UVa’s Lawn Signage Controversy Flares Anew

by James A. Bacon

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an organization dedicated to  defending freedom of expression and conscience on America’s college campuses, has sided with fourth-year student Hira Azher regarding her right to post political speech on the door of her room on the Lawn at the University of Virginia.

A new sign showed the grim reaper standing behind a hooded KKK figure and the Rotunda, along with a quote from Kwame Ture: “In order for non-violence to work your opponent must have a conscience,” and the words, “UVA HAS NONE,” and “BURN IT ALL DOWN.”

University leadership last week directed the Facilities Management Division to order Azher to take down the sign on the grounds that the phrase “burn it down” has the potential to provoke violence. “When free speech goes beyond mere advocacy of a particular point of view and directly promotes physical violence,” said the letter to Azher, “we can and will take action to restrict it.”

In a letter addressed to Gay Perez, assistant vice president of student affairs at UVa, FIRE’s Adam Steinbaugh argued that Azher’s words did not amount to incitement and that, therefore, UVa’s order to remove the sign violated the First Amendment.

The display does not evidence an intent to direct others to engage in lawless action. Political discourse has long been steeped in themes of violence. Azher’s display follows in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson — UVA’s founder and a principal author of what ultimately became the First Amendment. …

Azher’s display cannot reasonably be read as a literal call for lawless action, but would instead reasonably be read as figurative and hyperbolic political rhetoric advocating for systemic change. The rhetorical call to “burn down” an institution is an oft-deployed rhetorical device, not advocacy of imminent arson. UVA’s interpretation of Azher’s display would place Azher in the unlikely position of advocating that readers raze the building in which she sleeps.

Azher gained notoriety last fall for posting a sign on the door of her room on the Lawn that stated in large bold letters that could be read from afar, “FUCK UVA.” In response to an outcry by numerous alumni (including myself), the university administration defended her right to free expression. Political signs and posters were proliferating on Lawn doors and singling out Azher’s sign would constitute a First Amendment violation, argued the university counsel Tim Heaphy. However, the university re-wrote the terms and conditions of residence on the Lawn restricting signage to a size that would fit on bulletin boards assigned to each residence. The restrictions would apply to all residents equally.

When I visited UVa Sunday, I toured the full length of the Lawn around noon and did not see Azher’s sign — I can only presume that she complied with the university’s order to take it down. However, I did see clusters of political flyers posted on a dozen or more doors. One calls for justice for Breonna Taylor, the Louisville, Ky., woman shot during a police raid on the wrong address. Another demands justice for Xzavier Hill, an 18-year-old Charlottesville man, who was shot and leading police on a high-speed chase and drawing a stolen gun on them after he crashed.

A third flyer declares, “F*CK TIM LONGO: UVA’s chief of police is a racist pig piece of sh!t. … Longo is a scourge on the UVA and Cville communities, and we want him out! No apologies. No replacements. No more bastard kops.”

Bacon’s bottom line. Well… this is awkward. I serve on the board of The Jefferson Council, a group organized to protect Thomas Jefferson’s legacy (including the Rotunda and Lawn as a World Heritage Site), the Honor Code, and freedom of speech and expression at the University of Virginia. We have been concerned about the climate of intellectual conformity and intolerance in which students, especially conservatives, have been reluctant to speak openly about politically sensitive topics. Azher’s “FUCK UVA” sign was the trigger that got the movement going. Now an outside organization, FIRE, which has frequently stood up for conservative voices on college campuses, has intervened on her side.

So, how do we square the knot? How do we insist that Azher’s radical Leftist signs — and the political flyers of unknown authorship — have no place on the Lawn even while we decry the suppression of conservative viewpoints and defend free speech?

I speak for myself here, not for The Jefferson Council, which has not yet formulated a position.

FIRE is mistaken. Mr. Steinbaugh does not appear to be fully familiar with the controversy. No one is suppressing Azher’s right to free speech. She is free to express herself on Twitter all she wants (as in fact she has done). Or to post her views on Facebook. Or to publish her own website. Or to march and demonstrate, or to write letters to the Cavalier Daily. She will suffer no repercussions for expressing her views.

The limitation on her expression applies to all residents of the Lawn equally. She is not being singled out for the content of her speech, but the fact that she is violating the terms and conditions of her residence. As the landlord, UVa has the every right to regulate displays on Lawn doors.

