On the morning of December 2, 2012, a group of ten students
gathered in the lobby of Brooklyn Law School, waiting for the library to open.
It was 9:05 AM and several students found the prohibition on entering the
library unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. One student in particular was
a worker at the library (hereinafter the “off-duty librarian”)—indeed he had
opened up the library the previous day—but was told that he was not allowed to
open it today, since it was not his shift. This set another student off.
While several students became extremely vocal about the
ridiculousness of the situation, one student became noticeably more upset than
the others, and threatened to have the students responsible for opening the
library at 9:00 AM—sharp—fired. The off-duty librarian, who had repeatedly
requested that everyone “calm down” and “relax,” was dealt the harsh blow of
the vague-sounding threat, “I’ll deal with you later.”
The off-duty librarian became
upset and said that he was getting his feelings hurt. The other student responded by saying that
their feelings were being hurt too. At
this point a couple other students emerged from the student lounge and further
suggested relaxing and calming down—they were then told to “stay out of
it.” By this point, the other extremely
vocal students had quieted down to a degree—a consensus seemed to be developing
(perhaps the marketplace of ideas and counter-speech were effectively combating
the threat of violence). The security
guard in particular was subjected to verbal abuse.
The off-duty librarian attempted to maintain
peace, but the abusive speech would not abate.
He finally took out his First Amendment Law casebook and sat on the
ground in front of the security guard table, outside the view of the anxious
mob. At roughly 9:10 AM, the on-duty
librarian arrived, the doors were opened, and the anger subsided.
Never before has there been such a shocking display of the
“50/50 Rule[1]”
as this incident. If anything it was
near perfect proof of the truth of the theory (at least amongst the
early-risers of the law school): of the 10 students present in the lobby, about
four were un-cool and six were cool.
The situation was also extremely ironic in light of First
Amendment concerns – these were fighting words if any – and though some readers
may be laughing at the prospect of such a situation, it was certainly plausible
that a fight was about to break out. If
one other student had accepted the invitation to threaten more severely as a
rejoinder, it would have come to blows.
There was no better illustration of the misery that other law students
can heap on their innocent classmates.
Afterward, this off-duty librarian was shaken and upset,
fearing the other student now, indeed worried about the threat to be “taken
care of later.” The off-duty librarian
may, for once, make a colorable claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress. Indeed he fears for his
safety, and the incident left him so distressed that he could not concentrate
on his work—indeed threatened to keep him out of the law school entirely—merely
because he wanted the mob to “settle down.”
I would list damages at $25,000—or the cost of one
semester—if indeed this precluded the off-duty librarian from attending
exams. But this off-duty librarian does
not like to take chances in court. Indeed
the injury may be viewed as a de minimus
from a certain perspective. However,
from a different perspective these are fighting words indeed, and outside the
protection of the First Amendment, unless we are to attach crucial importance
to the word “later.” See, e.g., Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105
(1973).
One hopes that an apology is forthcoming. However, the “40%” never fail to amaze me
with their utter indifference to common human decency, fueled by their sense of
entitlement. I expect this to be “war”
and a conflict that is only going to end with more destruction in its wake.
It may indeed be time for the school to purchase a puppy for
the library to help students relieve stress.
Violent verbal assaults should be reserved for the uneducated masses and
the people who exploit them – not students that seek to define how a
“reasonable person” should react in a certain situation.
Christopher J. Knorps
is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School. He works at the library and enjoys studying Constitutional
Law and Bankruptcy Law. He does not like
fighting. He is organizing a 2nd
Annual Open Mic with proceeds going towards Sanctuary for Families. Please e-mail him at Christopher.knorps@brooklaw.edu if you are interested in reading or performing.
[1]
The 50/50 Rule was first stated in writing on March 14, 2012 here http://blsadvocate.org/2012/03/negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-trust-no-one-dr-jones-the-5050-rule/. It was later amended to the 40/60 rule on
April 19, 2012 (the un-cool students now outnumbering the cool students) which
is documented here http://blsadvocate.org/2012/04/nied-cubs-win-world-seriesagainst-miami-bls-in-2015/. It will now stand as the 60/40 rule—as the
numbers of this all-too-clear situation must dictate.
No comments:
Post a Comment