Letters of interest to the Law School community may be sent to editor@lawweekly.org. Letters may be published at the discretion of the Editorial Board and are subject to editing for grammar, style, and clarity, but not content or viewpoint. The Law Weekly does not necessarily endorse the content or viewpoint of any letter herein published.
The United States is far from equal. Its institutions are not just or fair. But many of the atrocities of the past are in the past because of the actions of protestors.
Protestors played central roles in achieving the 40-hour work week, earning women’s right to vote, and in the civil rights movement. Protestors will play central roles in achieving equality for our queer community, the liberation of Palestine, and the abolition of prisons and the police.
A few weeks ago, I helped organize a protest of an event in which Bob Good spoke to the UVA Law community. Jonathan Peterson wrote in this publication on the protest; he did a good job summarizing Bob Good’s ideology, so readers can look there if they want to know more.
Yet by aiming for objectivity, the article failed to capture the nuance of my stance on protest, the role of protest in our community and in society at large, and the relationship between protest and free speech. I worry that Jon misinterpreted my position; his article may be read to suggest that I want to stop some speakers from coming.
I want to first clarify my position on speakers at UVA Law. I will defend free speech with the best (and worst) of them. The use of power to silence an opponent is a tool of fascism. Those in power at the Law School—administrators and professors—have no right to stop someone from speaking.
When I protest speakers who advocate for oppression, like Bob Good, I am not protesting the Law School for letting him speak. I am protesting the students who invited him and I am protesting Bob Good himself.
Every member of the Law Republicans who did not actively disagree with the organization’s decision to host Bob Good should reflect on how they have harmed their community. By filling the room with these students’ peers and then abruptly leaving, our protest intentionally ostracized them. Hopefully this led members of the Law Republicans to question why they platformed someone so harmful to so many of their peers. Perhaps their reflections will lead them to a different conclusion the next time someone like Bob Good asks to speak at the Law School.
The protest also intentionally disrespected Bob Good. For some reason, Bob Good thought he had an audience at our Law School. My hope is that when 40 or 50 students at an elite Law School went out of their way to disrespect him, Bob Good felt a little bad. We wanted to make clear to Bob Good that we don’t like him, that we don’t like his views, that we don’t respect him, despite his role as our representative. We wanted to make clear to Bob Good that, if he wants our respect, he must change.
A central purpose of protest is social change. Even a small protest—just a few dozen students on a weeknight in a law school classroom—can lead to a better world. Protests find power in collectivity. Protests invite others to join in that collective power, strengthening it. Protests unravel the assumptions institutions like law schools depend on—that change can only come about via pre-set avenues, through debate, through education, through voting.
Social change happens when enough people fight to make it happen. It happens when individuals and groups labor for something they cannot see, that does not seem possible, but on which their lives depend.
---
wg4dt@virginia.edu