The Lawn and Rotunda comprise a World Heritage Site, which is defined in Wikipedia as a “landmark or area with legal protection by an international convention administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).” Other World Heritage Sites range from the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France, to the Taj Mahal in India, the Statue of Liberty in New York to Mji Mkongwe, the old town of Zanzibar. World Heritage Sites are cultural treasures that should be maintained for the benefit of all mankind. It is axiomatic that tourists will come visit them — as they certainly do at the University of Virginia.

The U.N. publishes a manual, “Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites,” to provide guidance for how to manage the sites. The guidelines do not contemplate the display of profanity and paper flyers as occurs at UVa. The authors suggest that site managers should ensure that litter is cleaned up, but they do not address the issue of profanity or political flyers. It likely never occurred to them that authorities would allow the sites to be desecrated in the way the UVa has permitted!

It is the University’s job to maintain standards on the Lawn appropriate for a World Heritage Site. And that means imposing reasonable terms and conditions in residence contracts restricting the display of trashy paper fliers of any kind on Lawn doors, and especially the display of profanity that is disrespectful of the place.

All fliers on the Lawn should come down, no matter what political statements they convey. If Hira Azher wants to move to conventional student housing and plaster her door with signs, flyers and profanity, that is a different matter entirely. By no stretch of the imagination are the Old Dorms or New Dorms (or whatever they are called today) world heritage sites. Different standards may apply.

The University administration made a mistake justifying its order to Azher on the grounds that her poster might provoke violence. The rhetoric, though highly inflammatory, did not represent a call to arson. I agree with FIRE that such grounds are insufficient for compelling her to remove the signage.  

Now University administrators are confronted with the ugly paper flyers pasted on a dozen doors. They are political, they are profane, and they violate the university’s new policy restricting the size and placement of signage. But they contain no language than can be remotely interpreted as calling for violence. What will the university do now?


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

36 responses to “UVa’s Lawn Signage Controversy Flares Anew”

  1. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Petulant little children will be petulant little children. However, FIRE and Jim Bacon are right. There was no incitement to violence. The question of limiting the size of the signs on the doors is another matter. Designating the original grounds of The University of Virginia as a World Heritage Site is interesting and all but the US Constitution is more interesting, at least to me. Whether the administrators of UVa like it or not (and they don’t) the university is a part of the state government of the Commonwealth of Virginia. That means that the constitutional restrictions relating to “Congress shall make no law …” apply to it. I question whether limiting the size of the signs on the doors is an acceptable limitation on the First Amendment.

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Petulant little children will be petulant little children. However, FIRE and Jim Bacon are right. There was no incitement to violence. The question of limiting the size of the signs on the doors is another matter. Designating the original grounds of The University of Virginia as a World Heritage Site is interesting and all but the US Constitution is more interesting, at least to me. Whether the administrators of UVa like it or not (and they don’t) the university is a part of the state government of the Commonwealth of Virginia. That means that the constitutional restrictions relating to “Congress shall make no law …” apply to it. I question whether limiting the size of the signs on the doors is an acceptable limitation on the First Amendment.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The phrase “Congress shall make no law” – does NOT entitle one to “free speech” at any place or venue.

    Congress will make no law – but the owner of a building or venue or place CAN restrict your “free speech”.

    If you go to a BOS meeting, You will get 3 minutes and 3 minutes ONLY and ONLY when they say you can have your 3 minutes. If you stand up and start “exercising” your free speech at any time during the meeting, the nice deputy WILL escort you out.

    Ditto if you stand up in Church and start sharing your views.

    Do that in a court room or in the middle of a Walmart or a Doctors office…

    Do that in a restaurant or a funeral home… etc, etc, etc…

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Does this include the Capitol?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Does this include the Capitol?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Is that with or without deplorables?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Well, Hawley, Cruz, Johnson and Graham were there along with the rest of the 147 so “with” I guess.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Well, Hawley, Cruz, Johnson and Graham were there along with the rest of the 147 so “with” I guess.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Is that with or without deplorables?

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The phrase “Congress shall make no law” – does NOT entitle one to “free speech” at any place or venue.

    Congress will make no law – but the owner of a building or venue or place CAN restrict your “free speech”.

