Jon Peterson '23
Co-Executive Editor
On Tuesday, October 4, Bob Good, the U.S. House Representative for Virginia’s Fifth District,[1] came to speak to students at the Law School. The talk was originally going to be a small one, set in Brown 104. When I arrived, there were roughly ten boxes of food that had, presumably, been readied for those who RSVP’d to the event. However, far more than ten students were present. Unbeknownst to the administration and the student body at large, the National Lawyers Guild and the Immigration Law Society had planned a walkout for the event.
The walkout was kept secret. According to the organizers, this was to prevent the School’s administration from getting involved by sending the University’s speech policy to protesters and organizers alike. The speech policy, many claim, is designed to make students second-guess their decision to protest. Ariana Smith ’23, one of the organizers, stated that she believes the speech policy is intentionally vague in order to induce anxiety for both organizers and protesters alike when considering whether they will face disciplinary actions for exercising the right. Another purpose of keeping the protest secret, Smith said, was simply to heighten the impact of the protest. “We wanted the walkout to come as a shock, because we think this made our protest more effective.”
It certainly was a shock. Rep. Good arrived to a classroom full of what one can only assume he believed to be students interested in hearing his message. After a paltry applause upon his arrival,[2] the instant the representative began to speak, roughly 85 percent of the room stood up and departed. What happened after the departure is anyone’s guess.[3] However, protesters did not stop at simply getting up and leaving. One of the most fiery moments came when, as he was exiting the classroom, Spencer Haydary ’23 turned and said the following to Rep. Good: “For someone who thinks we're groomers and pedophiles, you sure think about what's in between a trans kid's legs way too much.”
Statements like this are levied at Rep. Good for a handful of reasons. Not to mention accusations that Rep. Good is xenophobic,[4] anti-science,[5] and spreading “stop the steal” election lies,[6] Rep. Good’s first public vote on the Campbell County Board of Supervisors was to reject the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell.[7] Rep. Good primaried the former representative for the Fifth District, Denver Riggleman, after Riggleman officiated a same-sex wedding, making that officiation a key point in his campaign.[8] Further, Rep. Good has recently co-sponsored a bill that would render the provision of gender-affirming care to trans youth a felony nationwide.[9]
It is because of this record that the organizations planned the protest. They believe that, by welcoming Rep. Good to speak at the Law School, the Law Republicans have given “a platform to—if not actively endorse[d]—everything that [Rep.] Good stands for and has stood for.” Their goal when organizing this protest, said Warren Griffiths ’23, another organizer, was to challenge the “public conception of UVA Law as a conservative safe haven.” Griffiths went on to point out that, while this vision of the Law School does exist, “you could count on one hand the number of students who actually wanted to attend this event.” For the organizations involved, Griffiths stated, “this protest meant proving to everyone in our community . . . that UVA Law is not a space where these harmful opinions can be invited and voiced comfortably and without resistance.”
This method of protesting raises questions. Questions both about the protest’s efficacy, and about the role that students and student organizations should have when inviting controversial speakers, especially those who are elected representatives, to speak to our community. For organizers like Griffiths, individuals with viewpoints like Rep. Good simply have no place. They are out of step and harmful. Smith, on the other hand, believes that while speakers like Rep. Good cannot be prevented from coming to the Law School, when they do choose to come, they should expect to be met with resistance. “Come if you want, but be prepared to answer for what you’ve said and the atrocious harms you’ve committed,” says Smith. Both speakers, however, do believe that the Law School neither can nor should play a role in either inviting speakers like Rep. Good to the school (either endorsing or sanctioning the decision) or in preventing or encouraging students to protest such events, as the administration often does by circulating the speech policy.
A question raised by this event is whether a speaker can be simply too controversial to be brought to the Law School. While nobody would expect an organization to pull a random person with Rep. Good’s views off the street to come speak, it is another question when that individual is a duly elected representative. Especially when they represent the district in which we currently reside. In many respects, this was a matter of Rep. Good coming to speak to his constituents—young, conservative law students, some who agree with many of his views, and others who do not. Simply put, the fact of Rep. Good’s position as a representative complicates opinions on whether he should be welcome.
It also raises the following question: Are some views, even if held by a majority of the constituents in an area,[10] simply too harmful to a community, which represents a subset of that larger constituency, to warrant giving an individual with those views a platform? What if Rep. Good was not a representative, and was instead an influential legal theorist, or a corporate lobbyist? Would his views be less worth airing out in the public forum of a Law School community that is, truthfully, not represented by Rep. Good in the slightest? In short: At what point does an individual become simply too harmful to speak, and how should that individual’s position affect the calculus? There are no easy answers to this question.
Suffice it to say, the number of protesters at this event far outweighed the number of attendants. So, while Rep. Good may represent some people, it seems that he does not represent us. Perhaps this is an argument for complete exclusion of people with views as incendiary as Rep. Good’s. Perhaps this is all the more reason to present those views here, in a place where they will actually be challenged. Ultimately, however, the protest and Rep. Good’s presence itself were examples of appropriate political discourse occurring at a dangerously influential institution. And, if nothing else, coming together in protest is a powerful thing. “I felt a strong sense of unity with my peers,” said Smith, when asked about why she helped organize the event. That unity, and that sense of community, were some “of the things we had initially hoped to accomplish when we planned the protest.” And, if nothing else, that aspect of the protest was an undeniable success.
---
jtp4bw@virginia.edu
[1] Our district.
[2] Incidentally, it was a lone protester who applauded his entrance.
[3] Except for the handful of students who stayed.
[4] Mabinty Quarshie, These 16 Republicans voted against speeding up visas for Afghans fleeing the Taliban, USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/17/16-republicans-voted-against-special-visas-help-afghanistan-people/8163392002/.
[5] Meagan Flynn and Laura Vozzella, Rep.-elect Bob Good calls the pandemic ‘phony.’ Covid-19 has killed more than 300 in his district, Wash. Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/bob-good-phony-pandemic/2020/12/14/a0f4b504-3e1c-11eb-8bc0-ae155bee4aff_story.html.
[6] Rep. Bob Good’s Statement on Electoral College Certification Vote, https://good.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-bob-goods-statement-electoral-college-certification-vote. To be fair to Rep. Good’s stance in this press release, he does not outright say that Trump should be president—rather, he uses the typical dog whistle of claiming that the votes must be reviewed to ensure electoral legitimacy.
[7] Meagan Flynn, From quiet Falwell Acolyte to bombastic Marjorie Taylor Greene ally: A freshman lawmaker’s political evolution, Wash. Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/12/10/bob-good-liberty-university/.
[8] Catie Edmonson, G.O.P. Congressman Is Ousted from Right After Officiating at Same-Sex Wedding, N.Y. Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/politics/denver-riggleman-virginia-primary-bob-good.html. This wedding was between alumni of both the Law School and the business school.
[9] Jennifer Shutt, Va. Rep Good joins GOP drive to criminalize gender-affirming care for transgender youth, Va. Mercury, https://www.virginiamercury.com/2022/09/20/marjorie-taylor-greene-leads-gop-drive-to-criminalize-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-youth/.
[10] This is not to imply that Rep. Goods’ views are actually held by a majority of his constituents—they may very well not be.