University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Embarrassing Nostalgia!(?)

Your February 18 editorial
"University Union" suffers from
the same pernicious
self righteousness that was beginning
to afflict political leaders when I
left the University two years ago.
This self righteous attitude, implicit
in misleading inferences such as
"bordered on dictatorship"..
"Boars Head dinners"... "bordered
on drab"...etc., either reflects
naivete limited understanding or a
shoddy attempt at myth building
(perhaps worthy of the late Dr.
Goebbels). I hope it reflects the
former, for inexperience has more
palatable remedies than stupidity.

Your readers might be interested
in the record of the Union's
experience 1968-69. During that
time of "fraternity aristocracy" the
Union's reactionary chauvinistic
leaders quietly integrated the
organization sexually and racially at
the decision-making level. They
persuaded the gentlemen in
Pavilion VIII to allow the first
Lawn Concert (Fifth Dimension,
spring '68-a financial loss) in some
years, partially underwrote the
expenses of such progressive
publications as Modulus, quietly
underwrote the expenses of the
protest "Coalition," and
successfully lobbied for beer and
wine service in Newcomb Hall-to
name a few innovations, To be sure
these were incremental, if not
modest (by '71 standards). One
self-righteous detractor has called
them symbolic. But even the long
suffering, underestimated John
Herring might recall how the
Union's "director" was then
berated for his "liberalism" by past
Union Presidents such as Josh
Fletcher and Will Montague.

There were no Boars Head
dinners. It is true the Union held
occasional 'happy Hours' for all its
working staff, just as The Cavalier
Daily held its periodic cocktail
parties at the Kappa Sigma House.
It is also true the C.D.'s present
editor-in-chief was "wined in the
limon-light of the ...Lawn"
(embarrassing nostalgia!). But then
he was only an uppity second-year
man who might not have known
the Union's "director" paid for such
gatherings out of his own pocket
and not the public fill. Unlike some
organizations, the Union never had
a "Slush fund"$—(We had
the "problem" of annual state
auditors!). In fact, the Union's
books were public information.

Whatever changes Clay Spencer's
leadership have encouraged are well
intentioned. However, his successor
will confront the phenomenon that
large groups tend to be less efficient
in fulfilling their stated purposes
because maximizing participation
tends to minimize efficiency while
raising the social costs of
organizing. Unless altruistic, each
staff member will have smaller
incentives for doing his job well
because his personal "payoff"
(satisfaction, promotion, etc.) will
be a smaller fraction of the group's
total output of programs. But the
Union belongs to those who now
run it, not its past leaders.
Somehow, Clay and his successor
and the University will muddle
through.

I do hope the present, diseased
spirit of self righteousness,
apparently so rampant in
Charlottesville, will die off as its
carriers realize they too are not
immune from sin, original and
otherwise.

George Shipley
Dept. of Government
Univ. of Texas
Austin

—Ed.

Wants Some Answers

I'll admit I get a bit peeved
when you don't print yesterday's
answer, but when you don't even
print today's crossword puzzle, I
write letters. I realize that
advertisements and editorials are
important to a university student
newspaper, but for many readers
the crossword puzzle is the extra
little reward for reading the other 3
5/6 pages...sort of like the goodie in
the crackerjacks!

Other than that you're doing a
great job. The CD is the most
interesting university newspaper
I've ever become addicted to.