I see where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree with this take here. I think it's somewhat of an overstatement to say the university uniquely "promotes" conservative causes. Jim Ryan promoted YAF hosting an event commemorating 9/11, which is not something uniquely partisan. While the UVA twitter account did highlight a pro-life club, I don't think they meant it as an endorsement of their ideas. Either way, the idea that the University actively promotes conservative/pro-life ideas on grounds seems to be a stretch.
As for the silencing of left-wing ideas, I think the lawn room thing is a bit overblown. If I am not mistaken, the sign was asked to be taken down because it is an obscenity in a public place, not because the sign was promoting ideas seen as controversial.
As for the other examples, I don't know the details on that but I'm willing to take your word for it that the University failed to defend the free speech rights of students. However, implying that the University admin is secretly seeking to protect and defend conservative ideals seems like a stretch to me.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Appreciate you keeping the blog going and looking forward to reading part II.
You highlight critical instances of UVA responses to leftist and conservative groups - some of these show double standards in isolation but I don't think all of your evidence holds water.
For instance, the lawn room situation is distinct from the Berlin Wall imitation. The former creates semipermanent designs on school-erected, public facing housing. The latter was a one day event that made its point and yeeted off. As a speech enthusiast I'm hesitant about any restrictions by default but don't think a simple signage size regulation (consistent with constitutional "time, place, manner" restrictions) is a big concern - especially as the Lawn is a UNESCO World Heritage site. From one point of view, the act of lawn door speech is protected and should be visible, but shouldn't so colorfully and conspicuously degrading the overall architecture. Which the YAF Berlin Wall thing did not do once the event ended.
And some of your UPD evidence is also unconvincing. The four day sit in made its point, but the university was paying for security staff to monitor the event day and night - ultimately it has to come to an end, and being arrested for violating the law should be an expected outcome of unlawful protests. Same with trespassing an event, though I can't read the Daily Progress article due to paywall.
Also you assume that the distribution of liberal and conservative students' activities is the same. "Criticism against republican students is levied by their peers, while criticism against progressive students is levied by police." It seems to me that liberals students here more frequently raise legitimate legal questions through their speech, such as obscenities or pro-violence messaging on the lawn doors, or days long sit-ins. I've yet to see conservative counterparts such as "FUCK UVA - Operating Cost: White Lives" or depicting Antifa bringing death to a University followed by "Burn it all down!", or prolonged illegal sit ins from the conservative groups you mentioned. The only counterpoint you bring up, the Unite the Right rally by conservatives, did warrant legal intervention (which did happen) and additionally sparked changes to UVA's protest policies.
Additionally, "After the rally, UVA sent multiple letters to alumni, students, and faculty explicitly supporting the protestors’ speech." and saying they only decried violence "at points" seems extremely misleading to me as well. The entire point of those letters was to slam hate and violence! It's the free speech parts that are mentioned "at points". Compare that to what you link to under "university condemned Azher’s sign" -- Jim Ryan's post is almost the same format! He says he's disappointed in the message and execution but alas free speech. I could easily say he sent a letter "explicitly supporting the protestor's speech".
Finally, "UVA highlights pro-life clubs and events put on by Trump supporters, they fail to show similar support for progressive students" is egregiously incorrect. UVA highlights liberal causes all the time! All you have to do is open UVA Connection, or check out the 5000th new diversity office or diversity student space they're building.
In all you bring up UVA decisions on speech that in some cases I agree are missteps. But I don't think you build a strong case that UVA polices the left and touts the right.
Hi grady. Good post. I agree that institutions, (especially educational ones) should not back down when it comes to protecting speech, and I think it's largely in reaction to the terrible violence that occurred in 2017 that things have been tightened around demonstrations and many voices have been silenced. However I take issue with some of the posts sentiment, here you say "While at points the school decried the “hateful” ideology purported by rioters, at no point did they mention that the university permitted speech which eventually became violent" what do you mean that the speech became violent? Obviously the car attack is not speech. Were explicit threats made, or did people just feel threatened? Was there violent imagery like say, a grim reaper, or klu klux klan hood? I think my point is that speech that could be seen as "violent" by some may not be by others, and it's best not to trust clearly flawed institutions like UVA with the ability to silence anyone, lest they silence the good. Is the reduction of the school's mandate to silence speech something you would support, even if it meant that people like the racists who rallied in 2017 would be able to more easily express their abhorrent views? Or do you want to better align the current speech enforcement mechanisms with the values of progressive student body? Do you think that given the current muffling of progressive voices on campus that maintaining a system of restricting speech might kick the can down the road, enabling bad actors to capture and use such a regulatory body to do harm
I see where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree with this take here. I think it's somewhat of an overstatement to say the university uniquely "promotes" conservative causes. Jim Ryan promoted YAF hosting an event commemorating 9/11, which is not something uniquely partisan. While the UVA twitter account did highlight a pro-life club, I don't think they meant it as an endorsement of their ideas. Either way, the idea that the University actively promotes conservative/pro-life ideas on grounds seems to be a stretch.
