Fall is in the air in Charlottesville, students are back on Grounds at UVa, the Cavaliers are off to a strong start this season, and like clockwork the Cavalier Daily is once again filled with accusations of ignorance and racism and other heated and anguished reactions to another alleged hate crime of the sort that seems to afflict racial hothouse campuses like UVa with disturbing if predictable regularity.
Earlier this month someone inscribed the word “nigger” on the hood of fourth year student Amey Adkins’ car with what an AP story called “a sticky substance.” Although it is not certain where this vandalism occurred, it may have been in a parking area behind her room, like Daisy Lundy’s two years ago one of the coveted rooms on The Lawn.
Unlike with the Daisy Lundy alleged assault two years ago, this time the University community was slow to respond, which understandably frustrated Ms. Adkins. A guest columnist at the Cavalier Daily, she published the following comments several days after the incident was reported:
Just when we were ready to complacently forget the racial history of this University and laugh at the thought of racially motivated incidents, one happens. Have you heard about it? No? The fact that acts of malice and ignorance go heavily unnoticed in our community is almost as large a problem as the acts themselves.
….
The treatment of this incident frustrates me to the core. The gravity of this event was diminished and written off as isolated — an ahistorical analysis, at best…. Even after the FBI began to link my case with the alleged racial assault on Daisy Lundy two years ago, I still did not feel the administration was able to support my desire to share my story with the community.
….
After repeated demonstrations of racial aggression in our community, no precedent has been set for how to deal with those victimized or how to apprise the community of such events. Acts of this nature are not passive; they are deliberate, harmful assaults and must be treated as such. If the mindsets shown by what took place last week are truly the minority opinion, it is only appropriate to call such incidents to the whole community’s attention. Must we wait for someone to be physically harmed before our community can come together in support, or even be made aware of such bigotry?
This incident at the start of the school year could have easily been capitalized for its educational potential and used as a stepping stone for unity and awareness. However, I feel that without my pressing the issue, it will soon be forgotten and will remain unsubstantially acknowledged. If so, we can really begin the countdown to the next racial incident.
It didn’t take long for the University to swing into action. The Cavalier Daily, which had been criticized for ignoring or minimizing the incident, began devoting heavy coverage to the community’s, and its own, response. Patricia Lampkin, the UVa vice president for student affairs, issued a public apology for the administration’s lack of initial support. M. Rick Turner, Dean of All Things Black (aka Dean of African American Affairs) told students to be ever vigilant for examples of bigotry:
“You have been the butt of racial jokes and you have seen these and not said anything,” he said. “This is your university and you’ve got to stand up for these kinds of things.”
Meetings were held. Resolutions were passed. Flyers were posted on Grounds proclaiming “Nigger” and “Serial Racist.” Last Friday the Cavalier Daily reported on one of these meetings:
Hundreds of students, staff and faculty members from dozens of student organizations and University affiliations overflowed the Rouss Hall lecture hall last night at a town meeting sponsored by the Black Student Alliance.
One of the demands of the Black Student Alliance is “the full and complete integration of Diversity and Honor at the University of Virginia!”
Why is it that you can be expelled from the University for looking over at someone’s test or copying homework from an answer book, but not for committing a racially motivated assault or crime? Is being a racist and a bigot something that UVA supports? Can you still be honorable if you commit a hate act against a member of this community? Do we welcome this behavior? If the answer is no—then when will we refuse to tolerate these acts, and to allow these cowards to set the tone for race relations at our school?
The BSA’s demand has not been instantly accepted, the Cavalier Daily reported today that
the University’s sanctified Honor Committee took the first step towards what conceivably could become making acts of racial intolerance an Honor Code violation by voting overwhelmingly to endorse a statement condemning acts of discrimination and hate.
I can’t find the text of that statement online, but here is the text of that statement as it appeared today on the front page:
RESOLVED THAT the Honor Committee supports the following statement of ideals: Students, faculty, administrators and employees at the University of Virginia are members of a community of trust. This exceptional community actively pursues ideals of honor and integrity, standards of which we must all rise [sic] and to which we must be accountable. In the interactions of members in this community there should be a fundamental level of respect. We expect from each other a basic level of human decency. Acts of discrimination and acts of hate have no place at the University of Virginia . In the spirit of trust and honor, we must show no tolerance for egregious acts of ignorance that violate our community of trust.
It’s a good thing that “egregious acts of ignorance” are not (or not yet) an honor violation, because right next to article about the Honor Committee’s endorsing the above statement is a smug picture of Michael Moore above an article stating that the “9/11 Director May Visit U.Va. Before Nov. 2,” and that some UVa students are considering paying $50,000 for the privilege of hearing him. (If you go to the Cavalier Daily home page today or tomorrow, you can probably find a graphic image of today’s front page. Tomorrow, of course, you’d have to click on “previous issue.”)
