Virginia Tech Says “No” to Brady Bunch
Looking to capitalize on a tragedy in a “gun-free school zone” during the anniversary of a massacre there, Virginia Tech has told the Brady Bunch to take it elsewhere:
Virginia Tech said yesterday that it will not allow a national gun-control advocacy group to hold a campus demonstration on April 16 while the school commemorates last year’s massacre.
Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said neither the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence nor the co-sponsor of the planned demonstration, ProtestEasyGuns.com, had applied for an assembly permit, and even if they had, Tech only issues permits to student groups.
Tech’s position threw the Brady Campaign’s plans into disarray yesterday: The noon demonstration at Tech was supposed to be the centerpiece of a nationwide series of events on April 16 in more than 70 cities and towns.
Good. The Brady Campaign should be ashamed of itself for attempting to use a memorial service to further its political and fund raising aims.
I might add that if Virginia Tech had locked down the campus after the first attack or if some of the teachers there had been armed, this tragedy — while not prevented — might have been lessened considerably.
29 Responses to “Virginia Tech Says “No” to Brady Bunch”
on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:02 am # Rachel
I’m pro 2nd amendment as well as a liberal (do they go together?
but common sense says that’s just wrong.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:07 am # Letalis Maximus, Esq.
Common sense says what is wrong? Arming teachers?
Um, they’ve been doing it in Israel for years.
With no problems.
In fact, a few armed teachers here in the US have stopped mass shooters.
It is an idea whose time has come.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:35 am # Jason
Good to know when seconds count that the police are only minutes away.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:35 am # Scott
If I’m not mistaken, Larry Hinckle was the guy who, some months before the shooting, wrote an editorial lambasting a student for advocating gun rights on the campus.
At least he’s on the right side here, though I can’t help but think his denial of the permit has more to do with his function as an educational bureaucrat (”oh no, you didn’t properly check the box on section 32(j) of the goldenrod form”) than his substantive views on the Second Amendment.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:40 am # Robert
Nobody wants to “arm students” or teachers. They just want CCLs to apply everywhere that normal people go, like a college campus. That’s just plain common sense.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:54 am # countertop
I’m going to go out on a limb here - because I have hope for humanity - and assume Rachel wasn’t talking about CCW on campus but rather about Virginia Tech banning the bigots at brady from protesting. . . . if thats the case, I’ve got to say I agree with here.
Now, I’m not a Brady fan at all, but it strikes me that Virginia Tech, as a state school ought not to be in the business of dictating who can and can’t speak and/or demonstrate on campus and nor can they dictate what the content of that speech is.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:59 am # Texpatriate
It’s not the guns I don’t trust. It’s the teachers. Some of these university profs haven’t had even a passing brush with reality since grad school.
Does anyone really want to see Ward Churchill sauntering around campus with a loaded Sig in his bookbag?
on 08 Apr 2008 at 10:10 am # SayUncle
In other news, Brady Bunch realized that a requirement to register and get a permit to exercise a civil right kinda sucks.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 10:45 am # Phillep
So, no teacher should be armed because some are twits?
on 08 Apr 2008 at 11:06 am # Carlos
Now, anybody who’s more pro-gun that I am is probably some sort of extremist, but still:
It’s wrong for Va. Tech’s administration to try and quash speech they disagree with. That’s unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by a state actor. Luckily for the odious Brady whiners, they’ve got a whole week to obtain a restraining order permitting them their say.
Lord save us from clueless university administrators.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 11:18 am # submandave
“It’s not the guns I don’t trust. It’s the teachers. Some of these university profs haven’t had even a passing brush with reality since grad school.
Does anyone really want to see Ward Churchill sauntering around campus with a loaded Sig in his bookbag?”
This is the same sort of nonsense as those who argue they don’t want some drunk 19 year-old fratboy packing heat. I’ve got news for you: the only thing keeping both from carrying a weapon today are their respect and/or fear of being caught and punished by both the university and the law. If no-carry rules on campus went away tomorrow it does nothing to remove the legal barriers to non-authorized carry and all non-CCL folks would in all liklihood continue to obey the law and go about their business unarmed.
The only people affected by removing these barriers are those who have been trained, investigated and certified for carry. Oh, it will also affect the goblins who today feel free to bust caps whenever they want to satisfy their petty ego or sense of self worthlessness.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 11:38 am # Texpatriate
“So, no teacher should be armed because some are twits?”
My contention is, arming college professors is a bad idea because these days almost all are twits. I have not (and would never) suggested that just because it’s a bad idea, the government won’t adopt it as policy. Mandatory, if they can manage it.
