THIS WHOLE thing is like a bad record that just keeps playing over and over and over again. It seems that some people - and their enabling parents - feel that simply because you try to hunt someone down like an animal, and proceed to assault him, somehow you still deserve to be a student at this school.
Bradley Kintz's decision to file suit against the University is not particularly shocking. It comes as just another chapter in this legal saga of the absurd. His lawsuit, along with Richard Smith's and Harrison Kerr Tigrett's, represents a clear danger to our school. They show that when certain students and their parents combine their forces, they can threaten the wellbeing of the self-governance system that most of us believe in.
This entire ordeal really is not about the fairness - or lack thereof - in Kintz's, Smith's and Tigrett's University Judiciary proceedings. The real concern here is why these three individuals still want a legal battle with the University, after all of the negative press - and why their parents appear more than willing to bankroll these groundless efforts. The answer lies in the fact that their sense of shame over their actions is far below the level that one would hope most of us possess.
It would be a different matter if any one of these three individuals had attacked Alexander "Sandy" Kory on his own. It would not be right. It would not be okay. But at least it would be understandable. People get in fights after having too much to drink. These things happen.
But rather than be a real man and confront Kory without non-violently, Smith assaulted Kory and two friends, Kintz being one of them, watched as it happened. Whether their violence was completely alcohol-motivated or not, they obviously are lacking remorse for their actions, as we can see by their decisions to file lawsuits.
Unless Kintz, Smith or Tigrett won the lottery recently, they are not about to start paying attorney's fees. A troubling aspect of these lawsuits is that these students' parents openly are collaborating with them in what amounts to a justification of their behavior. I am sure that these former students' parents were quite upset with them when they heard about the assault. What puzzles me is why these same parents seem happy to fork over their money in this ego-driven quest to attack the University. Their sons' reputations are damaged enough in the University community.
Why are these parents trying to damage their own? Let's imagine for a moment that I had committed this assault against then first-year student Kory back in the carefree days of 1997. Not only would my parents laugh at the idea of suing the University over some phantom "violation" of my constitutional rights, they might also stop paying for my college tuition altogether - no matter where I ended up going to school later on. Why? Because it was me that screwed up, not them. My parents were not the ones who assaulted Kory, why should they subsidize my bad behavior?
It is one thing to pay for your child's legal defense in criminal court - it is a matter of concern for your son's wellbeing. Most parents don't want to see their son carted off to jail. It is an entirely different matter, however, to encourage and fund this lawsuit.
Smith and Kintz have both sued the University for $1.25 million, while Tigrett's lawsuit was for $1.5 million. Smith's suit, filed way back on July 22, 1999 ("Smith files $1.25 million suit," July 29,1999), gives me the biggest laugh. His attorney, Francis McQ. Lawrence, claimed that "the University shirked the constitutional and contractual obligations it owed Richard, putting him in danger on campus, ruining his reputation, and trampling on the very rights that Mr. Jefferson's University purports to embody."
Going further, Lawrence called for "the correction of 'the irresponsible and illegal administration of student discipline at the University.'" Tigrett's suit stated that University President John T. Casteen III "acted to deprive Mr. Tigrett of liberty and property without due process of law, thus denying him a right secured by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution ("Tigrett brings suit against University," Nov. 10, 1999). Give me a break. The only right violated in this case was Kory's right to walk home with no injuries.
This entire situation is very unfortunate to begin with. Three students were suspended and one student suffered serious physical injuries. By continuing in their unwarranted legal actions against the University, however, these three students compound their problems. Whether they like his decision or not, Casteen's punishment for them certainly was justified. That does not mean they had to like it, but it was fair. Probably too fair. By funding these lawsuits, these parents are not looking out for their sons' best interests. Quite the contrary, they are trying to defend indefensible behavior.
(Timothy DuBoff's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 6 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
