Reserved Rights SHOULD STUDENTS NEED PERMISSION TO PROTEST? by Kristin Adolfson Rows of small white crosses litter the lower Lawn in neat lines, broken only by the reclining student tanning under the unusually hot spring sun. Nearby, two young men sit at their lawn table, diligently handing out information opposing abortion. The crosses scattered on the Lawn are part of their display, representing the many deaths of unborn children from abortions. Amidst the sunbathers and the crosses some women independent of any organization sit under posters that read, "For the thousands of women that die each year from back-alley abortions" and "Pro-Choice." The two sides of an intensely emotional issue appear on their respective soap-boxes, utilizing their rights under a democracy: free speech in a public space. The two men from the university organization First Right approach the women and try to force them to remove their signs, stating that the Lawn is reserved for the First Right display. The women refuse to move, claiming they are not altering the exhibition in any way. Minutes later the men return with Robert Canevari, Dean of Students, who instructs the women to remove their posters from the lower Lawn area. The women refuse on the grounds that they are not harming the display nor causing a scene. Dean Canevari explains that the lower Lawn was reserved by First Right, and if the women do not remove their signs, they will be brought up on Judiciary charges. They can, he adds, move the posters to the perimeter of the lower Lawn, but the only way to display their slogans among the crosses is to wear them on a t-shirt. One of the women suggests removing her clothes and wearing the poster. Dean Canevari remains adamant about his order to remove the signs; there is no attempt to negotiate between the two groups or to come calmly to an agreement. Canevari threatens arrest by police. The women finally agree to move their signs to the outside of the display, later writing on old t-shirts and even on their bodies in order to state their message amongst the display. The issue here is not, as some may see it, the controversy over pro-life and pro-choice, but rather of students' First Amendment rights. The Lawn is the central public space of the university. Despite its status as the main tourist attraction at U.Va., the Lawn still serves as a gathering forum for students and professors during and between classes. Student organizations can reserve an area on the edge of the Lawn and set up a "lawn table," where they can advertise the views, activities, or existence of their organizations. Behind the lawn tables is the lower Lawn itself, where many students study and socialize without realizing it is possible to reserve the lower Lawn. There are only two groups that seem to take advantage of the Lawn reservation: First Right and the Capital Campaign. Curious as to whether or not any organization could really reserve the lower Lawn, I went to the Reservations Office to find out how one goes about the process. At the Reservations Office I was informed that the protocol for reserving the lower Lawn involved writing a letter to Dean Canevari defining the organization and stating how the space would be used. He would then decide on approval. I then spoke with Dean Canevari over the phone to get more information, who directed me to the Undergraduate Record, where he claimed the regulations were clearly spelled out. The lower Lawn Regulations state, "Officially recognized student groups ... or university-related organizations or foundations may be granted use by the Office of the Dean of Students. That office will consider use in accordance with dictates affecting time, place, and manner. Among them are the following: disruption or obstruction in teaching, research, administration, disciplinary procedure, or other university activities, or of other authorized activities on university property is forbidden. The regulations, Canevari added, were written by Robert O'Neill, a First Amendment scholar and former president of U.Va. and reviewed by a federal judge before implementation. Dean Canevari explained that ultimately anything is acceptable as long as it abides by these rules. In regards to the instance where a specific group did not want people to counter-display in their reserved space, Canevari stated that whoever reserves the space has control over it and can use and regulate the space according to their needs. This is why the women demonstrating against the First Right display had to remove their posters from the area. The Lawn Regulations, however, do not state that the group with the reservation has the right to restrict others from demonstrating. Why, then, were the women threatened with Judiciary charges and arrest if they did not remove themselves from the Lawn area? There is no auxiliary clause attached to the First Amendment to the effect of: "Freedom of speech in public space may be suppressed under the authority of the law if and only if the public space is allocated on a reservation-only basis." It seems as though students' essential rights are somehow overlooked when caught up in the enforcement of university regulations. It is legitimate to have the lower Lawn available to organizations on a reservation-only basis. The problem is that no other group (in this case, independent individuals) is allowed to use the space as well. There is no reason why two groups cannot voice their opinions in the same public space. It was necessary for First Right to reserve the lower Lawn because the white cross display involved directly placing objects into the ground. It is unjust, however, to forbid any other individual to state his or her opinion within this area. Although First Right reserved the Lawn for physical use, the opinions of other individuals should not be censored in the area. The suppression of another perspective in public space is a violation of freedom of speech. The university should not demand a reservation in order to express intellectual and ethical opinions. There is no reason why these individual students should not have been granted the right to silently use part of the public space for which they pay yearly tuition. If the university feels comfortable and justified dictating the circumstances to which the First Amendment is applied, members of the university community are in serious trouble. How many other rights are being abused? How many violations are not challenged because of fear of authority? This instance of violation of the First Amendment is more than likely not confined to the reservation of the lower Lawn. It is a known fact that public space is severely regulated at the university. For example, informative flyers can be placed only on the few small boards scattered throughout grounds. Further, if an organization places a flyer on the Rotunda area, it receives a warning from Student Council, and at the second offense is defunded. It is difficult to maneuver counter to the university system without finding oneself faced with a Judiciary offense, a University Police arrest, or defunding. This university needs to re-establish focus on its essential purpose as an institution of learning where ideas and diversity should flow freely and fearlessly. It is your responsibility as a student to expose those who exploit and have contempt for your rights.

back to Decweb main