But your question contains the kernel of an idea worth pursuing: Is there anyway we can devise a test for twittiness, and apply it to college faculties?
on 08 Apr 2008 at 11:46 am # J'hn1
Well, while I agree with Israel’s use of armed teachers and qualified students I believe that the reason it is possible there, is not applicable here in the US.
Conscription.
All guys not covered by an approved group claiming a nonviolence waiver have to serve in the IDF.
100%
Have to serve.
And lots of ladies serve as well.
That means that most of the adult guys and a lot of the adult ladies were IDF trained. During the time of their mandatory service to the IDF.
That also means a lot of teachers and adult students are active members of the IDF Reserves.
We have volunteer armed forces, and an institutional Educational Industry mindset that denigrates any service in the armed forces of the US. Conversely service in armed forces attacking the US is OK, and terrorist group membership of not yet listed groups is actively solicited.
That difference …
Makes a vast difference in what type of people, teachers and post military training students, are available to be armed.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 12:07 pm # Steve
countertop & Carlos -
I disagree that a state school cannot regulate the speech on its grounds.
Try commandeering the microphone at your local city council meeting, or state legislature session. Wouldn’t it be another case of government stifling free speech when you’re dragged off in handcuffs?
on 08 Apr 2008 at 12:28 pm # Fen
“It’s wrong for … administration to try and quash speech they disagree with.”
Consider the contradiction in our public schools: teaching kids about safe sex is good, teaching kids how to safely handle a firearm is double plus ungood.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 12:34 pm # Gregory Koster
Dear Steve: The commandeering the microphone case would be within the government’s rights. But that is not what the Brady folks are asking for, I think. Those of us who root for the ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’ interpretation of the Second can cheer this action—but it will come back to bite. Speech codes on college campuses are already far too prevalent and vicious. More, they are biased against the Second and any ‘conservative’ approach to human behavior. I think Virginia Tech is wrong on this one. I’ll grant you freely that the Brady folks would likely be obnoxious in demonstrating. But that’s the way the First Amendment goes. It may educate you, but it will also put a big thick callus on your eardurms in doing so.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
on 08 Apr 2008 at 12:43 pm # countertop
No Steve, its not the same thing as commandeering a microphone.
If there was a microphone, they would at least have some opportunity to be heard. What your alleging though is that they go to an event and interrupt it. Thats not whats happening, they simply want to conduct their own demonstration on PUBLIC property.
VT is as wrong in its refusal to allow Brady to do this as it is in its refusal to allow students AND teachers to arm themselves.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 12:48 pm # Letalis Maximus, Esq.
Ward Churchill carrying a gun?
Well, there’s always the chance he might shoot himself.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 12:54 pm # Letalis Maximus, Esq.
countertop:
The university administration, as the duly appointed custodian of the public property that is the university, has a responsibility to find out who/what/when/where/how many will be holding events on that public property. Requiring a permit has been held by the courts, many times over, to be a reasonable and mostly non-restrictive means of making said determination.
No permit? No demonstration. It is as simple as that.
Turning down anybody who isn’t a student organization? What’s wrong with that? That way, Brady, the KKK, the Catholic Church, the Sierra Club, PETA, the Nation of Islam, CitiBank, the John Birch Society, moveon.org, the NRA, and everybody else who wants to come in and stir shit is treated the same - they can go find someplace else to stir their shit.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 1:29 pm # Econ_Scott
O.K. 2 miles away from Bezerkeley I have a couple things to say about “protests”.
There was a time when Universities were in the “Business of Educating the Young and dedicated” and NOT in business of providing free media event venues for outside pressure groups thirsting to gain attention and raise money off of other people’s suffering, during a memorial over the deaths of friends and colleagues.
By denying the permit, the administration showed the good common sense that happens when “Adults are in Charge” and that refuse to have a solemn occasion soiled.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 2:20 pm # Econ_Scott
One other thing coming from the Bezerkeley area,
– all politics ARE local, so VT’s Admin/Faculty own brand of Moonbats, just may be exercising rights to their own turf.
Seems like “Adults in Charge” however.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 2:43 pm # Stephen
Does anyone really want to see Ward Churchill sauntering around campus with a loaded Sig in his bookbag?
All anybody is suggesting is that those with valid conceal carry permits be allowed to carry them on campus. If Ward Churchill had a permit to carry a loaded Sig in any other public place, like a mall, why would it suddenly be more dangerous for him to carry one on campus? There have not been any instances of someone with a ccp going on a shooting spree that would have been prevented had he not had a ccp. If someone with a ccp won’t randomly shoot people in a mall or while stuck in traffic, why should we think them more likely to do so on a college campus?
on 08 Apr 2008 at 3:30 pm # MightyOne
Virginia Tech has no right to arbitrarily prohibit speech on campus.