    If you go to a BOS meeting, You will get 3 minutes and 3 minutes ONLY and ONLY when they say you can have your 3 minutes. If you stand up and start “exercising” your free speech at any time during the meeting, the nice deputy WILL escort you out.

    Ditto if you stand up in Church and start sharing your views.

    Do that in a court room or in the middle of a Walmart or a Doctors office…

    Do that in a restaurant or a funeral home… etc, etc, etc…

  5. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    A former student told me about that sign last night. It looks like middle school art to me.

  6. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    A former student told me about that sign last night. It looks like middle school art to me.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    First thing to understand – no venue guarantees one the “right” to exercise your free speech – not even government-owned or government-funded pubic venues and spaces.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      No, but it’s so much fun to watch these “strict Constitutionalist” Conservatives squirming on how to stop inflammatory speech by a college senior while justifying Trump’s Fight Song.

      Things will be soooo much fun with Gov. Amanda.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      No, but it’s so much fun to watch these “strict Constitutionalist” Conservatives squirming on how to stop inflammatory speech by a college senior while justifying Trump’s Fight Song.

      Things will be soooo much fun with Gov. Amanda.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Happy FOIA Day, all y’all.

    “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” — Guess Who

  9. If Donald Trump had used such a phrase, it would have been interpreted as a literal admonition to start setting blazes everywhere.

  10. If Donald Trump had used such a phrase, it would have been interpreted as a literal admonition to start setting blazes everywhere.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      TRUMP is OVER. And he did not say ONE THING – he said the essentially same thing on Twitter for MONTHS but you guys apparently don’t see the difference, eh?

      Why are you STILL harping on TRUMP if you said earlier you LOATHED him? What gives?

      1. I’m just using Trump to highlight double standards.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          He used the word “fight” 20 times to a crowd chanting “Fight for Trump” before directing them to the Capitol.

          If “fight” ain’t a “fighting word”, what is?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            And before that at most every one of his so-called rallies and on Twitter almost every day.

            some “double-standard” !

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            And before that at most every one of his so-called rallies and on Twitter almost every day.

            some “double-standard” !

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          He used the word “fight” 20 times to a crowd chanting “Fight for Trump” before directing them to the Capitol.

          If “fight” ain’t a “fighting word”, what is?

      2. I’m just using Trump to highlight double standards.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      TRUMP is OVER. And he did not say ONE THING – he said the essentially same thing on Twitter for MONTHS but you guys apparently don’t see the difference, eh?

      Why are you STILL harping on TRUMP if you said earlier you LOATHED him? What gives?

  11. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    Simple solution… like the student says… burn it all down.
    I can’t wait to see who they think comes into power after it “all burns”.
    The students are taught such ideas in class at UVA and then UVA get pissy when the students turn it against them and their temples of “proper” whiteness… it is truly delicious. Don’t tie your bowties too tight Wypipo.

  12. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Happy FOIA Day, all y’all.

    “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” — Guess Who

  13. Walter Hadlock Avatar
    Walter Hadlock

    It sounds, and looks like, Hira Azher really needs to sign up for multiple sessions of an anger management class. I respectfully disagree that “burn it all down” is not an incitement to violence. It only takes one person to take the request literally.

  14. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Government cannot regulate the content of speech. However, it can regulate the “time, place, and manner” of speech. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1023/time-place-and-manner-restrictions

    Therefore, the answer is simple for UVa–enforce the prohibition of any sign on the doors. I agree that the “burn it down” reference is not an incitement to violence. I don’t understand why the university officials wanted to get into that briar patch, when they could have just cited the prohibition on all signs. The answer may be that the all-sign prohibition is not applicable until next year when the new Lawn contracts are in force.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I agree. A lot of these kerfuffles are really about time/place not the “content”.

  15. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    I thought that UVA already had restrictions on the size of signage (but not on content) in their housing contracts before Ms. Azher’s outburst last fall.

  16. StarboardLift Avatar
    StarboardLift

    Advice to Ms Hira: don’t ever move into a home with an HOA.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Indeed. The “free speech” issue for the American Flag and HOA has raged…. at times…

  17. Paul Schubert Avatar
    Paul Schubert

    Just so I understand…this child a few years ago made the choice, the effort, and application to the school and someone on her behalf funded her education. Yet she acts like something is owed to her and makes every indication that she would rather be somewhere else.
    As a parent, and if she was my child, I would have brought her home along time ago.

Leave a Reply