Dear Community Members:
In the aftermath of a heated presidential election, we are reminded why we shine so brilliantly as a people. Our participation in the electoral process was astonishing and inspiring. More than 122 million Americans fulfilled their civic responsibilities. Roughly 19 percent of those Americans were “young-Americans.” Indeed, our citizens are a beacon of hope for democracy, both domestically and abroad.
As a central function of a good democracy, governance is participatory and hands on. Decisions are made publicly and representatives are at the mercy of their constituents. As with all good things, a good democracy can go bad. In light of the ousting of President Sullivan this summer, we are reminded of this in several ways. First, we are reminded of the dangers of a democracy gone badly. Second, we are reminded that the power of the majority is always capable of outweighing the tyrannical forces of a few. Finally, we are reminded that we cannot be apathetic in our governing process.
The remainder of this letter documents my observations at the Board of Visitors meeting, which was held Thursday, November 8th, 2012. As a single student — by this I mean, I was not a member of any rallying group — I attended the Board meeting, which was held in the Special Collections Library. Initially, I was one of only three undergraduate students at the meeting. The other two students are fellow Lawn residents and each, in some capacity, works directly with the Board.
When initially trying to seek entry into the meeting, I was mistaken as a participant in the rally and was told that I could not enter. I quickly quelled those concerns. I used my privilege to get into the building. I said that I should be granted entry on account of my involvement in the community and residency on the Lawn. Shortly thereafter, I was granted entry. It is my belief that I was granted entry only because I was seen as a non-dissenter. The dissenting voices were forced, by armed police, to remain outside for at least twenty minutes. Eventually, four or five students from the group were granted entry. The others were forced, again by armed police, to remain outside.
According to the Manual of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia, “Meetings held in the Open Session must be open to the public.” With a maximum occupancy of 307, there was vacant space for students to sit and stand. Nonetheless, some students, on account of their group affiliation, were denied access to the meeting.
The students who were denied entry are a part of a group called “Hoo’s University.” According to the group website, they “seek to promote a governing structure in keeping with the principles and practices of a participatory democracy.” Not only were those students disallowed from entering the meeting, but they were forced to evacuate the premises by an Associate Dean of Students. They were told that if they refused to honor his demand to evacuate the premises, judiciary action and arrest could be a potential consequence.
This letter is not intended to tell you how to feel. I just wanted the student body to know what happened. Peaceful, silent, respectful dissenters were denied entry into a public meeting. The meeting space had room for all of the students to be either seated or stand. That is what I observed.
Yours truly,
Jared Brown is a fourth-year in the College.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 6 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | November 20, 2024We need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
