Categories
News

Come together: Revised UVA speech policy earns high marks

By Jonathan Haynes

Despite the controversy over the University of Virginia’s revisions to its right-to-assemble policies, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has awarded the university its highest free speech rating.

FIRE, a group that defends the constitutional rights of students and faculty in higher ed, ranked UVA as a “green-light” university, along with with 42 other universities out of the 466 it monitors around the country, ahead of “yellow light” James Madison University and “red light” Virginia State University.

“We classify schools as red, yellow, green light based on how well the First Amendment is upheld at public schools and how well any school follows its own policies,” says Robert Shibley, the executive director of FIRE. “UVA has generally done a pretty good job.”

UVA alum Bruce Kothmann stirred debate over UVA’s campus speech policies last May, after an officer removed him from grounds for reading a Bible on the steps of the Rotunda without the university’s permission.

A viral video of the stunt shows an officer calmly listing newly prohibited activities to Kothmann, who asks if “reading the Bible aloud” is included. After pausing and flailing his left arm, the officer says, “Apparently.”

The revised “time, place, and manner” policy was written by the Dean’s Working Group, a steering committee established by UVA’s then-president Teresa Sullivan after a crowd of torch-bearing neo-Nazis set upon a small group of protestors surrounding the Jefferson statue on August 11, 2017.

The policy restricts people who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights and are not UVA students, staff, or faculty to one of nine designated areas, among them Nameless Field and the McIntire Amphitheater, where they may assemble with a maximum of 25 to 50 people for no more than two hours. Non-affiliated persons must request permission between one and four weeks in advance. Violators may be banned, but are typically just removed.

Shibley doesn’t foresee any legal challenges because the policy is content-neutral and justified by a safety interest. The policy “passes constitutional muster,” he says. “But I think it’s very disappointing that the university adopted it.” Nonetheless, that didn’t prevent FIRE from giving UVA the green light because its policies don’t interfere with student expression.

UVA modeled its revisions after the University of Maryland’s time, place, and manner restrictions, which were upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kothmann, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Pennsylvania was visiting his alma mater last May to see his daughter, who had just completed her second year at UVA. He had read about the policy in the UVA alumni newsletter and, unable to shake it from his mind, decided to test campus enforcement.

The revisions proved controversial before their release, drawing criticism from members of the Faculty Senate Policy Committee Council. And some activists, students, and faculty had been pressuring UVA to ban specific organizations, since alt-right marchers were the perpetrators of on-campus violence August 11.

UVA banned 10 individuals involved in the torch march, but maintained that it is constitutionally forbidden from banning people or groups for ideological reasons.

“Times are changing, context is changing,” says Curry School professor Walt Heinecke. “Maybe it’s time for UVA to start legally pushing to see how far it can move that discussion.”

Critics lament the policy’s chilling effects on protest. Both Heinecke and William Keene, a professor of environmental science at UVA, point out that past on-campus protests against racial injustice, the invasion of Cambodia, and the ouster of Teresa Sullivan would not be permissible under the revised policy.

Shibley agrees that the policy could have negative consequences: “During the civil rights movement, non-students were coming on campus to engage in discussion and protests,” he says, adding that fewer interactions with the community will limit students’ exposure to different perspectives.

The policy has stirred little reaction from students, however, who are still free to protest. Student groups that are officially registered with student council may also invite an unlimited number of non-affiliated persons to grounds, but groups that are not registered, such as UVA Students United and the Living Wage Campaign, could be affected.

When the on-campus protests for the anniversary of August 11 and 12 presented an opportunity to test the policy’s enforceability, UVA ended up enacting security measures that far superseded the policy’s parameters, such as requiring clear bags, installing metal detectors and fencing around campus, and vastly restricting the plaza around the Jefferson statue, where UVA Students United and other activists had planned a protest.

But besides Kothmann, there are few known instances of people being removed for violating the policy.

And Kothmann has violated the policy several times without incident since his removal. In July, he waved a gay pride flag on the Rotunda steps and reported himself to the university counsel. After an hour without a response, he reported himself to a receptionist inside the Rotunda. “I saw you,” she said. “Do you need a drink of water?”

Outside of UVA President Jim Ryan’s inauguration on October 19, Kothmann and his daughter handed out flyers about the restrictions to several administrative officials. Many of them took one, including Ryan. On November 2, Kothmann reported himself for juggling pomegranates in the McIntire Amphitheater. Nobody responded. 

