University of Virginia Library

Consistent Rules

Remember the Columbia Riots? Sure you
do. And at that time many people were saying
that it could never happen at Virginia. But
recent events at the University are very similar
to the events leading up to the Columbia
protests. So similar that it is indeed well
worth it to draw some parallels.

On February 20, John Herring, director of
Newcomb Hall and sponsor of the Artist's
Series, ordered the removal of Tom Gardner
and Al Long from the lobby of University
Hall. Mr. Gardner and Mr. Long were
distributing copies of The Virginia Weekly to
patrons of the Alvin Ailey Dance Theater
which was about to perform. According to
Mr. Gardner, Mr. Herring told him that he was
"obstructing the entrance to the hall." He also
explained that the lessor of University Hall
has the right to set up his own rules of
conduct during the period of the lease. When
Mr. Gardner and Mr. Long refused to leave,
Mr. Herring sent for the University security
police.

Last week, Vice President for Student
Affairs, D. Alan Williams announced new
guidelines for the distribution of literature
and leaflets at University Union sponsored
events in University Hall. These new rules
allow the distribution of literature in the area
from the entrance doors to the ticket stiles
providing it is done in a manner which does
not disrupt the event in progress and does not
physically interfere with or harass those who
are attending the event.

All of this is well and good. But there are
two bones of contention. First, the rules state
that the Dean of Student Affairs or any other
person designated by the President may ask
any students who engage in conduct that is
inconsistent with these provisions to leave.
Secondly, the code only applies to University
Union events held in University Hall.

What does this have to do with the
Columbia Riots of April 1968? Although this
is not Columbia, parallel circumstances are
evident. One of the basic causes of the
Columbia protests, according to the Cox
Commission Report, was the inconsistency of
the administration to enforce University rules
pertaining to protests. In those rules, the
administration at Columbia had banned any
indoor protests. But it had then failed to
enforce those rules with any consistency. At
times, the administration would do nothing
about any indoor protests. Suddenly however,
the administration decided to enforce the
rules at one protest by the SDS and suspended
four students for their activities. One of the
major complaints by the students from
Columbia protests was this inconsistency in
the enforcement of University regulations.

The University is indeed not Columbia.
The student body in Charlottesville is not half
as politically active as the student body at
Columbia. But the University's student body
is changing. Someday, the prevailing atmosphere
of apathy may die.

If we are to learn anything from Columbia,
let it be this: consistency in enforcement of
rules. As it stands now, anyone appointed by
the President can ask the students to desist in
their activities. But what if the President fails
to announce who has this power in each major
activity? Also, what if the President appoints
this power to more than one person? Different
people may have different points of view as to
what is "disrupting the event" or "harassing"
others. If we want to avoid later problems, the
administration should categorically specify
who will make these decisions.

The same point of consistency applies to
where the event takes place. Where can
students distribute literature in other places
than University Hall? And what about events
in University Hall that are not sponsored by
the University Union? Although the different
facilities on the Grounds have different
entranceways and structures, the rules should
be made clear as to where and how students
can distribute literature in all of the larger
University facilities. Otherwise, the administration
is leaving the way open for future
problems.