More Nitwittery at UVA
by James A. Bacon
Ben Doherty, a librarian for the University of Virginia School of Law, was arrested in May during the break-up of the pro-Palestinian encampment, one of 26 detained after defying repeated orders to disband. The trespassing charges against him were dropped, and he suffered no administrative sanction from UVA itself. But he’s still posing as a victim.
Doherty’s beef: the law school sent him a “letter of counseling” saying that “future conduct of this kind … will very likely result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.”
UVA insisted to The Daily Progress that the letter was not a disciplinary action. Indeed, it detailed no consequences for anything Doherty had done, but gave him fair warning of potential consequences for what he might do in the future.
Still, Doherty interpreted the letter as an effort to “chill” his freedom to protest. “To me, it’s a written threat of termination for participating in a protest,” he told the newspaper. “It feels pretty material to me. I think they are using the idea that it’s not a disciplinary action to get away with not following the law.”
Doherty felt his rights so threatened that he and some 30 others marched with impunity down the Lawn last week toward Madison Hall, site of President Jim Ryan’s office, proclaiming loudly, “Pro… test is a right! That is why we have to fight!”
The chanting nitwits were protesting that UVA was repressing their right to do what they were manifestly doing and UVA was allowing them to do. (See my post about the protest-is-a-right slogan.) The difference this time compared to May is that they had not erected a tent encampment in violation of University rules, hadn’t interfered with administrative efforts to take the tents down, and hadn’t defied repeated orders to disassemble.
If you don’t break the rules, you can protest all you want.
That nuance was totally lacking in the Daily Progress article, which evinced no skepticism about Doherty’s posturing. The newspaper did quote Brie Gertler, vice provost of academic affairs, as explaining that the letter was not a disciplinary action. “It is not intended to be disciplinary at all. There are no material consequences,” she said. “The purpose of it is not to discipline. The purpose of it is to convey expectations about either conduct or performance.”
“You can say it’s not a disciplinary action all you want, but it clearly is an attempt to chill my right to protest,” Doherty responded, according to the newspaper. “They are written threats that assure me if I participate in protest again, I will face disciplinary action up to and including termination.”
I question Doherty gave an accurate depiction of the letter’s contents. He provides no context for what UVA meant by refraining from “conduct of this kind.”
What specific kinds of conduct was the letter alluding to? Participating in protests, which he is entitled to do… and has been permitted to do without sanction? Or committing trespass, defying orders to disperse or otherwise violating UVA’s codes of conduct? The article fails to address this obvious question.
The Ryan administration hews to many policies and practices that I object to. But in my observation, UVA’s bureaucrats are punctilious about observing the letter of its rules, regulations and the law. If any bias exists, it’s against transgressors of “progressive” orthodoxy, not village radicals like Doherty.
What Doherty seems to want is the untrammeled right not just to protest, but to violate University rules governing the time, manner, and place of protests and demonstrations and suffer no consequences.