THE CONTROVERSIAL recent visits from religious figures demand serious attention from University officials. These fire-and-brimstone preachers draw both crowds and criticisms for their fiery rhetoric and divisive approach. They make explosive statements, prophesying that students are destined for hell. This fresh brouhaha harkens back to the anti-abortion activists, who plastered graphic images of aborted fetuses all over Grounds last fall. And while this new barrage is not as visibly jarring, it does indicate that the University should do something to control the resulting disruptions to student life. Fringe groups of whatever ideology only have a right to express their opinions, not to bother students with offensive slurs or poorly planned logistics, such as setting up in areas that affect student traffic. The University should implement regulations that control, among other things, where and when these groups meet.
This is a difficult issue that sparks much emotion and debate on some of America's most cherished ideals -- freedom of speech first among them. It is important, however, to realize that no one's freedom of speech is being restricted in this instance. The best approach is to reconcile those cherished ideals with practical solutions. Last year, the anti-abortion activists occupied some rather annoying locations, one of them the space in front of Clark Hall. As I was trying to get to class that day, I became bogged down in that area and nearly ran late. The problems this year have focused more on students having to endure verbal salvos rather than unsettling images. Any way you look at it, their presence seems more of a burden than a benefit. And while they should be allowed to speak their minds, they need to do so in a more structured environment. Student groups, despite specific objections people may have against this one or that one, offer a sense of community to the University, something noticeably lacking with these visitors.
A great solution to this problem would be to control these various individuals and groups much like we control our own student groups. The latter have to apply to position themselves in certain locations around Grounds at specific times, but non-University individuals (and students as well) have open forum locations where their free speech rights are guaranteed if they just show up. As described above, the problems begin when these privileges start to be abused.
The University is not blind to these problems. In an interview with Danny Steeper, assistant director for operations of Newcomb Hall, the point was clarified that, "where it does become disruptive, we [the University] would involve ourselves." Steeper also highlighted the fact that, "it takes a community to make sure we monitor these things," referring to unruly activity among unauthorized groups. It might be more effective if the University took some tough executive steps to protect freedom of speech while forcing all groups who want to have a systematic presence on Grounds to operate under an application system.
How would these restrictions affect non-University groups? The most probable effect would be to reduce current activities, which is detrimental or positive depending on your viewpoint. Requiring an incoming minister, who would normally preach at the amphitheater without worry, to somehow register with or gain permission from the University to conduct his activities would serve as a filter and a dissuading factor. It would not be much more different than online subscription services requiring e-mail confirmations to avoid bot registrations and potential spam. It would act as a stabilizing factor that could scare away polemical individuals from the University.
The fundamental values and traditions that we uphold as a nation are and should always remain psychologically and politically entrenched, but change within these structures is often a constructive aspect. Individuals, groups and organizations that disrupt or sabotage University life need a wake-up call: The Lawn is not a playground. Shouting students down or blocking my way to class is something that might require more than community involvement to fix. The University needs to evaluate its policies seriously and realize that a more comprehensive solution might be required to find a satisfactory balance between stability and ideals. Heavy devotion to the latter is currently making life a bit unpleasant.
Erald Kolasi's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ekolasi@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 4 days agoForcing 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 | 5 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 | 6 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.
