MUCH HAS been made of the excitement surrounding Barack Obama’s presidential inauguration this approaching Tuesday. In Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., rumors abound of people renting out their houses to the expected throngs or making money ferrying them to and from the metro stations. D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty initially projected a probably overly optimistic three to five million spectators, but more recent predictions still range from one to two million.
Even our own University has gotten in on the excitement, cancelling classes from 11 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Inauguration Day to allow students to watch the event live. In the e-mail announcement, the University ascribed this decision to a desire to allow students to “participate in this exercise in democracy.” The decision abounds with irony, as the University did not cancel classes on another, more important Tuesday (hint: I’m referring to that one back in November when we actually participated in democracy). It also carries potentially partisan overtones, which the University ought to strive to avoid at all costs.
The hysteria over the Obama inauguration, to some degree, makes sense. While the onset of any Democratic president would send the left into spasms of delight after eight years of President Bush, Obama’s entrance into the White House means more than that to many people. As our first African-American president, Obama’s accession to the presidency represents something of a correction for the wrongs of slavery and a physical manifestation of the successes and legacy of the civil rights movement. Thus, he is a powerful symbol to many of the ability of democracy to triumph over historical difficulties; even conservatives can recognize this, and much as we may dislike his policies, we recognize the importance Obama has for many. Additionally, and to an astounding degree, students feel a great personal connection to the election of Obama, whether because they campaigned for him or because he appeals more to young people. University Executive Vice President and Provost Arthur Garson confirmed that the personal importance of the election to many students and faculty played a role in the University’s decision to cancel classes for the three-hour window. He also said that he personally would like to see the action repeated in the future, if the current political enthusiasm is maintained, even though it is not University policy.
The importance of the election, however, does not explain or excuse inconsistent policies from the University. Most puzzling is why the University is canceling classes in order to watch something ceremonial on television, but failed to give them time out of the classroom when presented with the opportunity to actively participate in the democratic process by voting. Many called for a holiday on Election Day, in order to more easily facilitate students reaching the polls, whether going home to vote in their own precincts or travelling to voting stations in Charlottesville. The University did not grant this holiday. I am not attacking this decision; voting is a personal responsibility, and students had to make the appropriate choice about how to get their ballots in. But the decision about whether or not to watch the inauguration is also a personal choice. If the University was not going to adapt to the political calendar in one spot, why should it adapt to it at another? Consistency is the key here. If academics are too important to sacrifice in November, then why are they considered expendable in January?
The decision to give time off in order to watch the inauguration, as well as to open up the John Paul Jones Arena to allow students to watch also raises questions about partisanship. To a great degree, this is overshadowed by the historic nature of the election. But it strikes me as highly unlikely that the University would have blocked out time for students to watch the inauguration speech of John McCain, had he won the election. I also spoke to an alumnus who was here in January 2005, and he remembered nothing being done for the second inauguration of George W. Bush. In all likelihood, fewer people at this University were emotionally invested in those two historical moments. Garson argued that the purpose was rather to allow students to share a historic moment. But institutionally deciding which moments qualify as historic and which do not exposes the University to partisan accusations. Given the popular perception that higher education in America already has a strong bent to the left, this is something that the University ought to avoid.
The solution is to come up with a consistent policy dealing with election and inauguration days. Either the University should give students all election days off as well as time off to watch the inaugurations, or they should hold classes as regularly scheduled. This would either encourage students with opportunities to participate in both ends of the presidential election, or give them neither. Personally I am indifferent to which direction the University ought to go, but to avoid arbitrary behavior and accusations of partisanship, it ought to pick one to be consistent.
Robby Colby’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.colby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: What we lose in the name of efficiency
By Paul Kurtzweil | 14 hours agoPenicillin was discovered in a moldy petri dish — this government would have it thrown out because it was wasting space on the counter.
RASHID: U.Va. must empower faculty and students through transparency
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayBy attempting to contain, or even eliminate uncomfortable narratives, the administration incrementally consolidates power and frays communal trust.
YOUNIS: Muslim students deserve a better Ramadan on Grounds
By Ayat Younis | YesterdayRamadan at the University should not be a time in which students must choose between academic success and religious observance.
