The jointly written letter to the editor below expresses feelings similar to those of the counter-protester who authored the previous document (see Evidence No. 15) and of other students like him.
Questions to Consider
For what do the two student authors criticize the campus antiwar activists?
How do their criticisms compare with those offered in Evidence No. 7?
What do their criticisms suggest about the beliefs of the majority of their fellow classmates?
Editor, Collegiate Times:
Congratulations to all students who took part in the demonstrations of April 14 and 15. You have clearly shown to everyone now what many people on this campus have known for a long time.
You violate those very rights which you say you are in favor of. By attempting to disrupt drill Tuesday, April 14, were you not denying the members of the VTCC [Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets] their right to a scheduled class? How does attempting to disrupt drill, a class which is scheduled in the "Time Table of Classes," differ from disrupting any other class on this campus?
There is need of change on this campus but the actions taken on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week are not the way to accomplish your goals. There is a framework at Tech set up for your use and protection. By going outside of this framework you are only lessening your chances of obtaining true change and demonstrating a lack of maturity and intelligence that is appalling for an "enlightened and educated" college student.
John R. Coiner, Jr.
Lee P. Gibson
John R. Coiner, Jr., and
Lee P. Gibson, "Anti-corps demonstrations debated," The Collegiate Times (24 Apr 1970), 3.
<<< Return to Evidence