“E-MAIL me.” Those were University Athletic Director Craig Littlepage’s words when I asked him to explain the sign policy at the football game against University of Richmond. In what was most likely a surprise for him, I did. In his reply, he put his spin on the football game, complimenting the defense while ignoring the anemic offense, before turning his attention to the sign policy. In words that should sound very familiar by now, Littlepage said, “The policy is intended to support and promote sportsmanship and a positive game-day environment.”
The new ban of signs at athletic events, announced in a two sentence declaration in a late summer e-mail, has often been justified by those talking points. Still, each time you hear them, they ring a little hollower. Without signs will our hands be freer so we clap that much louder? Will we spend less time making signs and more time practicing the “Good Ol’ Song”? Or is the reason more obvious and more insidious? With signs banned, the fans who are unhappy with the football program’s mediocrity are that much more easily silenced.
Littlepage’s other justification for the sign ban was one I had not heard. He cited other schools with, in his words, “a similar restriction.” In what was most likely another surprise for him, I checked it out. The first school on Littlepage’s list was Clemson. Assistant Athletic Director Tim Bourret has been at Clemson for 30 years, but said he could find no written policy. In fact, he said the only game-day precautions are to check signs “to make sure there isn’t any bad language.” A sensible policy, yes. “A similar restriction,” not exactly.
Second, N.C. State. Assistant Athletics Director Shannon Yates said their ban applied only to “semi-huge” signs and those on sticks or poles. The reason for the ban? Visibility. In fact, Yates acknowledged that small signs and small flags were permitted, so long as they did not block the view of other spectators. Another sensible policy, but still not a “similar restriction.” The last school Littlepage referenced was our rival, Virginia Tech. Associate Director of Athletics Tom Gabbard acknowledged that signs are prohibited inside Lane Stadium, but called visibility the “number one reason for the ban.” Gabbard, in a recent Richmond Times-Dispatch article also admitted that enforcement was not 100 percent effective and said that students who managed to sneak in signs are allowed to keep them. Andrew Messer, a current Tech student, was unaware of the policy, saying, “I don’t think we have a policy against [signs] or if we do it isn’t enforced.”
In one sense, Littlepage is right. Other schools around the ACC do have policies about game-day signs. But his comparison actually makes our sign policy look even more draconian than before. Nowhere else has the ban been so explicitly about the messages carried on the signs. Nowhere but the University has the policy been justified because it prevents certain types of speech.
There are plenty of problems with the sign ban. What about solutions? The blank sign protest at the football game last Saturday was a good starting point, but it will not, by itself, cause the Athletic Department to cave. Student Council has recently taken up the matter and expects to meet with Littlepage next week. Perhaps they should follow the example of our ACC neighbor, Maryland.
In 2004, Maryland was having trouble with rowdy, obnoxious and obscene student spectators. The state’s Attorney General issued an opinion arguing that banning signs at sporting events would be entirely legal. Bob O’Neil, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, applauded the eventual decision of the Athletic Department. “Wisely, I believe, the College Park administration declined to accept that invitation and appealed to the fans for civility,” O’Neil wrote in an e-mail. This appeal to fans came in a novel way.
David Krieger, a student, chaired a committee which made a series of recommendations to the athletics department at Maryland. The recommendations eschewed any formal policies or bans. Instead, the students published more light-hearted and appropriate cheers in the newspaper before each game. They also implemented a program where students could trade in profane t-shirts for a free Maryland shirt. Lastly, in a vastly ironic move, they created a “best sign” contest for the Jumbotron, highlighting the best inoffensive signs.
Instead of banning signs, Maryland decided to channel student creativity in a positive direction. They also provide a promising model for us: Let students solve a student problem. At the University, student leadership quieted the “not gay” chant and it can work again. Is that not the very point of student self-governance? A student solution would be more popular, and more effective, than a heavy-handed administrative decree. After all, who can resist being on the Jumbotron?
Isaac Wood is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 6 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 6 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
