University of Virginia Library

It seems somewhat pointless to
continue the debate on the election
infraction leveled at Mr. Stephens
in the last campaign. The fact is
that the infraction occurred, but is
is not my place, my partisan place,
to speculate on his motivation.

The only point worth noting,
however, was that the placing of
letters in mail boxes, if nothing
else, broke an Alderman Road
Council rule. In this time when we
are trying to coordinate the efforts
of all student groups, it seems
contradictory to flagrantly break
one of an organization's rules.

I must answer, though, Mr.
Stephens' charge that the Virginia
Progressive Party ran a "negative"
campaign. Our campaign was as
direct, and probably more
straightforward, than the JP's. The
sheet we delivered the last night
(written solely by me) seems to be
the cause of Mr. Stephens' rebuke.

That letter was an answer to a
sheet put out earlier by the JP. In
that letter, the JP stated that they
"espoused no philosophy other
than to provide qualified,
competent (sic) candidates for
Student Government." I attacked
this position from the standpoint of
the VPP's ideology and
background.

I also criticized the JP for their
statement in the same piece of
literature that they formed "as an
alternative to the fraternity-oriented
caucus system." I charged
that their philosophy and practice
"served only to continue the
fraternity-dominated process."

I went on to say that "the
Jefferson Party still caters to
fraternity interest by allowing,
indeed encouraging, fraternities to
join the party en masse at
convention time and push 'their
boy' through." I stressed that VPP
members join the party as
individuals, and before the
convention.

This was not a "slam sheet" or
anything other than a statement of
philosophy. I did not attack
individuals; I hit only the JP on
points of difference between the
two parties.

May we all have a pleasant and
peaceful new year.