As for the silencing of left-wing ideas, I think the lawn room thing is a bit overblown. If I am not mistaken, the sign was asked to be taken down because it is an obscenity in a public place, not because the sign was promoting ideas seen as controversial.
As for the other examples, I don't know the details on that but I'm willing to take your word for it that the University failed to defend the free speech rights of students. However, implying that the University admin is secretly seeking to protect and defend conservative ideals seems like a stretch to me.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Appreciate you keeping the blog going and looking forward to reading part II.
Cheers,
Kyle
You highlight critical instances of UVA responses to leftist and conservative groups - some of these show double standards in isolation but I don't think all of your evidence holds water.
For instance, the lawn room situation is distinct from the Berlin Wall imitation. The former creates semipermanent designs on school-erected, public facing housing. The latter was a one day event that made its point and yeeted off. As a speech enthusiast I'm hesitant about any restrictions by default but don't think a simple signage size regulation (consistent with constitutional "time, place, manner" restrictions) is a big concern - especially as the Lawn is a UNESCO World Heritage site. From one point of view, the act of lawn door speech is protected and should be visible, but shouldn't so colorfully and conspicuously degrading the overall architecture. Which the YAF Berlin Wall thing did not do once the event ended.
And some of your UPD evidence is also unconvincing. The four day sit in made its point, but the university was paying for security staff to monitor the event day and night - ultimately it has to come to an end, and being arrested for violating the law should be an expected outcome of unlawful protests. Same with trespassing an event, though I can't read the Daily Progress article due to paywall.
Also you assume that the distribution of liberal and conservative students' activities is the same. "Criticism against republican students is levied by their peers, while criticism against progressive students is levied by police." It seems to me that liberals students here more frequently raise legitimate legal questions through their speech, such as obscenities or pro-violence messaging on the lawn doors, or days long sit-ins. I've yet to see conservative counterparts such as "FUCK UVA - Operating Cost: White Lives" or depicting Antifa bringing death to a University followed by "Burn it all down!", or prolonged illegal sit ins from the conservative groups you mentioned. The only counterpoint you bring up, the Unite the Right rally by conservatives, did warrant legal intervention (which did happen) and additionally sparked changes to UVA's protest policies.
Additionally, "After the rally, UVA sent multiple letters to alumni, students, and faculty explicitly supporting the protestors’ speech." and saying they only decried violence "at points" seems extremely misleading to me as well. The entire point of those letters was to slam hate and violence! It's the free speech parts that are mentioned "at points". Compare that to what you link to under "university condemned Azher’s sign" -- Jim Ryan's post is almost the same format! He says he's disappointed in the message and execution but alas free speech. I could easily say he sent a letter "explicitly supporting the protestor's speech".
Finally, "UVA highlights pro-life clubs and events put on by Trump supporters, they fail to show similar support for progressive students" is egregiously incorrect. UVA highlights liberal causes all the time! All you have to do is open UVA Connection, or check out the 5000th new diversity office or diversity student space they're building.
In all you bring up UVA decisions on speech that in some cases I agree are missteps. But I don't think you build a strong case that UVA polices the left and touts the right.
Hi grady. Good post. I agree that institutions, (especially educational ones) should not back down when it comes to protecting speech, and I think it's largely in reaction to the terrible violence that occurred in 2017 that things have been tightened around demonstrations and many voices have been silenced. However I take issue with some of the posts sentiment, here you say "While at points the school decried the “hateful” ideology purported by rioters, at no point did they mention that the university permitted speech which eventually became violent" what do you mean that the speech became violent? Obviously the car attack is not speech. Were explicit threats made, or did people just feel threatened? Was there violent imagery like say, a grim reaper, or klu klux klan hood? I think my point is that speech that could be seen as "violent" by some may not be by others, and it's best not to trust clearly flawed institutions like UVA with the ability to silence anyone, lest they silence the good. Is the reduction of the school's mandate to silence speech something you would support, even if it meant that people like the racists who rallied in 2017 would be able to more easily express their abhorrent views? Or do you want to better align the current speech enforcement mechanisms with the values of progressive student body? Do you think that given the current muffling of progressive voices on campus that maintaining a system of restricting speech might kick the can down the road, enabling bad actors to capture and use such a regulatory body to do harm
Interested to hear your take,
-Connor, OfAllTrades