FOUR RACIST assaults have taken place on Grounds in the past month. When some African-American students were painting Beta Bridge, individuals in a passing automobile reportedly yelled to them, telling them their place was in the cotton fields as opposed to the University. An unknown individual defaced a poster announcing a date function for the Organization of African Students with the words "slave auction." Another unknown individual verbally assaulted an African-American student as she walked past the International Residence College on Emmet Street. One person in a University computer lab verbally assaulted an African-American student at a nearby computer.
With this spate of racially motivated attacks against the University community, we cannot pretend that bigots among us have disappeared or become silent. Therefore, we as a student body need to actively affirm our belief in the right of all students and citizens to be treated with the respect that all humans deserve. We cannot allow these assaults on our community to go unanswered. We have that opportunity in the upcoming student election.
One referendum reads, "Do you want the UJC to create specific and severe punishment guidelines for judicial offenses primarily motivated by hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability?" We should vote yes on this referendum as part of the broader effort to create a University environment that is completely intolerant of bigotry. Black Student Alliance President Myra Franklin says, "It is important that the penalty for these crimes reflects the general message and stance of our University community and University administration especially." The prejudices mentioned in the referendum are not only antipathetic to an academic institution, but also pose a serious threat to the safety of many members of our community.
According to Student Council President Noah Sullivan, the referendum can help create an environment free of racial hatred by facilitating the removal of bigots from the University and by establishing a very clear community standard of respect for all individuals here. Any student who assaults another student out of hate does not belong at the University. The referendum properly recommends "severe punishment" for such individuals. Regrettably, the University Judiciary Committee has actively worked to prevent the referendum from coming to a vote.
UJC member Leslie Brooks says that"binding the hands of judges to certain punishments restricts their ability to come up with creative sanctions that are tailored to the particular violation." Nothing in the referendum ties the judges' hands in any way; the referendum expresses support for suggested guidelines, not inflexible punishments. Brooks misrepresents not only the goals and substance of the legislation but also the history of its development, saying,"Those who created the bill did not have an open line of communication with the committee to allow for such educational forums."
Actually, Student Council proponents of the referendum as well as members of the Black Student Alliance have met several times with members of the UJC (though not always specifically about the referendum), and, despite open hostility to the goals of the referendum, have attempted to maintain an "open line of communication," meeting with the UJC as recently as this past Sunday. Brooks also states that "a student vote on the referendum is meaningless: Now, the students will vote but the outcome will be meaningless. A vote of yes or no by someone who is not informed on the issue tells us nothing of what the student body wants."
Theoretically, this University has a self-governing student body, not a student monarchy, oligarchy or aristocracy. The suggestion that the referendum vote is meaningless and that students are "not informed" is a frontal assault on the idea of student self-governance. Not all students who work with the UJC oppose the referendum.
Jessica Childress says, "As a First Year Judge and a counselor on the UJC, I was knowledgeable about the processes of UJC -- their standards of conduct, the sanctioning process, the bylaws, etc., yet, I was disgraced because we did not have any standards or specific, severe sanctions for hate crimes." Though UJC members who oppose the referendum claim that the judicial process already takes motivation (including bigotry) into account, Jessica's testimony speaks to the need for a general guidelines to apply to hate motivated violations of the honor code.
Fortunately, we do not need the approval of the UJC. In a University with a long tradition of student self-governance, we have the ability to chart policy that we feel is appropriate to our institution. In this case, we have the responsibility to take positive steps to combat bigotry within our midst. Voting yes on the referendum is a small but necessary action toward that end.
Zack Fields' column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at zfields@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | YesterdayForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 2 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
