University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Reader Clarifies Coeducation Stand

It was my initial feeling that no
good purpose would be served by
making further remarks about the
question of admitting co-eds to the
College. Certainly, it is impossible
to have an intelligent discussion
about a question with those who
will not admit or who are so blind
they can not see that the question
has two sides.

However, because of some remarks,
both written and verbal,
from students who support my
stand against admitting co-eds to
the College, and who wish to see a
reply to some of the recent statements
in letters to the Editor, I
think some clarification may be
indicated. I would particularly like
to remark about the letter written
by Mr. Cormier in the November 6
issue of The Cavalier Daily.

Mr. Cormier apparently needs to
brush up on his English. He needs
to re-read and understand what my
initial correspondence (October 31,
1968) to The Cavalier Daily indicated.
He has tried to put words in
my mouth which is a common
tactic of those who have no real
ground to stand on or who try to
overwhelm the issue with confusion.

Contrary to Mr. Cormier's statement,
my initial letter to the Editor
of The Cavalier Daily was not a
"reaction" to Mr. Cormier's letter. I
was merely sending The Cavalier
Daily a copy of a letter I had
previously sent Dean Woody in
response to his Committee request
for feelings on the issue of whether
girls should be admitted to the
College. My letter was written
several months prior to the publishing
of Mr. Cormier's letter, so in no
way could have been written as a
"reaction" to Mr. Cormier's letter.

I have stated that this question
has two sides. The feelings both pro
and con are purely personal. I know
of no studies based on any fact that
would indicate a better education
can be obtained either with or
without co-education. Mr. Cormier
makes much of the fact I did not
state the disadvantages of co-education.
He overlooks the fact I also
did not state the advantages of
co-education; although I stated
there were some. I have not seen
Mr. Cormier's list of advantages of
co-education. I have not seen any
other published list of advantages
of co-education in recent letters to
the Editor of The Cavalier Daily. I
have seen suggestions in letters to
The Cavalier Daily that for some it
would make life happier, and it's
their personal desire.

"Status quo" was not mentioned
in my letter. I do not necessarily
favor "status quo" on anything.
However, I feel we have now
an excellent educational program in
the College, and I would not like to
see the program materially changed
unless good factual, reasons were
presented to show that an improvement
would result. Change for
changes sake is not necessarily
progress.

Mr. Cormier's interpretation of
"compound" and "erection" as
derogatory terms are entirely his
own feelings. Possibly in French
they are derogatory, but in English
they are very proper and fitting
words. Webster's Third New International
Dictionary (1964 unabridged)
lists the following definitions:

a. COMPOUND: "composed of
or produced by the union of several
elements, ingredients, parts or
things." (In the case of the establishment
of a good college, the
ingredients are many and varied.)

b. ERECT: "to bring into existence
as if by raising or building."
(In my usage of this word, it fits
exactly.)

Mr. Cormier suggests that faculty
salaries are a good index of the
education process. This can be very
misleading. Recently many state
professional salaries were increased.
Did this produce the next morning,
or will it produce next year, a
better quality of education? Haircuts
in Washington, D.C. are $3.50
and $4.00, haircuts in Charlottesville
are $1.75 and $2.00. Does this
make a D.C. haircut twice as good,
or a D.C. barber twice as good?

I feel we have now and have had
in the past a fine University. The
College of Arts and Sciences as a
part of the University has an excellent
educational program. Witness
students in school from all parts of
the state as well as the many who
come from a large number of other
states. The professors who teach
here as well as the students who
come here do so of their own free
will and because of our excellence.
When I read such statements as
written by Richard O'Ryan "can
those of us who are sincerely interested
in making the University of
Virginia an institution of learning"
(by admitting co-eds), I wonder
why he chose to come to this
school. Presumably he felt it was
the best "institution of learning"
available to him.

Lastly, I feel that within reason
the desires of the people should be
fulfilled. I respect the wishes of
those who desire co-education and
this state offers excellent co-educational
programs at other institutions.
I strongly feel that those who
desire to have a non co-educational
education should have their wishes
respected also. This state presently
provides for this and I hope will
continue to do so. For any who
enter either of these types of
schools but find things not to his
liking, the state provides a remedy
for this also - transfer.

