University of Virginia Library

Banning The Ban

The announcement yesterday by Vice
President for Student Affairs D. Alan Williams
that the University would lift its
three-week-old ban on flag-waving at athletic
contests seemed to come as the concluding
episode in one of the more dreamlike
controversies to arise here in memory.

The decision by University officials to
rescind the ban followed an adverse opinion
by Virginia Attorney General Andrew Miller,
which advised that the regulation amounted
to "prior restraint on First Amendment
rights" to freedom of expression and was
unconstitutional. Mr. Miller's opinion cited a
1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an Iowa
case, which overturned a decision by school
officials to prohibit students from wearing
arm bands-a step they took for fear of
trouble.

The high court ruling then held that mere
fear that something might happen is not
sufficient cause "to overcome the right of free
expression. Any departure from absolute
regimentation may cause trouble," the
decision continued. "Any variation from the
majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any
word spoken in class, in the lunchroom or on
the campus that deviates form the views of
another person may start an argument or
cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says
we must take this risk."

Mr. Miller concluded that school officials
cannot suppress the expression of feelings
(with) which they do not wish to contend.
Further, he advised the University to drop
charges against several students who displayed
a banner, which read "STOP EXPANSION,"
at a football game following the ban on flags.

Mr. Williams said that the University
would continue to discourage spectators at
football games from engaging in acts of
provocation. However, as Dean of Students
Robert Canevari has pointed out, there is
little beside "moral persuasion" that an
official on the scene of a potential disturbance
has to wield.

Mr. Canevari, who more than once has
played a principle role in averting trouble
involving the Confederate flag, said of the
situation which arose at the Duke game: "It
would probably have had to go a little further
for me to act, as things now stand." He
meant, of course, that the authority of an
official to intervene would exist only in the
event of violence.

Hence there is little else to be said. We can
only repeat what we wrote a couple of weeks
ago: If the Confederate flag appeals to you as
a symbol of freedom, consider how it may
affect the sensibilities of others. If it strikes
you as offensive, enquire into the possibility
that there may be larger battles to fight than
those of a century ago-and more important
victories.