Correction January 3: Robert Shibley’s name was misspelled in the original story.

Categories
News

Tactical change: Not your grandpa’s protest

In images from the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, African-Americans in their Sunday best peacefully protested, and when violence occurred, it came from police or from virulent racists.

Those are not the optics of today’s demonstrations.

Instead, protesters knock cell phones out of people’s hands, blast them with bullhorns, block filming with hands or hats and link arms to prevent passage—and that was just at the May 14 vigil in Lee Park after the Richard Spencer white nationalist crew was there the night before.

And a video circulating from May 20 shows right-wing blogger Jason Kessler with three other people sitting at a restaurant table on the Downtown Mall, surrounded by a dozen or so people shouting, “Nazis go home” and ordering them to leave.

“You don’t get to dictate who comes in or out,” said a police officer responding to the scene.

“White supremacists should not be allowed to move quietly in public spaces,” says Pam Starsia with Showing Up for Racial Justice, which has been active in confronting Confederate memorial supporters and the alt-right—although Starsia says she’s speaking only for herself, not for SURJ.

In sharp contrast to the 1920s, when members of the Ku Klux Klan met secretly in the dark wearing white hoods, yet passed by day in polite society, she says, the strategy now is to disrupt and “to loudly call out white supremacists in public spaces.”

And yet some local activists’ tactics straddle the line between free speech and criminal behavior.

“It’s very disturbing,” says Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney Dave Chapman. The heated rhetoric leads “to an atmosphere of antagonism,” which leads to escalation. “We should all discourage behavior that stops short of criminal offenses.”

In his more than 30 years as a prosecutor, Chapman has seen a number of protests. The difference in the current crop is “the intensity and the physical confrontation accompanying it,” he says, as well as the participation of people from outside the community.

UVA professor and activist Jalane Schmidt explains the trajectory of protest tactics since the 1950s, when Martin Luther King Jr. organized a movement of “respectability politics” and was influenced by Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau’s nonviolent resistance.

That changed in the 1960s and ’70s with the Black Panthers, who wore military garb and “eschewed respectability politics,” she says. “The tactics always change with time.”

She says, “The 21st century descendants of the Klan are the alt-right. They should not be allowed to circulate anonymously in polite society.”

A May 24 press release from the anonymous Cville Solidarity suggested a laundry list of ways to resist white supremacy. “Refuse to employ, work with, serve or shop with Nazis. Refuse to sit next to them at a bar or restaurant. Refuse to let them sit peacefully in a public space,” it said.

“There’s a harassment and intimidation campaign being led by Joe and Pam Starsia,” Kessler says. Joe Starsia was in the video of the mall shouters, and activist Veronica Fitzhugh can be seen yelling in Kessler’s face, “Fucking go home. Get up and go home.”

Earlier that night, Kessler said he went to Champion Brewery and was refused service. “They violated my civil rights,” he says.

Can businesses deny service to those whose politics or philosophy they don’t like?

“Beliefs and philosophies are protected constitutionally against actions by government,” John Jeffries, former dean of UVA’s law school, writes in an email. “Private parties are free to act against unwelcome beliefs and philosophies, unless there is a statute against such discrimination.”

For Champion owner Hunter Smith, Kessler’s civil rights “didn’t cross my mind for a minute,” he says. “He assaulted someone who works for the business. It was a safety issue.”

Jay Taylor, the man whom Kessler punched on the mall January 22, frequents the brewery and does work there, says Smith.

However, in the face of demands that service be denied, Miller’s is taking a different tack after some white nationalists came there for beers following the tiki-torch assembly at Lee Park. Miller’s Scottie Kaylor calls for courtesy on Facebook and writes: “Our policy is simple: if any person or group, on either side of the political spectrum, displays an overt hatred or disrespect for others at Miller’s, they will be asked to leave.”

Arrests from protests are mounting. After the February 11 Lee Park rally that brought gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart to town to protest City Council’s vote to remove the Robert E. Lee statue, Kessler filed charges against Sara Tansey for snatching his phone. She was charged with destruction of property and Tansey filed an assault charge against Joe Draego, claiming he grabbed her arm when he retrieved Kessler’s phone.

