A Monument You’re Supposed to ‘Deface’

The inspiration came from the mountaintop: “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”

Two hundred years later, the Jeffersonian ideal of unbridled free speech is about to be put to the test in the foothills below Monticello, where the nation’s third president and the author of the Declaration of Independence farmed and philosophized.

The Charlottesville City Council is considering whether to permit a private think tank to erect a giant chalkboard on public land across from City Hall as an interactive monument to free expression.

And the group does mean free. No rules would limit what could be written, and city government would be prohibited from erasing anything--no matter how objectionable.

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has proposed raising $150,000 for an expanse of slate 50 to 60 feet wide and 7 feet high, tentatively called the “Community Chalkboard.” The center would maintain it by periodically erasing everything, whether highbrow poetry or sophomoric vulgarities.

The center envisions it as a low-tech forum for public discourse on burning issues. But some call it a “graffiti board” and predict it will litter the landscape and the mind.

Even its supporters acknowledge that obscenities, character assassinations, racial and ethnic slurs and the crudest expressions of hate are bound to end up on the board set in the most prominent spot in the town of 40,000 that’s also home to the University of Virginia.

“That’s not necessarily a reason not to erect the monument,” said George King, a former president of the Charlottesville branch of the NAACP and a member of a committee that picked the winning design. “The purpose of the monument is to foster exchanges of views, not to trumpet what we agree on. It’s really quite bold.”

At an overflow public hearing last week, Mayor James Blake Caravati said he has been deluged with e-mail about the proposal, most of it negative. On a small slate model of the board in the main public library building, someone has scribbled in chalk, “No. No. Not this here.”

The board’s sponsors, philosophically embracing all criticism as the embodiment of their cause, believe the fears are overblown.

“We’re not naive. We know there’s going to be some offensive writing on the wall,” said J. Joshua Wheeler, associate director of the Jefferson Center. “The question is, do we just tolerate free expression or welcome it?”

When the Jefferson Center held a design contest, the entry of local architects Robert Winstead and Peter O’Shea stood out. The 30 other contestants proposed speaker’s podiums or traditional statues of free speech heroes. Winstead, an architect, and O’Shea, a landscape architect, thought a monument to a principle should use “constructive symbolism” to engage people.

They hope people would counter offensive messages with responses, instead of merely erasing them.

“We tried to take the comfortable familiarity of a school chalkboard and use it in a confrontational way,” said O’Shea, 34. “It should not only encourage but require you to write something, instead of walking down the street keeping your opinion to yourself.”

The mayor said his concerns are outweighed by his belief that more people will write messages about issues and policies.

“I don’t care if people call me a butthead or an Italian, whatever, as long as there’s a message. Every politician needs all the help he can get,” Caravati said.

But some residents say it’s too big a risk.

“If people write on buildings, it’s a crime. This just encourages it,” said Barbara Ronan, a paralegal for the city.

“There will be hate messages, messages of intolerance . . .,” said Barbara Merriwether, a retired educator. “It’s in our society already. What’s the purpose of inviting it?”