The Cavalier Daily's editorial
department has drawn its political
line, belting out day after day its
New Left philosophy. I've watched
with growing concern the word
choices and news articles used.
Judge Haynsworth was accused
of unethical conduct and many
other allegations, all mostly a
cover-up for the fact that he is a
Southerner. No mention was made
about labor holding a "substantial
interest" in the leader of the
opposition, Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.),
who received $68,000 from
the AFL-CIO. How can one assume
that senators holding vast interest
can be honest in their decisions, but
yet a Southern judge with supposed
interests can't? What a roll call for a
vote on ethics: Thomas Dodd,
Senator Kennedy...Haynsworth was
accused of not being able to relate
to today's problems or vote fairly
on Civil Rights matters, yet nothing
was said about Alabama's Justice
Hugo Black having no judicial
background and being an ex-member
of the Ku Klux Klan, who
turned out to be a distinguished
liberal jurist.
Quite frequently The Cavalier
Daily reveals is McCarthyism hangup.
President Nixon is accused of
wanting to muzzle the newspapers
which is evidenced because a "man
who uncovered communists everywhere
in the 1950s would find a
new charge to use on those who fail
to agree with him" (The Cavalier
Daily 11/29/69). Agnew is accused
of an "open-air threat of repression
to rival that of the McCarthy years"
(The Cavalier Daily 11/21/69)
while the most flagrant example of
McCarthyism seen in the fight to
stop Haynsworth - guilt by association
to Bobby Baker - went
unmentioned. Today one can be
concerned over individual behavior
of leftists but as soon as any
parallel is drawn to quotes from
Hanoi etc. you are guilty of
McCarthyism. I sometimes wonder
how The Cavalier Daily naturally
assumes that President Nixon uses
Right Guard of his left arm pit
from a hold-over of the McCarthy
years but that JFK and RFK who
supported, worked with, and contributed
heavily to McCarthy somehow
came out lily-white.
With Agnew The Cavalier Daily
cries that it's "a frightening time"
and foresees "a darkness upon the
United States." It accuses Agnew of
wanting to impose state censorship
in hit and run editorials. His harsh
language offended The Cavalier
Daily but yet they ought to inspect
their own. Why was no mention of
the New York Media Project made?
For those not familiar, this is an
organization composed of "professionals
in the communications industry"
whose aim is to oppose the
war in their professional capacity
and promote "all Third World
liberation movements." Members
hall from Time, Newsweek, Fortune,
Look, Esquire, and almost all
major news sources, T.V., magazines
and newspapers. The
N.Y.M.P. proclaims that "Media
brass will resist our pressure, but we
are going to have to be clear among
ourselves who and what we're
working for, besides our paychecks."
Also the report of the
Historical Research Foundation
which says that "The news and the
commentary were overwhelmingly
favorable to the Democratic candidate"
in the last Presidential election.
Is Agnew's sin that of calling
things as they are? Why should
criticism from the Right be linked
to Nazi Germany while political
obscenities from the Left are smiled
upon?
I encourage more students to
express themselves because views
from both sides represent a healthy
balance.
Thomas L. Tedrow
College 2
