ustxtxb_obs_1970_10_02_50_00024-00000_000.pdf

even go so far as to say, though my claim to nobility be thereby impaired, that if a course of action will in fact result in a loss of “a million dollars,” that is a factor which may properly be considered. \(1 know of no such factor in anything Cohen . . . Cohen is inaccurate . in his one clear, concrete charge against the Law School, that, as a result of the appropriation fight, his proposal for a Law School-sponsored conference on legal services for political dissidents could be given “no serious consideration.” His proposal was not only seriously considered, it was very largely agreed to. It was considered at a full faculty meeting; it was, with Cohen’s approval, submitted to a committee for study and the committee recommended that a conference on legal services to unpopular defendants, including political dissidents, be sponsored. It was not possible, however, for a Law School-sponsored conference to be arranged the program planned, speakers invited, publicity materials prepared, et cetera in less than two months. This was unsatisfactory to Cohen who had apparently committed himself in advance to having a conference in the month following his proposal, and he went ahead with his conference without Law School sponsorship. If any faculty member “admonished” Cohen or called him “a snake” for proposing such a conference, that member acted badly, but certainly was not representative of faculty opinion . Cohen further complains that “no radical has ever been a member of the law faculty.” \(Faculty members, he points out, have done only such things as develop bail reform and juvenile defender programs, draft open housing laws, and protest a member Cohen, despite his expressed disdain for “play [ing] by the rules,” for committees, debates and petitions, apparently does not quality as a radical, I 24 The Texas Observer suppose his charge is true. But, if “radical” means one who has abandoned the way of law, rationality and civilization, I don’t know why this lack should be considered a defect. Cohen simply seems to be unhappy that the charge he refers to of “bomb throwers” on the law faculty is in fact unfounded. “The time is right for martyrs,” Cohen tells us, and bemoans that too few are ready to embrace the opportunity. Martyrdom, too, is a glorious thing, very high level and stylish. Like violence, its attractions are great, especially if one has no doubt as to his absolute rightness and is unconcerned with whether the end result is likely to be improvement or impairment of what he died defending. For those not so sure or unconcerned, it is usually well that these attractions are resisted. Cohen believes that drastic means are justified in resisting Frank Erwin’s control of the university, but are not professors of Cohen’s views Erwin’s greatest assets? There can be no better justification for strong, direct, regental intervention in n i v ersity affiars than mindless, irresponsible faculty. If the choice is made to appear to be between Frank Erwin and professors like Cohen, those interested in the welfare of the university must be very grateful for Erwin. Lino A. Graglia, professor of law, U.T.-Austin, 2500 Red River, Austin, Texas 78705. A cancellation Your paper has gone too radical and leftist to suit me. Please cancel my subscription and send a refund on the unused portion. Wm. L. Timmons, 2708 Prestwick, El Paso, Tex. 79925. Report patronizing , As one of the 1,400 women who attended the Governor’s Annual Conference, I resent the patronizing, inaccurate report The Texas Observer gave it \(Obs., If you did indeed want to make a serious report on the women’s movement, I missed the message. Your article made as light and snide an account as could be. You could have noted that simply by giving up one day of a weekend these women indicated some seriousness. Despite your slant to imply that the room was filled with simpleminded garden club, bridge club types, the facts are that there were women of all ages and colors attending, including some very young. The women that I knew and that I met there were all community leaders who give untold, unpaid time in various areas of their concern. Had your reporter gone to the Legislative Workshop, then she would not have reported so inaccurately about discussions. The entire time was taken with the inequities of employment and pay and on abortion… . Nobody doubts that there is still a long way to go. And I, for one, don’t doubt that you threw up a road block. What was the purpose of your article, besides wanting to sound clever and superior? You could be a help. You could make public to a wide audience some of the legal inequities and the Supreme Court’s strange refusal to take the cases concerning women seriously. You could publicize some of the real needs in Texas; I was one of a committee which . struggled for years to get an Austin mayor to set up a Commission of the Status of Women. Mayor Travis LaRue finally has. All of us on it realize quite well it is only a paper step and it remains to be seen how effective it will be allowed to be. But the point is, it is another step in a painful, halting process within the establishment. The NOW gals and all the others get the much-needed publicity, but they antagnoize the power structure. All that I have ever heard are shrilly hostile to men. And that ain’t very smart. It is just plain dumb psychology. So give the squares a break. Mrs. John R. Watt, 2902 Bowman Road, Austin, Tex. Right on Just want to say RIGHT ON and let you know that I’m depending on you to keep me informed of happenings in Texas while I am in Washington. Thanks for giving Texas liberals something to believe in and trust in the midst of the “silent Texas majority.” Martha Ann Crawford, 100 Maryland Ave., N. E., Washington, D.C. 20002. `Almost in the dark’ I have just seen your account of the Ben Barnes “love-in.” All I can say is that if Ben Barnes is the “Brightest new light for the Democratic Party in Texas,” as some have expressed it, then we are almost in the dark. R. T. Gilmore, 130 W. Greenbriar Lane, Dallas, Tex. 75208. Beat Bush- Ideologically, I doubt there’s a dime’s worth of difference between Bentsen and Bush; Bush, after all, had the last time I checked a 100% voting record with Americans for Constitutional Action. The question, I hold, is which will be more effective in carrying out a Neanderthal program and which will be harder to dislodge once he gets a toehold in the U.S. Senate. It seems to me that Bush beats Bentsen on both these counts and therefore is the man to defeat in November. Edgar Crane, 13507 Kingsride, Houston, Tex. 77024.