July 1, the day House Bill 751 (an amendment to 1997's Affirmation of Marriage Act) became effective in Virginia, stands as the latest chapter in a regrettable trend. As the University continues its mission to ensure the equality and welfare of Virginia through education, the General Assembly follows different -- and contradictory -- priorities. While the University should bemoan the General Assembly's prejudice, it must also contemplate solutions to the General Assembly's inability to lead the University on its public mission.
HB 751 forbids gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other contract "that purports to provide the benefits of marriage." Even in a flurry of "defense of marriage" legislation, no other state has attempted such an intrusion into the lives of its residents. Much of HB 751 will probably fall in court.
Certainly, HB 751 infringes upon the liberties of many University faculty and students. But it also injures the entire community by eliminating any possibility of administrative action at the University that could extend same-sex partner benefits. While administrative timidity carries much of the blame, HB 751 reflects the General Assembly's reckless, ideological agenda that puts such solutions out of the question before their proposal. The General Assembly's failure to guide the University's public mission demands a serious rethinking of the University's relationship with Richmond.
In the past few years, the far-right ideologues that have rigged the General Assembly for their dominance have demonstrated insensitivity -- sometimes contempt -- for the University and its needs. While the University stands by its commitment to the good of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth's legislature prioritizes its rabid ideological agenda above the University's ability to do its job. The General Assembly has expected the University to continue thriving, despite deep funding cuts that the General Assembly worsened through its "tax relief" zealotry. Some radicals have even tried to keep emergency contraception off Grounds.
The legislature's very structure makes future friction certain. Especially since General Assembly Republicans gerrymandered themselves into dominance through the post-2000 census redistricting, the University -- and the whole Commonwealth -- has been colliding with a far-right agenda.
Current legislative maps guarantee Republican control in the General Assembly, especially in the House of Delegates. In fact, the maps have proven so effective against competitive elections that only one of three legislative districts featured both Democrat and Republican candidates in 2003. This arrangement in effect gives primary winners -- chosen by dedicated partisans -- free passes to Richmond.
In such a radicalized system, far-right Republicans, in cahoots with a few Democrats, can build a large enough majority to threaten to override the governor's veto. That threat allowed HB 751 to pass into law, even with Gov. Mark R. Warner's opposition.
The district-drawing itself proves that many of Virginia's legislators worry more about creating a system friendly to their own agendas than protecting the Commonwealth's welfare. The General Assembly will continue to challenge the University more than aid it.
At this point, the University must reform its relationship with Richmond so it can freely follow its public-minded agenda. Though the University cannot nullify it on Grounds simply with greater autonomy, HB 751 exemplifies the General Assembly's agenda, and through that, the need for such reform. Administrators' proposals to redefine the University as "Commonwealth-chartered" have moved this discussion in the right direction. But discussion has so far failed to loosen Richmond's grip, and the University continues to struggle to educate Virginia along the liberal vision it has always adhered to.
The University must secure its ability to stay true to its public mission no matter what happens in the statehouse. This need becomes urgent when a less-than-legitimate legislature is issuing directives that curtail the University's power to do its job. Administrators who so far have adhered to politeness must now show the General Assembly their seriousness.
Last Sunday, the Fourth of July, the nation celebrated Thomas Jefferson's list of grievances against a ruler that had acted illegitimately to negate government's purpose by suppressing both individual freedoms and common welfare in the colonies.
And while the University's situation warrants nothing close to open rebellion, we must take lessons from our founder and consider that with the HB 751, the gerrymandered General Assembly has broadsided Virginians' liberties, as well as the autonomy and mission of the University. This legislative catastrophe has highlighted the University's need to loosen its binds to Virginia's own would-be authoritarians, armed with an agenda that holds us back.
Michael Slaven is a Cavalier Daily columnist. He can be reached at mslaven@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | YesterdayBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
