Gerard Baker’s Run-in with “the Law”

Gerard Baker’s Run-in with “the Law”

Campus police intervened to prevent engagement with Washington and Lee’s history.

(Gerard Baker speaks to an audience at Lee Chapel, National Historic Monument. |  SOURCE: The W&L Spectator)

There is an ongoing concern among many alumni that Robert E. Lee’s role and significance on campus is being suppressed where possible. The following example does not prove the charge but is indicative.

In my capacity as an alumni board member for The W&L Spectator, I attended Gerard Baker’s recent speech in Lee Chapel. Afterward, Baker expressed interest in seeing the Lee family crypt and presidential office in the chapel’s basement. I followed Baker and several other students down the staircase that leads to the crypt.

Within a minute, while Baker viewed the crypt and the rest of us chatted amongst ourselves, we were accosted by a campus police officer who barked that we “weren’t cleared” to be down there and ordered us to leave. Baker pushed back, indicating he didn’t see what harm anyone was causing.

The officer insisted that we had to leave, adding a belated reference to lighting issues in the basement. Baker then noted, accurately, that there was more than sufficient light to view the crypt. One student reiterated a request to allow Baker to see Lee’s office, since he hadn’t been to Lexington before and might not have another chance to return soon. The officer adamantly rejected this request, and Baker appeared quite annoyed.

There is no excuse for this situation. The officer ought to have been willing to stand by and observe as Baker viewed the crypt and looked into Lee’s office. Even if the lights in the office were malfunctioning — despite the ones in the annex and the crypt working just fine — the officer could easily have shone a light for Mr. Baker. Or, any number of us could have done the same with our smartphones. It would not have taken longer than five minutes and done no harm whatsoever.

Even if, in the moment, the officer was acting under a strict policy and felt he could not make a reasonable accommodation, then the blame devolves upon whoever made such an unreasonable policy. An environment has been fostered in which a public safety officer considers it acceptable to snap at students, alumni, and esteemed guests for harmlessly engaging with Washington and Lee’s history.

This is unacceptable and I hope that the university administration will take this opportunity to reevaluate whatever unnamed policies encourage this behavior and adjust those policies to proactively accommodate access to historical sites in the chapel for speakers and sponsors (both students and otherwise).

If, on the other hand, this sort of uncivil comportment continues, it will serve to further the perception that the Washington and Lee administration is trying to suppress certain aspects of our university’s history.