ADS FOR bubble tea. Signs hyping a presidential candidate's 21-year-old daughter's visit to Charlottesville. A joke announcement for a Bob Dole lecture entitled "From Normandy to Viagra". You'll find all of the above and more posted at the Bryan Hall colonnades and other visible locations across Grounds. Flyers like these are a sure-fire way to spread a message to the student body. That is, unless you're running for a University office. In that case, tough luck. Despite the lack of enforceable restrictions on flyers put up by most student groups, candidates unfairly face an extra set of flyer regulations.
The University Board of Elections' Rules and Regulations say that "paper campaign materials may be posted only on University-approved, general use bulletin boards." The rule exists as a means attempting to comply with a set of University regulations on flyers that are presently disjointed and vague. Under this mandate, campaign flyers are doomed to go unnoticed in the flood of other postings that are crammed into the approved areas. It is understandable that the UBE would have an interest in ensuring that the University doesn't drown in campaign messages during each election season. However, the Board's current rules regarding flyers can be bypassed in a manner that is detrimental to the campaign process.
According to UBE Chair Brian Cook, candidates caught posting flyers in non-approved locations are asked to remove them. Continued noncompliance could result in disciplinary action through the University Judiciary or Honor Committees, though measures this drastic have not been required in the current election season. With this system in place, candidates may still decide to violate the rules in small doses.
A UJC candidate I spoke to said he would be willing to put up "illegal" materials promoting his candidacy because he felt that they could still generate worthwhile publicity before they were taken down. As demonstrated by this sentiment, the UBE's current rule mainly punishes the candidates who abide by it rather than those in violation. These candidates, who obey the rules solely on principle, are disadvantaged if their opponents decide that prohibited campaign activities are worth undertaking.
This is not to say that a tighter enforcement mechanism would be a reasonable solution. Since candidates often employ other people in various student organizations to campaign for them, it is difficult to attribute the placement of a certain flyer to a specific individual. Also, it would be unfeasible for the UBE or any other organization to consistently monitor and keep track of flyers posted outside the acceptable locations. Efforts to keep tabs like this would quickly run short of manpower and would most likely be inconsistent in their application.
The best way for the UBE to deal with the flyer issue is not to create its own set of rules, but to step back and allow the University to simply deal with candidate flyers in the same way it presently deals with those put up by CIOs. Though no definite school-wide flyer policy is currently in place, the University generally removes student postings from restricted locations such as doors and the colonnades. This ensures that most illegal flyers have a limited life span and will not persist throughout the entirety of the campaign and election season.
With the guaranteed quick removal of illegal postings, candidates are unlikely to go overboard in their flyering. While it would be technically possible for someone to repeatedly plaster the Grounds with campaign materials after old ones are removed, no reasonable candidate would be likely to expend the time and effort that would require. The daily flyer purge forces candidates to strategically pick and choose the best times and places to put up signs.
Cook said in the near future, the UBE hopes to work with the University administration to establish a more concrete policy regarding flyers. Formulating such a policy would be wise, since it could apply equally to all students, not just candidates. The role of the UBE would then be to notify candidates of existing University rules, which would carry their own set of enforcement mechanisms.
If pranksters can utilize flyers to spread news about a fake Bob Dole event, shouldn't University candidates be entitled the same ability to distribute legitimate information about their campaigns? Campaign flyers are wonderful tools for informing the electorate of a candidate's platform and experience. If candidates' messages must be limited, they should at least receive treatment equal to that of the entire student body.
Chris Kiser's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ckiser@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
