University of Virginia Library

Donn Kessler

Nixon Abuses Middle America

If the vote in Monday's referendum
means anything, it looks like
the strike is here to stay, with all it
portends for the University. But
just what does the strike mean and
what should it attempt to do?
Furthermore, what should the University's
position be in the struggles
that lie ahead?

The strike does not, no matter
what anyone says, solely result
from the action of Mr. Nixon in
Indochina. The original goal of the
strike, although concerning the
expansion of the war into Mr.
Nixon's war, was inevitable if one
looks at the policies of the present
administration in the first two
years.

First, Mr. Nixon attempted to
unify the nation by telling the
people of the South and of
the Midwest that their voices could
and would be heard. This is indeed
what Mr. Nixon has been calling his
'silent majority.'

The silent majorities do exist,
but Mr. Nixon's use and abuse of
them has altered his original purpose
from unifying the nation into
dividing it. Mr. Nixon, instead of
informing the 'silent majority' of all
the facts and inspiring them to lead
the country or contribute to its
future, has tried to use the silent
majority to support what he feels is
right. This unfortunate action has
alienated those in positions of
leadership and the leaders of the
"vocal minorities."

Mr. Nixon has also attempted to
slow down the speed of change in
the United States. This may be
commendable but not in the areas
Mr. Nixon has acted in. The slowing
down of civil rights, guarantee of
free speech, and actions of international
intelligence, does not spell
out progress for this country. As
Martin Luther King so aptly
pointed out, time is on the side of
the status quo in these areas of
reform and only a constant tension
and pressure can change the institutions
of segregation, political oppression,
and international colonialism
inherent in the present course
of America.

Mr. Nixon's rhetoric has also not
helped to cool the anger of the
young over his policies. Mr. Nixon
stated Friday evening that when the
action is hot, "the rhetoric must
stay cool." If the deletions from
Mr. Agnew's speeches following the
President's press conference show
that Mr. Agnew is Mr. Nixon's test
balloon, then the President has
been responsible for the previous
comments of the vice-president.
Calling students desiring change
"perverts, traitors...and effete intellectual
snobs" cannot fail to increase
the flames of angry youth.

Therefore, the strike has been
caused by Mr. Nixon's past actions
and the spark that lit the tinder he
had collected was the expansion of
the Vietnam War into an Indochina
conflict. What is the real purpose of
the strike? Of course, the first
objective is to convince the national
government to change the policies
in Southeast Asia to end the war
there. But more than this, it is also
a strike to show Mr. Nixon that his
policies and rhetoric and his abuse
of middle America are wrong.

The strikers have just about
given up hope of changing the
system by working through the
system. But recent actions show
that that hope is not dead.
Otherwise, why would the extra-Congressional
pressure still be on
the government? Political assassination
and destruction is not yet the
key here as shown by the strikers
sending telegrams and letters to
their Congressional representatives.

If this last hope for change
through the system still exists, then
what are to be the future actions of
the strike? The strikers must now
spread their beliefs to the outlying
community and increase their pressure
on Congress If action is to be
successful in ending the war and
showing Mr. Nixon that there is
something wrong with his policies,
then the strikers must show him
that not only are the students
angry, but that the 'silent majorities'
can no longer agree to his
policies. Their silence has indicated
consent, their action shall indicate
discontent.

In this situation of justifiably
angry students attempting to
change the results of the system,
and perhaps someday the system
itself, what is to be the place of the
University? President Shannon and
most of the faculty have said that
they don't want to politicize the
campus, that the campus is a place
for rational discussion.

These statements are not comparable
with Mr. Shannon's calling for
an injunction and calling the
political process onto the campus.
Nor are they compatible with the
recent hints of state intervention
from Richmond in essentially University
affairs.

It is up to the faculty and the
administration to realize that the
longer they ignore this fact of
incomparability and as long as they
refuse to take action against the
politicizing of the campus, the
longer the students will no longer
be able to trust them. President
Shannon, before his statement
Sunday, was almost completely
disregarded by the strikers and the
faculty may soon be likewise.

The faculty and administration
must therefore take action. They
are in a position of leadership and
comradeship with the students. The
University must be opened for
action and therefore, penalties on
students for striking (i.e., lower
grades because of poor class attendance
before finals) must be
averted. No one would ask the
faculty to take a liberal or conservative
stand on any issue. One can
only ask them and the administration
to allow all voices to be heard
and all peaceful action, to be taken
without penalty, whether these
penalties be lower grades or
whether they are the disobeying an
improper injunction and arrest for
contempt of court or whether they
be the intervention of Richmond in
University academic matters.