University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

'Jim' Questioned As 'Hoax'

Since you, as the self-appointed
expert on the Honor System, have
long defended the cherished tradition
it represents, perhaps you
could alleviate a bit of confusion
on our part. Recently, in discussing
aspects of the System, an
interesting hypothetical was raised.
Suppose a periodical, whose organization
and staff were part of
the University, and thus its Honor
System, in an effort to liken their
Institution to those ivy-covered
halls of the North, sought to create
this Ivy League similarity by demonstrating
that the drug-taking
intellectuals were as numerous on
this University's grounds as they
were on the greens of Harvard and
Yale.

Suppose further, that the staff
of this periodical, in order to
fully demonstrate to our Ivy "Big
Brothers" that we neither lagged
behind them in academics nor pot,
attempted to pass off on its readers
a purported interview with one of
the mystic gurus of the Cavalier
Underground. Assume further that
said Mystic Guru rehashed the oft-heard
mouthings of the marijuana
set, quoted "Speed kills," and
opined that 10% of this student
body partakes of grass. In order
to make this palatable, the staff
created a letter to the editor,
penned by the skulking "Jim,"
which corrected a "mistake" in
the interview.

As ridiculous as this hypothetical
may seem, we raise it merely
for the purpose of inquiry. Would
this be a violation of the Honor
System?

Thomas D. Johnston

Law 1

Paul Whitehead, Jr.

Law 1

We've never posed as the "self-appointed expert
on anything, and the knowledge
we have of the Honor System
is the same as that of any student
who has conscientiously read
the and the Honor Com-
committee's clarifications of its policies.
There is a difference, we suppose,
between a hoax and a lie. If you
are that the interview with
was a hoax, , we should be most
interested in hearing your evidence.

—Ed.

Aid To Hanoi

I believe it my duty to reply
to the amnesia expressed by the
enlightened alumni in the letter of
November 28.

The opinion "that demonstrations
are among the best ways
to increase Hanoi's willingness to
negotiate" was certainly not arrived
at by rational thinking, as
one would expect of an "intellectual."

The best reply to such a statement
appeared in the 'London
Daily Telegraph' and reprinted in
the December issue of 'Atlas:'

"What they (the dissenters) are
doing is to harden the North
Vietnamese government in its refusal
to negotiate...The sooner Ho
Chi Minh realizes that he cannot
win on American campuses and
boulevards the war he is losing
in Vietnam, the sooner will he come
to the conference table."

Military Recruiting

I fully agree with Councilman
Jacques Jones that the University
administration should ban military
recruiting on the Grounds until
we receive some assurance that the
rights of students will be protected
against unjust reclassification and
conscription. In fact, I would go
one step farther, and propose the
abolition of ROTC operations at
the University until such assurance
is received. While this is somewhat
like banning the Mafia until that
organization promises to behave,
this step is essential if we are to
show any organized protest against
a policy founded on the apparent
belief that the people exist for the
benefit of the military, rather than
vice versa.

Let me be clear, however: I
do not feel that it is a wise course
of action for students to physically
interfere with recruiting (of any
form) on college campuses, although
in this particular instance I
sympathize with the long range
objective which motivates such interference.
This action is basically
tasteless, degrading and a violation
of the freedoms of expression and
association. This, however, is a
matter for the University to handle,
not selective service boards, and
until the military itself ceases to
be an instrument for the suppression
of dissent—a direct and immediate
threat to every student
unlucky enough to disagree with
our military policy—the University
has a real obligation to refuse permission
to use University property
for the perpetuation of this
stranglehold on dissent. Equal
treatment by authority (the University
administration) is demanded
for the treatment of petty
tyrants, whether they be intolerant
students or a governmental agency,
which is capable of doing far more
damage.

In conclusion, I should like to
echo The Cavalier Daily's appeal
that General Hershey be replaced.
While the director has in the past
performed his duties with distinction,
his recent actions demonstrate
that he is no longer capable of
calm, reasoned judgment. It would
be a mistake to make General
Hershey, like J. Edgar Hoover,
into a sacred cow whose continuation
in office is compelled
by sentimentality rather than consideration
for the best interests of
the people. He should be retired
with honor, while that is still
possible.