University students should be disappointed by the movement to protest the selection of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson as this year’s Commencement speaker. Proponents of the movement have, on these pages and elsewhere, made straight-faced suggestions that opinions like those expressed by Judge Wilkinson are not welcome at U.Va. How embarrassing for us all.
Their words speak for themselves. A comment on the movement’s online petition, for instance, proclaims that “[t]o choose a speaker with such a closed conservative mind, who has spoken out against same sex marriage, the Equal Rights Amendment, and abortion is offensive to all women, people of different sexual orientations, and all those who support them. It would be a travesty to have such a person represent the University and deliver a speech about the future, considering his very backward opinions.”
Inexplicably, the movement’s petition insists that U.Va.’s Commencement Ceremony should “signify ... our dedication to diverse opinions.” Perhaps feeling the pinch of irony, Wilkinson critics often say that their real complaint is about the process by which he was selected. But whatever is said about the selections process, the partisan motives behind those complaints are usually on full display. As others have noted, nobody seemed to lodge these complaints when more liberal speakers were chosen.
All of this is so disturbing because Wilkinson is hardly the fringe conservative his critics have concocted. In an article in the Washington Post, U.Va. Student Amelia Meyer said that U.Va. students “rightly” see Wilkinson’s views on gay marriage as a “threat and an insult to many gay students and advocates.” After reading Meyer’s column, I decided to read Wilkinson’s article on the issue for the first time. I could not believe it. In “Hands Off Constitutions,” published on Sept. 5, 2006 in the Washington Post, Wilkinson argues against constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Seriously. He says “The Framers ... did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights or enact public policies, as the Federal Marriage Amendment does.” He explained that “To use the Constitution as a forum for even our most favored views strikes a blow of uncommon harshness upon disfavored groups, in this case gay citizens who would never see this country’s founding charter as their own.” Wilkinson argues that the legality of gay marriage is a difficult issue whose resolution requires consideration of both the notion that “[i]t is not wrong for gay citizens to wish to share fully in the life of this country” and the countervailing sense that “[m]arriage between male and female is more than a matter of biological complementarity.” Because this is a difficult issue, Wilkinson argues, the future of gay marriage should be left to the legislative process.
What’s more, in an article on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Wilkinson said that he was unable to “join in the jubilation” of other conservatives over the Court’s decision to recognize an individual right to bear arms. He argued that Heller — written by Justice Scalia — conflicts with conservatives’ long-standing argument that judges should not let their private political beliefs influence their interpretations of the law.
This is the man more than 400 U.Va. students have petitioned to exclude from the University’s commencement — a fair minded, moderate conservative, and long-time friend of the University.
As frighteningly few others have observed, the fact that so many students could so casually and publicly claim that mainstream conservative views have no place at U.Va. exposes the superficiality of our community’s commitment to true diversity — intellectual diversity. The University’s vice president and chief executive officer for diversity and equity’s Web site says that “we envision a community of understanding, tolerance, and respect.” Yet, where is the response to the past months’ displays of misunderstanding and intolerance — from the Chief Diversity Officer, student proponents of diversity, or anyone, really? The Web site offers an answer: the Vice President’s office is mainly concerned with “staff and students from historically underrepresented groups.” On matters of diversity, only race, gender, and sexual orientation matter at U.Va. Little else could explain the casual way in which students have declared Judge Wilkinson’s ideas unwelcome — or the failure by so many others to respond forcefully.
At any college, the diversity that should matter most is intellectual diversity. This is the place for the free combat of ideas and for students of all stripes to have their assumptions challenged. Unfortunately, recent events suggest that just the opposite is happening at the University. Students are prepared to graduate with the misconception that their beliefs are the only ones that should matter — that this entire community agrees with them on issues which, in fact, divide the nation. For this, I am confident that Wilkinson’s critics are right about one thing. All of this will “probably make Mr. Jefferson turn over in his grave” (“Let the Humiliation Commence,” March 17).
Josh Hess is third-year student in the Law School.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
