University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Martyrs Undermine Own Cause

Although I have had little
"training" in psychology, lately I
have developed a feeling that a
substantial number of people are
running around with what I would
call a "martyr complex". How else
would you explain the behavior of
the many individuals professing a
new and better life style, who
antagonize (with their appearance,
language, etc.) the very people
possessing the power to crush
them?

If I had developed
improvements which I thought
people could use to more fully
realize their life's potential, I would
be inclined to advertise this
knowledge (discounting any profit
motive). Either these people believe
they are martyrs fighting the
Establishment who is out to get
them (for God knows what
reasons); or they are very selfish
people, who will not share the
knowledge of their better way of
life.

For an example of such a
pseudo-martyr, I cite the author of
the recent C.D. article "A Night in
Your State Penitentiary." This was
an extremely interesting and
enlightening article with important
(sic) comments people should be
made aware of. I had little doubt as
to the author's intent until I read
his last sentence — "I can never
forget that it is precisely our money
and our apathy which feeds the
Fascist regime we call Justice in
America."

How can the author seriously
believe he can change a situation,
which desperately needs change,
when he antagonizes those very
people who have the power to
make the necessary improvements?
Perhaps he has no desire to work
for constructive change (seeing the
task as too difficult), and would
rather have his guilt feelings
"cleansed" by subjecting himself to
persecution — the natural result of
such an inflammatory remark.

Although it may be no less trite
than "the Fascist regime we call
Justice in America," it certainly is
less fallacious to say "you can catch
more bees with honey than you can
with vinegar."

No Confidence

The recent Student Council
elections are thankfully over and
what appears to be at least
adequate candidates have been
elected. But few members of the
student body are completely happy
with either the results or the
campaigns or both. I would like to
suggest a reform which might
reverse the trend of student
alienation from its own system of
self government.

In all future elections, provisions
should be made on each ballot for a
vote of "No Confidence" in each
category. Then, if the number of
"No Confidence" votes equaled the
number of votes received by the
leading candidate, that particular
office would be unfilled until an
acceptable candidate is found.
Alternately, the question of "No
Confidence" could be treated as a
referendum with the same result of
a void election if passed. To
prevent anarchy, however, the
number of attempted elections
should be limited to perhaps three,
with the leading candidate in the
third election being declared the
winner.

This reform would do two
things. On one hand, it would tend
to reduce the field in each election
to two candidates because those
people who run merely to discredit
the system would be working
toward their ends by encouraging
"No Confidence" votes which
would have some effect, rather than
encouraging votes for "Speedy"
which are only a futile gestures.

Secondly, with the threat that
an entire election could be voided,
the political parties would have
more of an incentive to choose only
completely qualified candidates.
This would simultaneously increase
the stature of Student Council and
the system as a whole, while also
promoting meaningful votes instead
of empty gestures or votes of "No
Confidence".

The overall result of including a
"No Confidence" box on each
ballot would be an increase in the
effectiveness of Student Council,
because each officer elected under
the proposed system would be able
to claim a mandate from the
student body in lobbying efforts
with the Administration and the
State. At present, Council members
cannot claim that mandate after
being elected in multi- candidate,
discredited campaigns.

"Problem Solvers"

Without a long discussion, I
would like to make several
statements of opinion on the
matter you discussed. First, there is
no "glut" of Ph.D's. There is a
large number of people who have
over specialized and who are
reluctant to do anything not within
their specialty. There is still a great
need for "problem-solvers" in our
society who are highly trained and
competent in several fields and are
willing to do jobs for which they
are not specifically trained. The
solution is not to reduce output but
to make the output fit the market.
Second, if such "problem-solvers"
are to be trained, then traditional
concepts of discipline and
specialization will fall and be
replaced by much broader,
individualized and more flexible
advanced degree programs. Does
this not conflict with the notion of
specialization of each university
which you presented? Systems
which specialize are doomed as
soon as the environment which
they fit changes. Systems which
generalize increase their
adaptability to a rapidly changing
world.