
it is to you who I wish to enlist in a
campaign to restore Lambeth Field
to some semblance of decency.

Lambeth Field is now a disgraceful
crumbling haven for a few lone
sunbathers, a few hardy track stars,
and even occasionally the site of
spring football practice. All this
provides the typical collegiate postcard
setting.

However, after sitting for two
hours during last Saturday's baseball
game with William and Mary,
my impression of the old stadium
has made a turnabout. Steps are
missing in the aisles, and are
completely lacking between the
first row and the field, a dangerous
jagged drop. The concrete is eroding
away, not only in the
bleachers, but on the sides of the
stadium, leaving large gaps. The
gray-black columns urgently need
another coat of white paint and the
existing roof should be re-tiled. The
field itself could use some landscaping.
As always the place is
strewn with the usual broken glass
and litter. In all it is a shameful site
for any athletic meet.

Lambeth Field, once visited by
President Calvin Coolidge, should
be preserved so as to provide
another athletic field and serve as a
traditional symbol of the past.

Mr. Dickey in his "Colloquium"
concerning Godard's "Sympathy
for the Devil" indirectly raised an
interesting issue regarding the audience.
How many people expected
to see the Rolling Stones in
concert, and walked away baffled?

I imagine there were quite a few
people, just as there are numerous
people baffled by "the revolution."
Were you bored because Godard
wanted you to feel bored? Were
you confused because Godard
wanted you to be confused?

Mr. Dickey has not been thoroughly
fair with Godard, and his
attack against "Cinephiles" who
enjoyed the film, or even professed
to be interested in what they didn't
understand.