Discussions may be in the works to bring filmmaker Michael Moore to the University as part of his “Slacker Uprising Tour,” according to Alex Thurber, University Programs Council speakers committee chair.
….
Although UPC typically pays between $10,000 and $20,000 for its highest-profile speakers, Moore’s agent requested $50,000 for the filmmaker’s visit. Thurber said such a bid would require UPC to receive sponsorship aid from other student organizations.
It’s not clear which is a more “egregious act of ignorance,” Fahrenheit 9/11 or for UVa students even to consider paying its creator $50,000.
There are no suspects so far in the incident involving Amey Adkins’ car. The police aren’t even certain that the vandalism occurred on University grounds. Indeed, since those who posit the pervasiveness of racism always gain so much vindication and support when these incidents occur, since many here still entertain doubts about Daisy Lundy’s claim of a racist assault two years ago, and since often these incidents are revealed to be frauds (search this site for many discussions of the Daisy Lundy affair and this site and others for the Kerri Dunn incident at Claremont McKenna), there will no doubt be at least an undercurrent of doubt whether this incident really was an actual case of vandalism. I have those doubts myself, but I nevertheless believe those doubts should be held at bay pending further investigation. Given the racially overheated atmosphere at UVa these days, it is certainly not inconceivable that this really was a case of racist vandalism.
State schools are quite wrong to create an entitled ignobility with special privileges to entrain state action against someone’s ideology, no matter what crime is committed at the same time, which is also part of the same action. There is not to be a special category for murders committed by Jews; how can there be one for believers in racism? The states are constitutionally forbidden to grant titles of privilege, such as would allow one race to call in state action of this kind, while the majority can’t.
I feel for all the U. Va. students with smashed windoiws and strolen car radios, who I’m sure are wishing that their cars had onlky had something unpleasant written on them in “a sticky substance”.
Talk about a tempest in a teapot. This overblown response trivialises real problems.
Here’s a red flag from her article: “This incident at the start of the school year could have easily been capitalized for its educational potential and used as a stepping stone for unity and awareness.”
I expected the next sentence to say that even if the incident didn’t actually happen it was still representative of conditions at UVA.
The “sticky substance” thing is also suggestive. I can’t imagine a vandal selecting honey or syrup as a more appropriate medium than painting or keying. On the other hand, I CAN imagine an activist wanting attention but being unwilling to permanently damage their property to get it.
Who knows though, maybe “sticky substances” have some sort of significance to racists that escapes the rest of us.
I’d like to see the police thoroughly investigate it, and if it is genuine, catch and punish the perp, but there are legitimate reasons to be slow to action.
I can get behind the expulsion of kids who write racist graffiti, if kids who are found to fake it get expelled too.
Laura,
Your comment is probably tongue in cheek, but such a policy would scare me to death. Can you imagine how fast the prohibited actions would expand?
Why would it?
(they)
Laura, seconded. mj, what do you mean, exactly?
As a UVA student, I’m genuinely alarmed when I hear that “ignorance” might get me expelled. Because of my conservative ideology, I have been told by a few fellow students that I am “ignorant.” It’s also been alluded that I’m a bigot for supporting President Bush. Don’t ask me how that all connects, because I have no clue.
The problem with the recent Honor amendment proposal is that there is no concrete standard and no concrete brightline which can be drawn in the sand that says, “This is ignorant, and this is not.” Who determines “ignorance”? The truth of the matter is, the people that will interpret this edict are the same people that find my views “ignorant.”
And there’s something also very important that needs to be said: I have no idea what went down with respect to Ms. Adkins and her car. The description of the racial incident is so vague as to leave open an infinite number of possibilities other than the one which is implied. I want to know exactly what is alleged to have happened in very descriptive detail if I am to be expected to make a fair judgement on the matter.
And let’s cut out the overreaction. It is important to condemn blatant and unjust prejudice, but the comdemnation has been used to justify things which have nothing to do with catching the perpetrator or stopping these incidents. I’m referring to the endless supply of “diversity” commissions, affirmative action programs, and increasingly “sensitive” philosophy which if anything promotes racial division and dislike by saying first that “yes, we are ridiculously different” and second that “if you have a certain skin pigmentation, you deserve lots of extra attention, help, and free stuff.”
I for one am not going to flip out because some idiot is running around with a pot of honey writing derogatory terms on people’s cars.
Laura said “I can get behind the expulsion of kids who write racist graffiti, if kids who are found to fake it get expelled too.’
She, and others, asked why I think such a ban would inevitably expand to include far more actions than those described.
