University of Virginia Library

Kevin Mannix

Catch-22: Alive And Well At University

Recent events involving the
University administration, our
Security Department, and the
County and City courts bring
to mind the Catch-22 approach
of this University's
administration. There are
several factors involved.

Students did not want a
University-imposed code of
conduct for students. Such a
code was rejected by students
in a referendum last year.
Students voted instead to
approve a code of conduct
prepared by students
themselves.

In answer to this, the
University administration
claimed that a code with strong
provisions was necessary to
keep city, county, and state
nasties and blue meanies, from
blithely arresting students,
since the University could talk
officials into letting the Code
cover many offenses.

A parallel issue was that of
Security Police carrying
firearms. In May of 1970
students voted 4,901 to 2,222
in favor of the proposition that
Edgar Shannon "prohibit
University police from carrying
firearms." In response, the
University turned again to the
possibility of local police
coming onto the Grounds.

In conversations with this
writer, University officials
stressed that it was necessary
that Security Police carry
firearms because they were
deputized by the city and the
county. This system of having
police deputized supposedly
would allow the University to
have control over its officers
and would allow the Grounds
to be kept free from outside
police interference, since we
hired our own police.

When the issues of the
student opposition to an
administration- imposed code
of conduct and the student
opposition to Security Police
carrying firearms are joined, the
Catch-22 propositions takes
hold. Here they are:

We must have a code of
conduct imposed by the
administration in order to
satisfy local police that law and
order reign supreme on the
Grounds and local intervention
is unnecessary. Citizen control
(i.e. student control) of the
code of conduct would lead to
the problem of local police
coming on to the Grounds
because they would not trust

any system of justice
developed by the students.

Catch-22: County
Commonwealth's Attorney
Charles Haugh doesn't seem to
trust the system created by the
administration either, as he
wanted to hold a court hearing
on it. So we have a
University-imposed code of
conduct and local officials
willing to step in. We catch it
both ways.

Our security police must
carry firearms because they are
deputized (a statement of legal
opinion I don't entirely accept,
but I'll let that pass for now).
They are deputized so that
local police won't come on to
the Grounds and so the
administration will have
control of the police at the
University.

Catch-22: Because they are
deputized, our security police
are under control of the city
(and formerly the county)
court, and therefore the
Commonwealth's Attorney.
What this means is that the
bankruptcy of this University
administration's policies
regarding Security is now
evident.

We deputized our Security
police so we could control
them and keep outside officials
from controlling our police at
the same time. It turns out that
by deputizing them we have
had to put up with police
carrying firearms on the
Grounds and the police are
ultimately under the control of
outside officials!

In addition, as a result of
last weekend's deal, we have
the worst of all possible
worlds: the University is in the
County, so we are ultimately
under County police
jurisdiction. Since our police
are no longer deputized by the
County, any time the County
is unhappy it could decide to
cover the Grounds on its own.
Yet our Security Police are
now deputized by
Charlottesville (while none of
the University is in the City)
with an extension of one mile
jurisdiction beyond the city.

This means we still have
police with
criminal-investigative (i.e.
arresting) powers, but we also
have police who supposedly
must carry firearms. So,
University police still carry
guns while the main reason
proposed for that power
("keep outside police
off-Grounds") no longer exists.

Returning to the Code of
Conduct, we find that it, too,
is ineffectual. Ron Colbert, a
black student, was arrested by
Security Officer Walter Chaffin
on what are now termed
charges of "cursing and
abusing" a police officer.

Why wasn't Mr. Colbert
charged with a Code of
Conduct offense? This is just
the situation which is supposed
to be covered by the code, and
the goal of preventing arrest
was not reached. Was it
because Mr. Colbert would be
charged before the student-run
Judiciary Committee?

Obviously, if Mr. Chaffin
wanted to harass Mr. Colbert
the best way was via an arrest.
Therefore, we have another
Catch-22: having a code of
conduct to prevent outside
police action will not work so
long as we have a deputized
police force of our own (also
intended to prevent outside
control).

By their deputization, our
Security Police can ignore the
conduct code and arrest
someone whenever they feel
like it—and the University
cannot do anything officially
about the arrest. It is "outside"
our control!

Does all this sound
complicated? It is. I'm not
even sure I understand it. Here
are a few simplifying
thoughts: In order to prevent
outside control of discipline at
the University, the University
deputized our police force so
they could do all the arresting
on the Grounds. The
University also promulgated a
code of conduct so it could
keep students in line.

Unfortunately, because they
are deputized, ultimate control
of our Security Police rests
with court officials instead of
University officials. And,
because they are deputized and
ultimately responsible to
outside officials, Security
Police are free to ignore the
Code of Conduct and arrest
students (and faculty and staff,
too! How do you folks like
that?).