University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Digging Around For Qualified Candidates

While your paper correctly
reported that the Jefferson Party
had problems at the recent
convention, it failed to report the
solutions to the problems which the
party decided upon.

We had a problem deciding
whether to run a full slate of
candidates. In the absence of seven
qualified candidates seeking
nomination, we had to choose
between running a full slate of
partially qualified people or
running a lesser number of
candidates, who we felt would be a
positive addition to the Student
Council. We choose not to add any
more weight to an already
overburdened election. We decided
not to attempt to deceive anyone,
but rather to offer good candidates.

Certainly we are interested in
the image of our own party and
that of our competition, but not at
the expense of the student body.
Because we, as a party, are sincerely
interested in improving the plight
of the students at this University,
we want to see the best people
elected. For this reason, we are not
above offering our support to good
candidates running either as
independents or from other parties.
Two such candidates are Dave
Horan and Larry Sabato. Both are
well qualified in terms of good
ideas and eagerness to solve student
problems. They would add a great
deal to Student Council's
responsiveness to "University
problems", especially when teamed
with Steve Edwards, Bob Kinker,
Bob Bryant and Jim Mathews.

The Student Council must solve
essentially the same problems as in
past years. The problems become
more acute each year as they
remain unsolved. It will take a
strong leader to guide the Student
Council in a student-oriented
direction. At present there are two
candidates for President of Student
Council. We, as students, must elect
the stronger leader of these. While
we cannot endorse either candidate
for the party as a whole, we can
evaluate the two.

Anyone who knows Tom Collier
and Alan Botsford knows they are
both interesting people who are
genuinely interested in the position.
In a popularity contest, neither
would lose, but this isn't supposed
to be a popularity contest! We feel
that Tom Collier has the stronger
leadership qualities and thus would
make the better President. He must
keep in mind, however, that his job
is to serve the students, and he
should use his leadership qualities
to lead the Council in an effort to
alleviate the "student problems".

The job of directing Student
Council requires more than one
strong leader. We believe that Pete
Gillespie will provide the
responsiveness and dedication
necessary to support the President
when appropriate and keep him in
cheek if he should over-step his
bounds. It is questionable to us
whether a second-year law student,
such as Mr. Pape, is in a position to
know what the students want -
particularly us, as undergraduates.

Finally, people should vote for
people, not parties. Particularly,
people should vote selfishly for the
people they think will help them
the most. The Jefferson Party
candidates all want to help you, but
they need your help too.

The Committee on the
Arboretum has learned with great
concern of the plan to hold a "sleep
in" on the Lawn of the University.
Our concern is not with the right
or privilege to demonstrate but the
fact that the grass and beauty of
the Lawn will be damaged beyond
repair by such contemplated action.

The B and G force have worked
long and hard to restore the grass
on the Lawn to its usual beauty and
healthy state following the severe
damage which was incurred during
the demonstration last year. It
would appear that destroying
nature by your proposed "sleep in"
is contrary to student concern for
the environment.

Could your group not use the
Dell, dormitory area or student
athletic fields so as to preserve the
Lawn in all its beauty. Your
concern for the future of the
University is well known and shared
by this Committee.