AS I prepared myself to write on strides the University has made in race relations, I opened The Cavalier Daily and read about a fresh incident of racial harassment. I had really hoped we were past all this; it seemed that the better part of my first semester here was dominated by a flurry of similar events. But near the end of the article the idea of a diversity pledge for first years caught my eye. At first I was skeptical, as first years are inundated with enough pieces of paper, forms, and seminars from roommate agreements on down. Upon further reflection, however, the proposal holds up under scrutiny.
The idea of a diversity pledge at first glance appears trite, and if viewed flippantly by those signing it, it really is. After all, it is just a piece of paper that would ask students to "treat all people with dignity and respect, discourage others' prejudice in all its forms, and strive to maintain a climate for work and learning based on mutual respect and understanding." According to Ryan McElveen, chair of the Student Council Committee on Diversity Initiatives, it would be a voluntary "pledge against prejudice" signed by first years at the end of their first semester. It probably would not have any sort of procedure for its enforcement and would therefore lack any sort of coercive power. The real value of the proposed diversity pledge would be like that of any other pledge. It would make those who value their given word think twice before violating something by which they promised to abide.
In this sense, it would be like the Honor pledge in its most ideal sense. In a utopian community, the honor code would prevent students from lying, cheating or stealing simply because they had agreed not to do so. They would care more about the shared values of all University students than any personal gain that might be gleaned from the banned practices. The entire student body would work together in maintaining a strict environment of integrity as stated by the honor code. But in practice, more often than not it takes the threat of the single sanction and expulsion to enforce it.
The key, however, is the "more often than not." While many students clearly do not care about cheapening the value of their spoken or written word, as can be seen by the annual number of honor trials, surely there remain some who place some importance on honoring their word. McElveen said that the main goal of pledge would be to inspire people to take time for "personal reflection" and in doing so prevent inflammatory outbursts. Therefore, if the purpose of such a pledge is to prevent incidents of intolerance, it could be considered a success if it were to stop even one.
The value of a pledge would lie in its preventative nature. While those people who would give currency to their signature might seem to be those least likely to launch racial epithets at another person, one can never tell. The fact that it is not a mandatory agreement also helps. Those who would sign a non-mandatory agreement might also be more willing to abide by it. The pledge, as McElveen envisions it now, would have some other things going for it. For one, by implementing it at the end of a first year student's first semester, it would reinforce the ideals of the University community after the first year student has already tasted them. For another, this timing would help in not get lost in the shuffle of events that takes place at the beginning of the school year, giving students more time to reflect on it rather than signing it mindlessly or ignoring it completely.
While adding one more agreement or pledge to the University community might seem futile or insignificant, the proposed "pledge against prejudice" holds a different kind of promise. As it is non-mandatory, it applies only to those who want to hold themselves accountable. In doing so, it may prevent future incidents. We cannot predict what kind of results the pledge might produce, especially given its preventative purpose, but if it gets people thinking about what comes out of their mouths, then it can be considered a success and a worthwhile program.
Robby Colby's column usually appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rcolby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 5 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 | 6 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.
