The University group Students for Peace and Justice in Palestine filed a bias report last week in response to an incident that occurred shortly after its members had painted Beta Bridge in support of an upcoming Palestinian bid for statehood. SPJP's message initially read "Palestine deserves a state," but within eight hours of its completion the text had been defaced with white paint entirely covering the word "Palestine" and a line drawn through the word "deserves." The only added text was "UVA Athletics UVA," which was scrawled hastily atop the spot where the word "Palestine" had been.
Some have responded that painting over SPJP's message is a legitimate exercise of free speech and that the appropriate solution is to promote more speech rather than sanctioning the individual or group responsible for the repainting. This argument is only half right, though, since "free speech" does not include the obliteration of others' words without offering anything substantive in return. Therefore, students should condemn this action and seek to reaffirm the community norms that are binding upon those who choose to paint Beta Bridge. The consequences of failing to do so would be an erosion of trust and a stifling of voices within the student body, as well as the ultimate destruction of Beta Bridge's status as a self-regulated forum for free speech.
The action taken against SPJP amounts to severe abuse of the First Amendment right to free speech. Students who paint Beta Bridge understand that their messages exist in a public space and are subject to replies from other groups with opposing or unrelated information they wish to convey. To be sure, this has forced student groups to accept insulting and juvenile responses to their work such as in 2005 when sexually explicit and grotesque imagery was spray painted over messages written by two black organizations. Yet it does not mean students should have to fear retribution from those who seek merely to smother their messages through coarse obstruction that is, in fact, much closer to censorship than it is to speech. An example of such improper "speech" would be the graffiti covering SPJP's message. The solid block of paint covering "Palestine" mimics a redaction in a classified document, conveying no information and serving instead to muffle SPJP's free exercise of speech.
Nevertheless, the proper reaction to this incident is not a heavy-handed administrative or legal remedy. Punishing the individual or group involved would be viscerally satisfying, but it would necessitate the creation of official standards regulating activity at Beta Bridge. This most likely would involve establishing written guidelines for when and how Beta Bridge could be painted, which would undermine the entire principle of experimenting with a "public forum" for free speech in the University community.
Rather, students should rededicate themselves to understanding the system of norms that has long governed the painting of Beta Bridge. For instance, they should refrain from painting over messages until it can be ascertained that a reasonable amount of time has passed since their original production. Moreover, students should avoid painting Beta Bridge unless they have a meaningful message to communicate. Although disagreements will arise about what messages are "meaningful" and what time delays in painting over a message qualify as "reasonable," thoughtless mangling of others' work on the same night as its appearance is indefensible if Beta Bridge is to remain a place where students can express themselves clearly and openly.
If students are unable to demonstrate maturity and tolerance in their treatment of speech at Beta Bridge, the result could be a loss of that forum entirely. The City of Charlottesville exempts only two locations - Beta Bridge and Belmont Bridge - from its city-wide ordinance prohibiting graffiti, City spokesman Ric Barrick said. It would be simple enough for the City Council to remove this exemption if back-and-forth graffiti wars, censorship or flagrantly offensive speech were to become the new norm at Beta Bridge. Therefore, students must decide among themselves what is acceptable at Beta Bridge and seek to hold one another accountable for violations of that standard.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 15 hours 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 | YesterdayWhile 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.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | YesterdayLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
