SEX: one topic that requires little guided instruction or clarification for students when they come to college. As one anonymous faculty member put it, few students in over thirty years at the University have required extra assistance on the subject. However, a particular peer institution down the valley recently garnered a great deal of political attention after airing a campus television broadcast named "Sex Talk Live." This program, recorded before an interactive audience of 500 Virginia Tech students, featured discussion of sexual positions, STDs and masturbation. Conservative Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William, took issue with this display in letters to the university president and owner of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech (EMCVT) requesting immediate action be taken against those who promoted the event.
Clearly the First Amendment would protect speech, even of the lewd variety, on behalf of university students. However, the university community should be admonished to consider the political implications of such programming. The public status of Virginia Tech places a burden on activities and programs which benefit from taxpayer support to be consistent with a higher standard of speech and conduct. Marshall's history of political grandstanding on issues of university discretion not withstanding, Virginia Tech should encourage EMCVT to discontinue or modify the program rather than risk political fallout from the social-conservative-dominated General Assembly.
One should note that this program was not created in a way that served to educate students about sexually transmitted diseases or otherwise promote the educational mission of the institution. Instead, it handed out dildos and blow-up dolls as door prizes. This activity is not on the same plane as a sexual health forum, one of which Marshall took offense last spring at James Madison University. Instead, it is sex for the sake of entertainment.
Virginia Tech President Charles W. Steger responded to the honorable delegate with a carefully crafted note that approached the idea of prior restraint with uneasy caution. This is appropriate. A university, or any other institution for that matter, must think very carefully before limiting speech or action. Yet the concept is constitutionally permissible. Just as a public high school can demand a standard of dress so as to avoid inappropriate appearance, a public university has a responsibility as an extension of the state to avoid sanctioned activities and programming that stray outside acceptable cultural norms. This is a difficult charge, as no bright line exists to guide them. Instead, administrators must rely on the "I know it when I see it" test.
In the case of Virginia Tech, the best safeguard against this sort of conduct should instead rest in the relative judgment of the student body. In the spirit of student self-governance, undesired administrative censorship can be avoided by promoting common standards of programming. The more savvy student might check with a dean of students or other appropriate administrator for advice on how to best proceed with an event of potentially controversial content.
This extra step is important because of the political complications of a public institution. The speech expressed does not serve a purpose that somehow betters the community or offers something productive to the marketplace of ideas. Instead, it only arouses consternation from politicians and voters, the very honey pot from which these institutions depend for their lifeblood general fund revenue. It is highly unwise to tempt the appropriators by setting alight their conservative constituents.
Marshall, in typical style, created a media feeding frenzy by sensationalizing the activities included in the taping. Some of the concern over the program should be chalked up to political showboating from a candidate who is running for reelection in a conservative suburb of Washington, D.C. The political cost of the offensive speech at Virginia Tech cannot be effectively balanced with the cost of denying the kind of offensive speech some would seek to protect.
In this world there are some things that just aren't allowed to be said. One cannot scream fire in a crowded theater without cause. The danger of an individual being trampled outweighs the value of the screamer's right to scream. Just the same, the value of fighting to preserve "Sex Talk Live" does not effectively outweigh the potential political fallout to institutions of higher education. Not only should Virginia Tech discontinue the programming, but students should be made more aware of the responsibilities with which they are burdened as students of a public institution.
(Preston Lloyd's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@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 | 4 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.