What is “racist graffiti? Are we going to list certain prohibited words and limit the venue to walls and sidewalks? You may feel that sufficient, but campus politics make it more likely we’ll end up with a ban on “written hate speech”, or something similar.
Here’s how it would go:
You: I think we should limit the matter to “graffiti”.
Liberal Activist Professor: Why are you in favor of hate speech in other venues?
You: I think we should limit the ban to specific listed words.
LAP: Words and their meanings change constantly. The ban will be meaningless if it cannot take the living language into account.
There is a clear difference between what you want (or at least have thus far stated) and what the campus establishment wants. But in the struggle to establish such a ban most of the support is going to be for a wide definition. You can see this desire from the types of “hate speech” codes already in effect on college campuses.
If the result is a ban on “written hate speech”, how long would it take to threaten the college conservative reporter with expulsion for opposing race preferences? About as long as it would take him to write the column, I think. What if someone writes a column supporting David Horowitz’ criticism of reparations? When he placed an ad criticizing reparations in college newspapers his comments were attacked in many places as “hate speech”. If you knew this and “hate speech” was a punishable by expulsion, would you risk your university career by writing an article about it?
Even if you are somehow successful in limiting the matter to the sole issue you describe, how long do you think those limitations would last? The limits on the issue will become the campus hot-button issue for racial politics. This is the process by which students who desire a future in liberal activism prove their bona fides and ability to achieve goals, thus giving them a head start on developing a political career after graduation. As a result this expansion pressure will be both extreme and eternal. The next time there is a fake but unprovable or, god forbid, an actual racist event this will be the first item on the list to “save the campus”.
I simply don’t think the few instances of actual hate speech are worth the risk. I know many people won’t agree with this, but let me explain. As a libertarian I live with the constant knowledge that most of the country hates me. Lefties believe I’m a racist because I don’t want to administer a lie detector test to every soul in the country and send those that fail to reeducation camps. They also believe I desire to keep everyone except myself poor, apparently solely for my amusement and self-esteem.
Conservatives believe I’m an agent of satan because I don’t believe schools should be used to teach christianity. They also believe I want more people hooked on drugs because I don’t agree that governmental power should be used to make decisions for adults.
Yet despite being reviled by approximately 100% of the public, I manage to survive just fine.
Now, it is true that Joe Average can’t tell my politics by looking at me. I’ll also point out that this circumstance is true of homosexuals as well, but most people arguing for “hate speech” bans don’t consider that relevant in their case.
The relevant issue in my mind though is the result of the racist incidents we’re discussing punishing. Generally, how many people come out in support of whatever statement was made? Going out on a limb, I’m going to say zero. The effect is a huge public outcry and support for the targets, as it should be. The resulting knowledge for the “victims” is that some small number of fools don’t like them through no fault of their own, but the vast majority of people think those people are idiots.
We all know some people don’t like us, how important are the reasons? We also know the vast majority of people in this country are not only against racism but consider racists outside acceptable society. This circumstance is affirmed after any racist event, real or fake. This affirmation far outweighs the negative impact of a few kooks.
I apologize for the long post.
MJ,
>>>We also know the vast majority of people in this country are not only against racism but consider racists outside acceptable society. This circumstance is affirmed after any racist event, real or fake. This affirmation far outweighs the negative impact of a few kooks.
The unfortunate incident that occured at UVA is just one of the many crimes that have occured on the UVA campus. My daughter was sexually assaulted and the University administration did nothing to assist her, even though she could identify her rapist. Because of the recent publicity, the Black Student Alliance is now in a position to effect monumental change to the Honor Code. They can influence the administration to adopt the stand “Zero Tolerance for Crime” – I hope they seize this opportunity.
Visit http://www.uvavictimsofrape.com and decide for yourself
Perhaps Cobra has a point. It would have been more accurate to state that the vast majority of non blacks oppose racism, given the enthusiastic support in the A-A community for skin color preferences.
Cobra, your demand for polling data is curious, given the hundreds of statements, some extremely counterintuitive, that you routinely throw out in discussions without references.
My ‘guess’ is that this incident was committed by a hateful person, race unknown. I’m suspicious because of many past “acts of hate” that were found to have been committed by the victims themselves and even then celebrated as “fake but true”. Such reactions from authorities rewards, rather than punishes, the ignorant hatemongers that commit them. Maybe we should look to see who or what community benefits the most financially, academically and in terms of power on campus, as the result of this crime of hateful vandalism
Speech restrictions that apply only to one segment of the student population (and they are never applied equally) are discriminatory and just a play for power on campus. In the academic community where blacks are considered incapable of committing a racist act, what chance is there of increased punishments being applied fairly.
