Small White Acolyte

So I'm walking down the Lawn the other day, minding my own business, when I nearly trip over a small, white cross. Goodness, I thought to myself, surely this was misplaced here by a small, white acolyte who had lost his way. Eager to return it to him, I removed the cross in hopes of finding the offending dwarf before the day's end. Little did I know that the placement of the crosses had been approved by Dean of Students Robert Canevari himself.

It seems that everything that goes on in the general vicinity of the lower Lawn needs Canevari's approval. How silly of college students to think that they could freely express themselves on university property. Granted, the careful monitoring of public space has always been a Virginia standard, but had those students who propped up their signs on the wrong chain-pole chose to walk with a sandwich board instead, I doubt the Dean of Students office would have reacted differently (after all, the signless Brother Jim seeks the Dean's approval). No, the issue at hand is not the placement of signs, but the fact that the signs were placed, that an opinion was expressed, without permission from Dad.

Certainly the university's position is understandable. They don't want just any Tom, Dick, or Harry coming to the lower Lawn to protest, say, the continued spending of federal taxes in the state of Missouri. But the Dean of Students office knew that the protesters were students -- students who were expressing an opinion as legitimate and sincere as those who organized the original protest -- and they should have realized that in a very real way they were infringing on these students' collective right to free speech. I am sure the university could argue in response that the historical importance of the Lawn outweighs the rights of the students -- but it is undeniable that their rights, for whatever reason, are being overlooked.

Really, in the eyes of most people, this issue was settled in 1963 (sure, I have as much distaste for what happened in California as the next university administrator, but at least I acknowledge that it occurred). Students at Berkeley objected to the fact that university bureaucracy wouldn't allow protest tables on college property. In that case, the end result was a student takeover of the president's office, a couple of overturned police cars, and the right to free assembly and protest in the public areas of campus. Colleges across the country were forced to allow students to say whatever they pleased. Except in Virginia, of course.

No, this isn't the Sixties. And in the long run, it's not a serious violation of our rights to register with Canevari to protest on the Lawn. I'm sure, following the Wide Awake suit, that the Dean of Students office has to approve any anti-Missouri rally that comes knocking on their door -- part and parcel to the whole bureaucracy thing. But I definitely resent having to run to Daddy every time I have something to say. Pretty typical for a university where the only legitimate voice for the average student's opinion is on the "Views around Grounds" section of the Cavalier Daily.

Kate Zimmerman

Viewpoint consists of the majority opinion of the managing board of The Declaration and is written by the executive editor on a weekly basis.