Table of Contents
Meet the thin-skinned college Grinches silencing students of VUU-ville
Holiday cheer is all around, but that hasn鈥檛 stopped Grinchy colleges from sporting a frown.
For 25 years, FIREhas been closely tracking efforts by universities to stymie student speech through onerous policies and codes of conduct. Perched angrily atop , grumpy administrators have scolded students for 鈥渁ggressive鈥 pointing, dressing up in costume, and even telling their own life stories.
And now, according to the acrimonious administrators at Virginia Union University, statements 鈥渉armful or damaging to the university鈥檚 reputation鈥 or that undermine 鈥渢he university or its values鈥 are not to be tolerated. These Grinches need to ditch their thin, green skin and allow the students of VUU-ville to freely express themselves.
As a private school, VUU certainly talks a good game about protecting students鈥 freedom of expression. The university that enrolled students enjoy 鈥渢he rights of freedom of expression and belief, freedom of association and peaceful assembly,鈥 and to 鈥渇ostering an educational environment that allows for freedom of speech and expression in accordance with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.鈥
Unfortunately, these lofty promises shrank 鈥溾 when Richmond鈥檚 CBS 6 News on Oct. 29 detailing concerns raised by VUU students about the alleged lack of police presence on campus.
A hoopla descended on VUU-ville, and administrators promptly told students that dissent would not be tolerated. In an email sent shortly after the story was published, the university Grinches made clear that 鈥渟tatements made that are harmful or damaging to the university鈥檚 reputation鈥 violate the school鈥檚 . Also on the no-go list: 鈥渟peech that undermines the university or its values.鈥
This policy doesn鈥檛 mention the restrictions listed in the school鈥檚 email, but troublingly : 鈥淧ersons desiring to publicize events or otherwise release information about the University must first contact the Office of University Relations.鈥
This 鈥減rior restraint鈥 鈥 鈥 gives the university seemingly-unlimited authority to veto any criticism or reporting about the university. The Supreme Court said it best: prior restraints are 鈥渢he most serious and the least tolerable infringement鈥 of free speech.
Moreover, the not-so-cheerful dictates spelled out in the email (screenshotted above) to the students of VUU-ville prohibit a wide array of student speech. FIREare effectively barred from speaking out on everything from grading policies to policing and how the university deals with protests. And, with the school鈥檚 vague prohibition on speech that 鈥渦ndermines . . . values,鈥 it鈥檚 hard to figure out exactly what kind of speech the university is banning.
For example, one 鈥渃ore value鈥 by the university is 鈥渋nnovation,鈥 which encompasses 鈥渘ew ideas and processes.鈥漌ould a student statement or editorial critical of artificial intelligence be construed by the university as undermining its core values? Another value is 鈥渟piritual formation,鈥 which includes, 鈥渢he regular practice of prayer, worship, silence, and mediation that matures one鈥檚 relationships, values, and life purpose.鈥 FIREare left wondering whether speech critical of religion or even a particular religion will be punished by the university.
VUU should rewrite its Media Communications policy and make clear that students are free to speak their minds about the latest goings-on at the university.
Given its robust free speech promises, VUU鈥檚 Grinchy administrators cannot rightly expect students to remain silent about their own values, which may well conflict with the university鈥檚. They certainly cannot expect students to remain silent about safety concerns, or to share those concerns only privately or with administrators.
To be sure, there鈥檚 no issue with VUU restricting or regulating speech made by employees on behalf of the university. Under First Amendment principles, VUU can speak its mind as an institution. However, it generally cannot force its views on others or stifle speech outside of reasonable 鈥渢ime, place, and manner鈥 restrictions. FIREare not employees and cannot be regulated as university mouthpieces.
Even someone who has spent the entirety of their life perched up on Mount Crumpit would not confuse students鈥 concerns published in CBS 6 News鈥 with official university statements. In any case, VUU鈥檚 ban on speech that is 鈥渉armful or damaging to the university鈥檚 reputation鈥 or 鈥渦ndermines . . . values鈥 held by the university reaches far beyond cases where student speech may be confused for employee speech.
On Nov. 14, 果冻传媒app官方 wrote to VUU expressing these concerns and calling on the university to allow students to freely express themselves. Sadly, the university never responded 鈥 which is why FIREis shining a light on the speech-squelching policy now.
VUU should rewrite its Media Communications policy and make clear that students are free to speak their minds about the latest goings-on at the university. It鈥檚 time for VUU to stop Grinching around and spread the holiday joy of free expression.
Recent Articles
FIRE鈥檚 award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.