As an Honor Counsel at the University of Virginia (i.e., someone who deals with the Honor system on a regular basis representing the accused and accusers), I must say that there is a profound ignorance about what exactly we do and why. “A Concerned Parent” says that the the BSA could affect “monumental change to the Honor Code” by including crimes.
There is, however, already a University body charged with dealing with matters such is this. The University Judicary Committee (not to mention the University police) can investigate students, and can expel them, for both damage to a student’s property and personal assault. So the (totally factually incorrect) assertion that one could not be expelled for assault and vanadalism is just a bald-faced attempt to place blame on the Honor System for an unconnected event.
The fact of the matter is that the Honor Code exists for a specific purpose. The goal is to facilitate an atmosphere of trust, mostly with academic matters. If we were to be charged with investigating every assault on grounds, probably every student on Grounds would have to be recruited as a new support officer. Frankly, we have enough on our hands as it is.
I am choosing to withhold my name and email because I do not want my opinions expressed here to be misconstrued as the official word of the Honor System. I apologize for that.
A clarificaiton to my last post. I didn’t mean to imply that “A Concerned Parent” was either being intentionally misleading or lying about the Honor System. I meant those words about the attempts to redfine Honor to apply to the BSA, a group that I do indeed believe is cynically manipulating this situation with half-truths (at best).
1 – Nothing termed an “honor system” should have anything to do with sexual assaults. That’s what the police are for. And you don’t have to have the university’s permission to call them, either.
2 – mj, your statement “Conservatives believe I’m an agent of satan because I don’t believe schools should be used to teach christianity. They also believe I want more people hooked on drugs because I don’t agree that governmental power should be used to make decisions for adults.” is just silly. 100% of the public don’t hate you. They aren’t studying you. They have problems of their own.
laura:
I’m glad you thought they were silly, they were supposed to be. The liberal part wasn’t literal either. Neverthless, my point remains the same.
Well, sorry for the defective sense of humor. I’m glad you cleared that up.
HonorAtUVA,
If you feel like, please contact me and let me know more about the inner ranglings with the BSA and Honr. As an officer of the Individual Rights Coalition, I am heavily concerned with the free speech ramifications of making “egregious ignorance” punishable.
You can email me at email hidden; JavaScript is required, and be sure that I will keep your identity confidential.
UV is supposed to have smart people on their campus; but if all they’ve been able to come up with is such a well-poisoning ad hominem-type fallacious argument as; anyone who doesn’t want special hate-speech penalties must be a racist, may one not suspect that no rational argument is available for that position?
To HonorAtUVA:
On Sept 27. the Cavalier Daily printed the following headline:
HONOR ENDORSES ANTI-HATE STATEMENT
Resolution says hate has ‘no place’ on Grounds, Black Student Alliance supports Honor’s message
The article continues with:
“In response to the alleged racial hate crime against fourth-year College student Amey Adkins, the Honor Committee overwhelming voted to endorse a statement condemning acts of discrimination and hate at the University last night.”
… “The recommendation to bring the statement to the Honor Committee came from the Diversity Advisory Board and the Black Student Alliance. The two groups met Friday to discuss how the Honor Committee and other student leadership organizations could respond to acts of hate.”
“Diversity Advisory Board Chair Sara Page said the Honor Committee should actively endorse the statement because an offense of this nature goes against the ideals and principles of the community of trust.”
“Honor should take the symbolic step in putting it on the table and challenge the University with it,” Page told Committee members.”
“Isaac Agbeshie-Noye, Black Student Alliance vice president of networking, said the BSA wanted the Honor Committee to spearhead this initiative.”
“We think diversity and honor are two core values at U.Va., and this measure is a way to integrate them both,” Agbeshie-Noye said. “We think that it is equally a violation of the community of trust as lying, cheating or stealing.”
To have honor means you neither lie, cheat, nor steal. In a community of trust, that honor extends to insuring each member of the community is safe from harm. If you do not feel that racial hate or rape is an honor offense, then work to create a structure where crime is not tolerated. What stand do you think you would take if you knew that that an Honor Counsel member had been arrested for rape but had not yet gone to civil trial? Would that make a difference in your argument? It should – in my opinion that individual has lost the right, even if only temporarily, to be part of the honor system. You only have 4 years at the University, don’t waste it. Change must come from the students if it is to be effective. I can tell you from experience that the protocols you have in place do not work.
Laura – the police were called, but the University did nothing to investigate. Civil cases are not settled in a matter of days – it takes many months. Do you want a predator to remain on your campus? The answer should be no. There is no reason to tolerate deviant behavior, yet expel someone for cheating. It just doesn’t make sense.