Right before the beginning of the fall semester, the University updated its protest policies relating to expressive activities on University property. The new changes came four months after May 4, when students who participated in a pro-Palestinian encampment on Grounds were the victims of state-initiated violence. The new policies limit camping and putting up tents on University property. The update also includes a new policy on masking, prohibiting people from wearing a mask with the intent of concealing their identity.
Last month, the University used its new protest policies to shut down a “Maker’s Space” event where a group of students made signs demanding that the University cut financial ties with Israel. While all of these policies problematically validate the University’s choice to violently crack down on protests May 4, the masking policy is especially concerning because it undermines students' rights and puts immunocompromised students at risk.
The University seems to have based the current masking policy on a Virginia law prohibiting masking for those above 16 years old. This law was passed during a time when the Ku Klux Klan engaged in open acts of violence against minorities, powered by the anonymity given to them through their mask-wearing. As such, this law was originally intended to identify members of the KKK and hold them accountable for their actions. With this law, KKK members could no longer physically shield themselves from the eyes of justice. Because this law has laudable intentions, the problem is not the law itself but rather its un-nuanced application to peaceful student protesters.
Perhaps outwardly, one could argue that the policy statements themselves are content neutral and advance the original intention of the old Virginian law. With exceptions for costumes, religious protection and facial protection, it could even be argued that the University is echoing the twentieth century law’s good intentions. But this new policy is not in response to the actions of white supremacists. Instead, the timing suggests that this policy which prohibits masks is a reaction to a very specific form of protest which is almost uniquely used by pro-Palestine supporters — wearing masks for fear of being doxxed. As such, the University is not being content neutral in the creation of the policy, but rather targeting students and a specific form of protest which is clearly associated with a specific set of ideological priorities.
Bracketing this targeting of one type of protest, perhaps asking masked students to identify themselves with a student ID is a reasonable expectation. However, for it to be reasonable, students must trust that their identity — given concerns with doxxing — will remain confidential. Yet, given the “Maker’s Space” event takedown where administration threatened to call the police on masked students who refused to reveal their identity, the University has clearly shown itself to be untrustworthy. Even more, the University previously brought charges against student protestors, charges which include bans from Grounds and withholding of diplomas. Though these charges have now been dropped, their very existence put student protestors’ future career goals at risk, which in turn can drive other students away from protesting in the first place. Students should be able to safely and peacefully demonstrate for causes they believe in without being driven away by the threat of violence and intimidation. This policy accomplishes just the opposite.
Beyond labeling all groups of masking students as dangerous protesters, this policy ignores the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Though it seems that normal life has mostly resumed over four years since the first reported case of COVID-19, COVID-19 is on a steady rise in Virginia and worldwide. With the severity of COVID-19 reinfections staying the same and emerging threats of other diseases, this mask policy places an unfair burden on members of the community and students who are immunocompromised and need to wear masks for their own health and safety.
The fact is that wearing masks is a fundamental part of our ever-present response to new diseases, not a one-off phenomenon. Again, this policy problematically conflates normal mask-wearing by immunocompromised groups with a symbol of protest. While the University would undoubtedly point to the fact that their policy references mask-wearing with the intent to conceal an identity, it is notoriously difficult to enforce intent. As such, the University cannot enforce this mask policy without making a tone-deaf stance on mask-wearing and how it functions to protect our most vulnerable members.
The University has argued that the updated rules make it easier for students to exercise their First Amendment rights, but, in reality, the policies do not live up to this goal. Of course, the University has a right to put in place policies that restrict time, place and manner of free speech. But by doing it through these new policies, the University exceeds reasonable restrictions. Specifically, the policies clearly regulate a singular type of protest — which is coincidentally the one used on May 4 — rather than time, place or manner. Moreover, the recent shutdown of the “Maker’s Space” demonstrates how the University is enforcing these policies in a targeted way instead of being content neutral. Would the administration have enforced these new rules if the table had simply been for a club? In short, these updated rules undermine the freedom of expression that institutions of higher education are supposed to protect.
The unrest and violence initiated by state police being called into our Grounds in addition to the arrest of 27 of our peers should not be forgotten. The updated policies — specifically the mask ban — have undermined students’ freedom of assembly and expression. The University must remake these policies with student and faculty feedback to make sure that all can exercise their First Amendment rights as intended. Or else, all these policies will do is put students at greater risk of harm.
Apal Upadhyaya is a senior opinion columnist who writes about politics for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
LETTER: October 7 — one year on, we must look beyond the facade of conciliation
By Vaidehi Bhardwaj | 10 hours agoDialogue too often reframes conflict, normalizing rather than rectifying conditions of injustice.
EDITORIAL: Affirm the actions of U.Va.’s admissions programs
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoThe University succeeded where many other institutions fell short.
YOUNIS: U.Va. is missing a human voice
By Ayat Younis | 4 days agoThe University must do a better job building understanding by listening to the voices of those with firsthand knowledge.
