University of Virginia Library

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?