When it rains, it pours. That certainly is the case at Virginia Tech, considering the apparent slash and burn meeting of its Board of Visitors that took place last week. In a move that left both students and faculty aghast, the Board ended the school's affirmative action program and eliminated protection for homosexuals within its non-discrimination policy. And as if those resolutions weren't a huge enough blow to the Hokies' community and reputation, the Board also placed the power of regulating free assembly on campus into the hands of Tech's president. Such a decision that seeks to govern who can meet on university property is simply unacceptable, especially coming on the heels of radical policy changes that students could and should protest -- without any administration interference.
Granted, the Board's resolution regarding meetings on school property may have originated with good intentions. The first part prohibits certain gatherings "if it can be determined that such persons or organizations advocate or have participated in illegal acts of domestic violence and/or terrorism." Given the current world situation, the sentiment is understandable. However, even though the Board sought to ensure security on campus, it went too far in requiring that "all requests for meetings will be submitted for approval to the President of the university at least 30 days in advance." The resolution reaffirms this enormous conferral of responsibility by concluding, "The President will have final decision-making power to determine who can meet on university property."
The Board's deus ex machina, "let's save the day" resolve to boldly protect Tech from terrorists turned sour from seemingly honorable objectives. Undoubtedly, the nature of the requirements brings up First Amendment concerns -- which is why the resolution included a note at the end, declaring that its passage remains "contingent upon receiving a written ruling by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia as to whether the proposed policy complies with existing law." Thus, the only possible savior is Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore -- a slim chance bearing in mind that he was already in cahoots with the Board in encouraging it to eliminate affirmative action.
It's all too convenient that a move to control who has permission to meet on campus occurred in the same breath as other resolutions that had opponents up in arms as soon as they were announced. Of course, knowing the Board's true motive will prove impossible. But whether the intent to stifle opposition to its recent changes existed or not, such a coincidence looks bad nonetheless.
Besides any conspiracy theories, the Board's resolution should raise some other concerns. The ambiguous language that describes which types of groups or people should be banned from convening on campus is particularly disturbing. What kind of "illegal acts" would be considered too grave to prevent those associated with the guilty organization from meeting? Advocacy groups such as Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are known for performing illegal, yet altogether benign, protests. Should the president of Tech determine to apply a strict interpretation of the resolution to his decisions, no one would be able to stop him from wielding such an indisputable power. It's not an extremely likely circumstance but still unsettling even in theory.
Another point of anxiety should involve what kind of groups the Board did intend to target in regulating on-campus meetings. Its specific mention of terrorism anxieties concerns that certain groups such as pro-Palestinian or pro-life organizations will receive extra scrutiny because of what people associated with those movements have done. In other words, groups at Tech may suffer from being tainted by association. After all, abortion clinic bombings originate with pro-life groups, and some extreme Palestinian groups are responsible for terrorism not here but in Israel. Tech's president must therefore be careful not to punish groups on his campus for the actions of radical splinter sects with the same root ideology.
Also left out of the resolution are details about what kind or size of group needs permission to convene. The vague language as it stands implies organizations of any type or number are included. In that case, the resolution will create an unnecessary and uncontrollable bulk of additional work for the president. Perhaps the Board chose to remain unclear until Kilgore has made his decision. Or maybe they just didn't think very carefully.
The motion to provide a period in which groups must await approval for meetings denies the possibility of spontaneous and powerful exhibitions of solidarity on campus. Thirty days' notice? It's unthinkable and wholly irrational. Without a doubt, a month of lag time will ruin both the impact and timeliness of responses to issues that matter in the here and now.
If the Board was worried about the use of university facilities, it should have required a day's or few hours' notice. And if -- as the language about terrorism indicates -- the Board was worried about risks to campus security, it should not have taken on the role of a miniature Department of Homeland Security. It should have placed faith in the newly created foreign student tracking system and other federal programs. At the most, the Board should have expressed further apprehensions to the proper officials.
The Board may have been concerned about threats from the outside. But if Kilgore approves its resolution, the biggest threat posed to the Tech community will be the governing body itself.
(Becky Krystal is a Cavalier Daily opinion editor. She can be reached at bkrystal@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
