Cultivating the Next Generation of Fragile Weaklings

by James A. Bacon

The painting of graffiti on Beta Bridge on Rugby Road is one of the great traditions of the University of Virginia. I still recall my first encounter with the bridge as a first-year student at the University in 1971. Someone from Washington & Lee had spray-painted the phrase, “Wahoos are Goobers.” The practice of bridge-painting is even more ancient and hoary than me, dating back to 1901. There are no rules governing the painting, much of which occurs in the dark of night. Your message lasts only as long it takes for the next guy to slap another layer over it. According to Wikipedia, the bridge is painted on average about five times weekly.

Messages on the bridge cause offense from time to time. But the prevailing philosophy is that the structure is a public forum where the only response to objectionable speech is more speech. As such, Beta Bridge is a fascinating window into the culture of the university community.

In the latest flapdoodle at UVa, the secret SABLE society had painted a message to raise awareness of the difficulties faced by black transgender women, who are murdered at rate roughly four times that of “cis” females. In big bold letters, the society painted the phrase, Protect Black Trans Women.” Then, to the distress of many, someone came along and spray painted over the message: “2A” and’ GUNS.” 2A presumably refers to the Second Amendment and is tied to the movement among counties and towns in Virginia to declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries.

The University administration’s response started out with an appropriate gesture to free speech: Said spokesperson Brian Coy in a statement:

Beta Bridge is a long recognized public forum that may on occasion cause controversy or disagreement about the messages expressed or the intentions of individuals who choose to paint the bridge. We hope that community members will continue to honor this long-standing tradition of public expression in a way that respects every member of this community and the viewpoints they bring to Grounds.”

Coy went on to acknowledge the concerns of black trans women and read something sinister into the 2A graffiti.

We recognize that people, particularly black trans women, feel demeaned or threatened by this message and the way it appeared on Beta Bridge. We also recognize that black trans women are among one of the most vulnerable populations in our country.

Anyone who felt “impacted” by the 2A graffiti, he added, could enlist the resources of Counseling and Psychological Services, the Faculty Employee Assistance Program, the LGBTQ Center, and the Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights’ Gender Diversity Resources.

Blake Hesson, president of the Queer student Union, said the incident, in the words of the Cavalier Daily student newspaper, “speaks to a wider problem where hateful messages are directed towards marginalized people around the University.” Said Hesson:

This speaks to something that’s continued and probably will continue but I think this is where the University should come in and say what kind of things should be allowed, and how we should respect and respectfully disagree, even though I don’t think you can really disagree with a human being and [how their identity informs how they live their lives].

Bacon’s bottom line:

OK, let’s all put a paper bag over our heads and breathe deeply until we stop hyper-ventilating.

People are jumping to the conclusion that spray painting “2A” and “GUNS” over the previous slogan, “Protect Black Trans Women,” is directed at black trans women — this on a bridge that is repainted on average about five times a week.

To me, it looks like someone came along and simply spray painted their own message on top of the old message. But I’m open to the idea that I’m naive. Perhaps readers more imaginative than I can explain how the “2A” and “GUNS” interacts with the words “Protect Black Trans Women” in order to produce an intelligible statement of any kind.

If scribbling “2A” and “GUNS” on Beta Bridge constitutes a threat to anyone, it is the subtlest, most indirect threat I have ever seen — a signal so muted that only those with the most exquisite antenna can detect it.

I am willing to posit that the predicament of black trans women is as dire as portrayed — perhaps not in Seattle, where a black transgender stripper was hired with taxpayer money to perform at a homeless conference, but in other more retrograde parts of the country such as the People’s Republic of Charlottesville. Apparently, of the 27 trans women murdered in 2016 nationally, a majority were “women of color.” But is the predicament of black trans women on the University of Virginia grounds so precarious that they or their sympathizers would be triggered to seek psychological counseling?

Permit me to make the white cis male observation that maybe, just maybe, treating black trans women at UVa as delicate hot-house flowers with the most fragile of psyches is not the way to prepare them for the real world. They are likely to encounter far worse than “2A” messages, and they need to toughen up. There used to be a school of thought in this country that overcoming adversity makes one stronger. Today, the prevailing philosophy (on college campuses at least) is to render protected groups more vulnerable and more delicate.

A stated ambition of the UVa strategic plan is to educate the next generation of global leaders. It looks more like it is cultivating the next generation of fragile weaklings.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

12 responses to “Cultivating the Next Generation of Fragile Weaklings”

  1. Under Teresa Sullivan began institution-creep, and it continues. The University has boundary distortion; it no longer knows where it begins and ends. Beta Bridge – not University property. People disturbed by things in the world that they see – not the University’s responsibility.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    What I read is that hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.

    And in theory, the most vile “speech” is allowed and in my mind can
    push most people’s limits on what they consider as “fragile”.

