We reported Sept. 8 athletics director Craig Littlepage had agreed to meet with representatives of Student Council to discuss repealing the controversial ban on flags, banners and signs at athletic events. Three weeks and two embarrassing losses on the football field later, that meeting has yet to take place. It is disappointing that the athletic department has taken such a flippant attitude toward student concerns.
Council President Matt Schrimper said Littlepage has finally agreed to meet with him Wednesday, joined by representatives of ‘Hoo Crew and the Student Athlete Advisory Committee.
Council plans to pass a resolution condemning the ban on signs at its Tuesday meeting. Schrimper said he and athletic affairs committee chair Pete Peterson will ask Littlepage Wednesday to repeal the ban. We hope Littlepage is open to the idea, but given the lack of seriousness with which the athletic department has greeted the public response to its policy, and given that the athletic department has had three weeks since the protest at the Richmond game and has still not repealed the ban, Council has rightly planned for disappointment.
At best, it seems Council can hope for a more thorough explanation of the reasoning behind the ban. To date, the athletic department’s only explanation has been the promotion of a “positive game-day environment.” It should be forced to explain why signs detract from that environment. Perhaps such a discussion can lead to a compromise — a limit on the size of signs, perhaps, or a rule against profane language.
It is reasonably clear, however, that the language the athletic department wants to eliminate from Scott Stadium is anything which, in the words of ESPN columnist Rick Reilly, “might make the coach feel sad.” Council should not settle for a compromise that would ban a sign criticizing the coach or the athletic department, as such a ban — like the current one — would be an affront to students’ freedom.
“Across the University community, there’s pretty much a general consensus” against the sign ban, Schrimper said in an interview. In the days leading up to Wednesday’s meeting, students and alumni should make that consensus clear to the athletic department. More than a month has gone by since the ban was first announced, and the initial boiling outrage over the policy has settled into more of a simmer while the football team has been on a road trip. This week, students and alumni can turn the heat back up by contacting Littlepage and expressing their discontent.
If nothing comes of Wednesday’s meeting, Schrimper said Council has already planned to immediately publicize a protest for Saturday’s game against Maryland. The idea he mentioned to The Cavalier Daily was clever, and more importantly, it managed to support the University’s student-athletes while drawing attention to the athletic department’s embarrassing policy. Council should make sure ESPNU, which will carry the game, knows the story behind the protest. If recent games are any indication, the play-by-play announcers will be looking for a way to make the game interesting by the time the third quarter comes around.
Hopefully, it will not come to that. The athletic department ought to deal with the issue before Saturday and let Virginia fans cheer on their team. After all, if they show up Saturday after watching Duke win its first conference game since 2004 against the Cavaliers, they have earned the right to say whatever they want about the coach who led Virginia football to rock bottom.