SDS Evaluated

Does SDS really dupe people? It
asks them to consider issues and
come to their own conclusions.
Since we feel the facts are on our
side we feel that if people are
exposed to these realities they will
come to the right conclusions -
and we do have faith in people. Our
major goal, then, is education and
this is what our programs aim at.

Can anyone deny that issues
concerning "justice," "morality,"
and "peace" are issues worth taking
a stand on? Are we to call protests
against racial discrimination and an
undeclared foreign war "crutches"?
Isn't the real issue that those who
are being duped are those who with
a non-critical attitude have grown
complacent and accepting of all
that is told them because they
refuse to question what they consider
authority.

Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi and Martin
Luther king all had their confrontations
with authority - were
they brutal men? Did they not raise
the right questions against unjust
authority? Perhaps gadflies are necessary
in a complex and increasingly
unfeeling society to prevent us
from losing our humanity.

The best charge against an activist
is insincerity, but it has not
been made clear how SDS is insincere.
SDS cannot be duped by its
leaders because it recognizes no
leaders who dictate policy. We act
for what we believe in, not for what
we are told to believe. In a society
that refuses to act against wrongs,
while it admits to recognizing these
wrongs, one can really again ask,
who is being duped?

Brawdy Backdrop

Miss Tucciarone was right about
that pornographic backdrop at the
Openings dance "depicting a naked
brawd, yes brawd, with mammary
glands that would have put a
Ubangi to shame (The Cavalier
Daily, November 20). In case she
didn't hear, I would like to let her
know that the consequences of this
tasteless display were catastrophic.
First of all I saw at least two
hundred of the younger girls rush
out of the gym screaming as soon as
they caught sight of the lewd picture.
They found the backdrop so
repulsive that they fled from their
dates, took the first bus back to
school, and vowed never to return
to U. Va. (that horrible den of
iniquity). Many of those boys and
girls who stayed on to hear the
music could be seen blushing and
squirming because of the offense to
their tender sensibilities.

But unfortunately the pornographic
backdrop began to wreak
even greater havoc at the dance. U.
Va. men and their innocent dates
became so stimulated by the eroticism
of the display that at about
11:00 hundreds of them tore off
their tastefully selected clothing
and ran naked from the gym to
spend the night in an orgy of sex
and violence on the plush green
clay of the tennis courts. At midnight
there was only one couple left
in the gym listening to Spencer
Davis. I asked the Virginia Gentleman
what he thought of the pornographic
backdrop and he shouted in
my ear, "Big Deal!" His date added,
"Man this music really grooves,"
and danced a bit.

Weekend Rapes

I would like to comment on the
two articles in the November 19
issue concerning the attacks on
dates of U. Va. students this weekend.
In both cases these girls were
abandoned by their dates. One student
chose a bottle and the other
chose his fraternity. Since there are
many more drunks in this school
than there are rush chairmen, the
abandonment of girls for alcohol is
much more serious. It has never
made sense to me why a student
will ask a girl to travel up to several
hundred miles for a weekend and
then do his best to make an ass of
himself. Since he is the one who
asked her to come I think he has a
responsibility to give her some
sober attention. Abandoning her to
his own selfish desires is not only
rude but, as we saw, dangerous. It
should be remembered that in a
state where rape can be a capital
crime killing possibly the only witness
may have more advantages
than drawbacks. Secondly, in some
states pregnancy by rape is not
sufficient reason for an abortion.
Incidents such as these become
inevitable where "gentlemen" not
worthy of the title cannot practice
self-control. Two lives may have
been ruined this weekend. Put that
in your hip flask.

These remarks are directed to
Mr. Hayes. How do you propose
that a hostess determine the condition
of a girl's date? Very few could
give reliable blood tests. Even if a
fellow passed some sort of test in
the house, you could not be sure he
would not flop on his face in front
of some church after drinking the
rest of his private stock. In an
atmosphere where delirium is
equated to fun it is time to put the
responsibility where it belongs.
These people must learn self-control.