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/6629489_f520.jpg

  3. Fred Woehrle Avatar
    Fred Woehrle

    It’s actually not clear that transgender people are murdered at a higher rate than non-trans people. Here is an argument that the murder rate is similar for transgender and cisgender people:

    https://quillette.com/2019/12/07/are-we-in-the-midst-of-a-transgender-murder-epidemic/

    1. Thanks for that reference. I suspected that to be the case — I just didn’t want the side issue to district from my main point. Still, it’s a point worth making: Much of what passes for truth in higher ed today is bunkum…. like the alleged “rape epidemic.”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Just want to point out that they are hardly an objective source. They are opponents of the current… they are an “alt” group –

        ” Quillette (/kwɪˈlɛt/) is an online magazine founded by Australian journalist Claire Lehmann. The publication has a primary focus on science, technology, news, culture, and politics. It is associated with the “intellectual dark web””

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web

        I’m not marginalizing them nor their views – just pointing out that they are an opposition group.

        1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
          Reed Fawell 3rd

          “It is associated with the “intellectual dark web””

          Total nonsense.

        2. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
          Reed Fawell 3rd

          Here is your “intellectual dark web:”

          “Study: Bullying rates at Virginia middle schools were higher in Trump country after his election
          By Valerie Strauss
          Jan. 9, 2019 at 8:16 p.m. EST

          In spring 2017, not long after President Trump took office, bullying rates among Virginia middle school students were 18 percent higher in places where voters had chosen Trump over Hillary Clinton, a study says.

          There were no meaningful differences in bullying and teasing rates between Democratic and Republican localities before the 2016 election. But a statewide sample of more than 155,000 seventh- and eighth-grade students across Virginia’s 132 school districts suggested a correlation between voter preference and the rise in bullying after Trump was inaugurated.

          The findings support reports by teachers nationwide about a rise in student bullying after the election, but this shows that the increase, at least in Virginia, was seen in Trump country.

          The research, conducted by professors at the University of Missouri and the University of Virginia and published online Wednesday in a peer-reviewed journal, does not blame Trump specifically for the rise. But it says: It is obviously difficult to demonstrate a causal link between statements by a public figure and schoolyard bullying. Nevertheless, there are incidents in which youth made threats and jeering statements that closely matched language used by President Trump. Such incidents are suggestive of the social learning model of aggression and classic studies showing how easily children model the aggressive behavior of adults.

          Co-author Dewey Cornell, an education professor at the University of Virginia, said in a statement:

          “While the ways in which the presidential election could have affected students is likely complex, educators and parents should be aware of the potential impact of public events on student behavior. Parents should be mindful of how their reactions to the presidential election, or the reactions of others, could influence their children. And politicians should be mindful of the potential impact of their campaign rhetoric and behavior on their supporters and indirectly on youth.”

          Cornell conducted the study with Francis Huang, an associate professor of statistics, measurement and evaluation in education at the University of Missouri. It was published online in Educational Researcher, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association.

          They found that a 10-percentage-point increase in voters supporting Trump was associated with a 5 percent jump in middle school teasing because of race or ethnicity and an 8 percent increase in middle school bullying.

          The study took into account several locality-wide variables, including prior bullying and teasing rates, socioeconomic status, population density and the percentage of white student enrollment, the report said …”

          see https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/01/10/study-bullying-rates-virginia-middle-schools-were-higher-trump-country-after-his-election/?noredirect=on

  4. Atlas Rand Avatar

    James,
    I hope in your writing you would refrain from the nomenclature used in this piece. Language is power, and lends itself to the normalization of alternative and wrong realities. The use of the prefix cis before referencing a male or female is particularly insidious, given that it is a made up descriptor that simply reinforces that you’re talking about a man or woman who is a man or woman, as though there is any other way to be that does not encompass some sort of psychological ailment. When you use the words of the activists, you normalize their radical viewpoints and lend your at least tacit acceptance of their point of view.

    1. Point well taken. That’s why I put “cis” in quotes — it’s an unfamiliar usage to the vast majority of people. Still, I get your point.

      1. How dare we address people by their preferences. Maybe we should go back to some of those simpler terms us white men used a hundred years ago.

        Or, just stick to the golden rule, and do unto others…

    2. I think that, in a discussion about transgender matters, cis can be useful simply to keep straight who is on first, so to speak.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” When you use the words of the activists, you normalize their radical viewpoints and lend your at least tacit acceptance of their point of view.”

    Yup – and it goes to both extremes…

    We spend time focusing on extremes and claiming they represent the middle – it’s simply not the reality – but it does serve to divide people further.

    Why?

    We used to dismiss the left/right radicals and focus on reasonable and still debateable things. Now.. we want to blow it up … we’re not really interested in finding a middle.

Leave a Reply