However, there is no evidence that such prohibition has occurred here. Per VT’s statement, the Brady Campaign failed to apply for a permit to protest, and would not have received one had they applied since they are not a student group.
Presumably the same rules would apply to any other off-campus group, whether it be the NRA or NAMBLA. If other groups have been improperly protest in the past, then some of the above arguments may have merit.
Otherwise, it’s all academic.
Letalis is quite correct.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 5:08 pm # Jessica
As a college student, I have no qualms whatsoever with VT–or any university–requiring that organizations that want to gather on campus get permits to do so. I don’t see it as stifling free speech, but rather see it as making sure the university knows who is on campus to the greatest extent that they can. If the Brady Campaign really wants to appear on the VT campus, I’m sure they can find a student organization to sponsor them.
My university is a large public university in the middle of a relatively large city. There is no way that my school can prevent random people from coming onto campus, but at least they have the power to remove large groups who don’t have permission to be there. I and 26,000 other students contribute–in capital, brainpower, and effort–to receive an education, better our university, and wander around campus defenseless–it’s the least the administration can do to put our needs over those of outside organizations.
And as an aside, visiting organizations often clog the busiest thoroughfares and do little but disrupt the natural flow of traffic. Many of the groups who visit my campus are intolerant demagogues who have no desire to engage in dialogue–instead they condemn and judge us. What, exactly, does that contribute to the university atmosphere?
on 08 Apr 2008 at 6:09 pm # countertop
Its not a matter of no permit. Its a matter of no possibility of a permit.
To that extent, the Supreme Court has clearly held “the extent to which the Government can control access depends on the nature of the relevant forum. Because a principal purpose of traditional public fora is the free exchange of ideas, speakers can be excluded from a public forum only when the exclusion is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and the exclusion is narrowly drawn to achieve that interest.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense 473 U.S. 788 at 800 (1985).
Now, if this was not a public forum, I’d agree with you that the university can act in a reasonable fashion to restrict the activity so long as “it is not designed to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Id.
However, even on this ground the Court has been clear to distinguish the generally open grounds of the public University from the more controlled classroom settings (to get to the “hogging the microphone” example), especially where the University grounds are otherwise open to the public. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 at 268. See also Footnote 5. As Virginia Techs are.
To suggest that the day to day use and access of the drillfield or quad are somehow restricted to the students or the use of outside groups (especially when they are working in conjunction with students) at a Public University, is almost laughable on its face.
on 08 Apr 2008 at 7:45 pm # RG
Its not a matter of no permit. Its a matter of no possibility of a permit.
…
To suggest that the day to day use and access of the drillfield or quad are somehow restricted to the students or the use of outside groups (especially when they are working in conjunction with students) at a Public University, is almost laughable on its face.
Well, does VT have some sort of assembly code that it must be forced to change via lawsuit?
on 08 Apr 2008 at 8:48 pm # Daniel
Does VT have ROTC on campus?
Just asking.
In fact, how many college campuses have ROTC anymore? Anybody know/have numbers?
on 08 Apr 2008 at 9:32 pm # Leon Richard
School says it only issues permits to student groups. That’s the school’s right. It’s a state school, but only “public” to the degree that there is relatively unrestricted “public access” to it. However, anyone who does not go to school there has no “right” to be there at all.
That’s why they issue identification cards. That’s why security and law enforcement personnel can ask for those identification cards. Can’t produce one, and doing something they don’t like? You’re outta here, and don’t come back.
College and University grounds are not public parks, and individuals who are not affiliated with the college or university have only limited access at the pleasure of the administration and students.
on 09 Apr 2008 at 12:15 am # countertop
Leon,
Generally I agree with you. But this is a state school and is owned by the public and the campus is otherwise open to the public at all times. Heck, they are promoting the hell out of the “official” event and inviting everyone in Virginia. Its ludicrous for them to say the campus isn’t otherwise open to the public.
Its simple, really. The school can limit where the demonstration takes place, but has to allow for it to occur somewhere. Stick them in a corner out of the way, or work with them to do it at a time other than when the main ceremony is taking place. But they can’t impose a complete ban on their presence.
Daniel
VT, even before being an engineering school, is really a military school. Its one of only six Senior Military College in the country (VMI, The Citadel, North Georgia - where my father in law graduated and my cousin is a professor, Norwich, Texas A&M are the others). The course of study and training that members of the Corps of Cadets undertake there (and at the other Senior Military Colleges) puts the ROTC programs at other schools to shame.