University of Virginia Library

Stuart Pape

Repressive Legislation

It was bound to happen. No
self-respecting state legislature
could fail to respond to student
disturbances and demonstrations
without passing some sort of
repressive, marginally constitutional
legislation. The Virginia House of
Delegates didn't let us down, nor
lose its self-respect.

Last week it passed a bill which
makes it a misdemeanor for any
person, student or otherwise, who
is ordered off of the grounds of any
university or college by law
enforcement officials or college
administrators to reenter the
grounds. No trial, no hearing, no
immediate redress.

The bill's sponsor made little if
any attempt to conceal the
motivating force. He referred to the
actions which occurred in
Charlottesville last Spring in
response to the Cambodian invasion
and the Kent State and Jackson
State murders, a topic about which
he is undoubtedly ran expert.
Much to the sponsor's dismay, the
University administration ordered
the State Police off the Grounds
the morning after the arrest of the
68 individuals, some participators
in the Strike, others clearly
bystanders.

The removal of the police from
the University at that time was
essential to avoid further trouble
and reassert University control over
the situation. This new bill would
have prevented such action, for the
police could effectively maintain
predominance over the situation by
discriminately or indiscriminately
ordering students, or anyone for
that matter, off the University
property. If that had occurred last
Spring, and it seems likely that the
State Police would have welcomed
such authority gladly, there is no
telling what might have resulted.

Free Use Of Force

It certainly would have been
difficult for calm to prevail as it
ultimately did. The situation was
volatile with 68 innocent people
just having been arrested and
hoards of arrest-anxious police
surrounding the University and the
City. It was manifestly imperative
that the school, its students,
faculty, and administrators regain
control if the continuance of the
peaceful and constructive protest
was to be maintained along those
lines - peaceful and constructive.

It almost goes without saying
that one of the primary problems
with police and National Guard
troops who are called out to deal
with campus demonstrations is that
they are given too much of a free
hand. Instead of being limited
severely in the exercise of force and
massive arrest available to them, the
police and Guard operate with a
minimum of restrictions. Here, the
result was only the arrest of 68
individuals. Those at Kent State
and elsewhere were not so
fortunate.

Once given the type leeway
that this new piece of legislation
provides the authorities, and it is
interim suspension only worse,
there will be no recourse if and
when it is abused, other than
maintaining its unconstitutionality
when brought to trial.

The details of a little-known
meeting with the Attorney General
of Virginia, Andrew Miller which
occurred last May will illustrate this
point. After the mass arrest of the
68, a small group, representing a
cross-section of people, some
involved with the Strike from the
start and others only from the time
that the police entered the foray,
met with Mr. Miller in Richmond to
discuss what appeared to those of
us at the meeting to be a clear
abuse of the authority of the
police. We came armed with
multitudes of signed affidavits and
of course our own personal
experiences.

Attorney General Skeptical

One after another we described
some aspect of the police action.
The response was the same each
time. Either the Attorney General
or his assistant would assume a look
of total disbelief and pose questions
for us which were little more than
slightly veiled attacks on our
willingness to adhere to the truth.

What was it that we wanted?
The immediate indictment of scores
of police? The firing of the State
Police Chief? A complete and
unequivocal apology from the
Attorney General? No, merely a
promise to look into the situation
in depth and possibly to conduct an
investigation of the events that had
transpired during those few days in
May. All we wanted was an
opportunity to be heard.

Our naivete must have
overwhelmed the Attorney General.
He must deal with the State Police
on a regular basis and was clearly
not about to enter into a tense
situation when he could easily
remain out of the ballgame.
Especially when the request to do
something came from a group of
college students and a Catholic
priest!

Secondly, any officer holder
with ambition for higher political
office, as one may assume Mr.
Miller is, would be foolhardy to
enter into a politically sensitive if
not unpopular endeavor. One might
suspect that the majority of the
people of Virginia would not look
with much favor upon an
investigation of the police, unless to
determine why they acted with
such restraint.

Disappointment

We left the meeting with Mr.
Miller with justifiable
disappointment, but at least wiser
in the ways of world for our visit to
Richmond. We would know better
than to expect to find a
sympathetic ear when the actions
of law enforcement officials were
being questioned.

Neither the University of
Virginia, the State Police, nor the
people of this State need a bill
which authorizes the kind of
abusive action that this new bill
does. The type of legislation that is
needed will provide more money
for the University to improve the
library, add classroom space, hire
more teachers, build more
dormitories and so forth. If the
legislature is so concerned about
the police, how about giving them
more modern training? It was only
recently that training movies made
during the days of Joe McCarthy
were discarded. Repressive
legislation with no constructive
purpose isn't going to prevent
another outbreak if the conditions
warrant it.

Full-Time Lobbyist

It might be useful to consider
the hiring of a full-time lobbyist to
present the student point of view to
the legislature. There seems to be no
other way at the present time to
attempt to insure that those parties
with so much say with regard to the
future of this University are
exposed to the point of view of
that group or class least represented
in the higher councils where the
decisions are made.

The hiring of a lobbyist would
in no way be a panacea, in fact the
difficulties in even agreeing on the
hiring of one might be
insurmountable, but the potential
benefits would be worth the effort.