On the night of the 2016 election, a University Police Department officer shouted President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” following the Republican nominee’s victory. After several students complained about the unprofessional and instigating nature of this action, the officer resigned. Although Pat Hogan, executive vice president and chief operating officer, claimed,“the inappropriate use of the PA system undermines the [University Police] Department’s goals and objectives,” a backlash over the resignation occurred via the comment section on The Cavalier Daily’s news article, where many commenters attacked what they saw as the administration’s obstruction of free speech. While concerns about obstructing free speech are potent, it is crucial that those on the right realize this resignation likely occurred more so because of the officer’s unprofessionalism rather than what he actually said.
Another post-election free speech controversy occurred when 469 students and professors signed a letter to discourage President Teresa Sullivan from quoting Thomas Jefferson in her emails to students. The uproar occurred after she quoted the University founder in an email the day following the election with the hopes of reassuring students of the results many likely found disturbing. As various other writers have discussed, such a letter does inhibit free speech because its goal was to dictate what a leader of a university can say in accordance with politically correct norms. I agree with critics of this letter who felt it overextended its reach into Sullivan’s freedom of speech and that it failed to observe a middle ground on the issue.
Yet the goals Sullivan sought by utilizing Jefferson’s quotes differs drastically from that of the UPD officer, which is precisely why the former won her battle and the latter lost his. In her letter, Sullivan sought to use her stature as the University’s president by reassuring students, saying in her email that Jefferson felt University students “are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes.” She then said,“I encourage today’s U.Va students to embrace that responsibility.” Thus, although nearly 500 members of the University interpreted Jefferson’s inclusion in the email as divisive, given his unfavorable position on race, her goal in using this rhetoric was unquestionably well-intentioned, as it encouraged students to act, lead and take action in order to undertake the change they desire. This is precisely what one would expect of the University’s president.
The motives of the UPD officer late Nov. 8 were entirely different and contrary to the expectations of any individual who wears a police uniform. Given that The Cavalier Daily conducted a poll that found that an unprecedented 75 percent of the student body supported Hillary Clinton for the presidency, it is not surprising that the atmosphere on Grounds would be quite tense following the unexpected victory of Trump. Although it would be unreasonable for the officer to know the exact extent of Clinton’s favorability on grounds, he should have understood the anxious state many students were enduring. It is the responsibility of police officers to mete out where problematic situations might arise and to respond to them in a professional manner that upholds the peace of the University environment, not excite the tense emotions of those in the community.
Instead of acting in this manner, the UPD officer used Trump’s campaign slogan on the PA speaker to inflame the University community rather than preserve peace. To undertake such an action in such an anxious environment demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the role of a police officer is. If this same officer lost his job chanting “Make America Great Again” off duty, then this situation would have to be examined differently. Yet, this officer’s blatant unprofessionalism on duty cost him his employment, not his political beliefs.
It is crucial that critics of this officer’s resignation realize that this decision was made solely because of his unprofessionalism. While political correctness has at times threatened civil liberties at the University as it did with Sullivan, we must restrain from blaming political correctness for each outcome that we do not desire. Instead, we must recognize that the officer’s actions were harmful and dangerous given the anxious and uncertain environment that he was tasked to oversee. Even if some might see his forced resignation as an overstep by the University Police Department, it was a necessary punishment given his blatant inability to meet his responsibilities as an officer.
Jesse Berman is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.berman@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayIt is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
ELJAZZAR: Advising changes are a step toward student success
By Farah Eljazzar | December 10, 2024With the long history of student complaints regarding advising in the College, it is commendable that the University administration is committed to responding to student concerns and prioritizing student academic well-being.
BRUNMAN: Stop ghosting us, Governor Youngkin
By Wylie Brunman | December 8, 2024For the sake of students — and the Governor — his state administration should rethink its stance on this meeting and its approach to interacting with students more broadly.