At the May 14 candlelight demonstration at Lee Park, Jordan McNeish was charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly spitting on Kessler, Charles Best was charged with felony assault for hitting an officer in the head with a thrown cell phone, and Kessler was charged with disorderly conduct for refusing to leave the park and inciting with a bullhorn, say police.

“Police said I wouldn’t leave the park,” says Kessler. Protesters “wouldn’t let me leave. They were blocking me. They encircled me so that I was trapped.”

“Jason Kessler barged into a peaceful space that had been created by people of color with every intention of inciting a confrontation,” says Pam Starsia. “He was the aggressor.”

In video and photographs from the May 14 event, a young man filming is encircled by people who are asking why he was filming, blocking his camera and, he says on the video, knocking his cell phone out of his hand.

Blocking people filming is a tactic that comes from a practice called “doxxing,” says Starsia, in which leftist activists are filmed and their images are put online to “encourage harassment.”

“It’s a mob tactic used online by the left and the right,” says Kessler.

Rutherford Institute founder John Whitehead compares current protests to ’60s sit-ins, where demonstrators “didn’t stop someone from free speech,” he says.

“The more I read about it, these people don’t want free speech,” he says. “You can’t block other people’s right to move on public property. These people need to grow up and respect other people’s rights.”

Is it free speech or assault?

What’s legal and what’s not in the resistance? We checked with Commonwealth’s Attorney Dave Chapman.

Slapping away a person’s cell phone: “Unwanted touching in an angry, rude or vengeful manner can constitute assault in Virginia,” says Chapman.

Invading one’s personal space: While there’s no law against trespassing in personal space, close contact and yelling in someone’s face could be disorderly conduct, says Chapman, escalating into allegations of being jostled. See unwanted touching above.

Using a bullhorn in someone’s face: Could violate the noise ordinance, and doing it aggressively in someone’s face in a way that interferes with her free speech potentially could be disorderly conduct.

Linking arms to prevent passage: If it’s restricting someone’s freedom and not letting them go, it could be abduction, says Chapman.

Categories
News

Free-er speech: Controversial display prompts library policy changes

Nine months have passed since library patron Mike Powers voiced his concern over a sex-ed display in the front lobby of the main branch of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library. Following April’s public outcry, on January 25 the library’s board of trustees approved proposed changes to its public display policies that will clarify its stance on freedom of speech.

The display that offended Powers was sponsored by the Charlottesville National Organization of Women and featured books on sex education and birth control, along with the slogan “My Body, My Choice.” Powers says the display was not appropriate for all ages and argues that the display’s “prominent front-lobby positioning” at the central branch implied an endorsement by the library.

“[The display] had a political advocacy slogan and it was very confusing whether the library itself was endorsing a political advocacy position,” Powers says, “That, to me, didn’t seem to match the mission of the library.”

Central Library Manager Krista Farrell says that despite objections to the display, it did not violate the library’s previous display policy. However, she notes that the controversy “highlighted the need to make some adjustments and updates to the existing policy.”

Among the changes, the library plans to remove the phrases “balanced” and “age appropriate” from its policy because the meaning of these phrases is “open to interpretation” and caused disagreement between patrons and board members, says Farrell. The new proposed policy would say freedom of speech displays will be “unfettered” unless they contain obscene or defaming materials.

In addition to somewhat loosening the restrictions on freedom of speech displays, the library plans to enforce new rules on where these displays may be seen and require that each display have a sign indicating sponsorship.

“Realizing most library visitors do not come to the library to view displays,” the proposed policy reads, “the ‘Freedom of Speech’ display cases shall be located in areas generally used by adults at a minimum of 20 feet from the front door.”

Brian LaFontaine, president of the board of trustees, believes these changes will help to clarify the library’s role in offering an equal opportunity for freedom of expression, saying the library has “a responsibility to all of our patrons no matter their political, religious, cultural or social beliefs.”

LaFontaine adds, “We hope, if adopted, the new displays and handouts policy will offer the opportunity for educational displays that will support freedom of speech, a tenet all libraries are charged with, yet be sensitive to the concerns some of our patrons may have on subject matter or presentation.”

Although the process has taken longer than he imagined, Powers says that overall he is supportive of the proposed changes and thinks these changes will better identify the library as a neutral organization.

“It’s going to be more clear that these messages are from an outside organization,” Powers says. “If they feel it’s an important library function to provide a platform for free expression, then I think this is the best compromise.”