IN VIRGINIA SAY A DIRTY WORD: BIG PROBLEM--BEAT UP YOUR WIFE AND KIDS: NO PROBLEM, BUY A GUN

Incidents of students taking weapons to school are no longer that uncommon. In Virginia, if a shooting takes place on public school grounds, and even if the school authorities are negligent—the victim and his or her family have little or no legal recourse against the school. Seeking redress against a state or public institution—even when gross negligence can be proven—is apparently considered frivolous by some lawmakers in Richmond. Public schools (and public institutions) are generally protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This doctrine shields tax payer-funded institutions from many lawsuits. In Virginia, more often than not, the courts seem to extend this doctrine to private companies and organizations.

The Virginia Supreme Court appears reluctant to make any ruling that holds a private or public organization responsible for the actions of employees or students—even when those individuals have a record of violence and that record is well known to the organization or company that hired the individual. (I will go in to the corruption of the Virginia Supreme Court when I turn my attention to Virginia Tech.)

The more you look into what the legal profession has done to chip away at an individual’s rights, the more dismayed and frightened you become. All the views you may have held about the fairness of the system quickly disappear. The picture that emerges is not one of devotion to the average citizen’s rights, but to an agenda, to a bias, to a prejudice. In the case of premises liability and the law, the prejudice is to protect—at all costs—private businesses and public organizations.

The law in Virginia says even if a man beats up or threatens to harm or kill his spouse and children, and that spouse gets a restraining order against him, he can still buy a gun, he can still buy bullets—he can do it because of the Gun Show loophole. In the Old Dominion, a man such as Peter Odighizuwa can beat his wife; can have a record of violence—and, can still buy a gun—no questions asked, and kill three innocent people and wound three others.

If Peter Odighizuwa had said dirty words in public or cursed, he probably would have been fined and/or spent a night in jail. (To be continued)

GRUNDY MIRRORS AMERICA

Angela Dales’ murder and the legal machinations surrounding her shooting; the willingness of law enforcement officials and commonwealth’s attorney to play fast and free with the emotions and feelings of the victim’s family goes far beyond the bounds of decency. The sobering truth is that what happened in Grundy after the shooting may not be different from what is happening today throughout the country; may not be any different from what has happened, is happening, and will happen to the families of other school shooting victims.

It is certainly no different from what happened here in Virginia in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre. (I will go in to the parallels between Grundy and Blacksburg in detail in future postings.)

One reason the media may have wanted to avoid delving into the murders of Angela Dales, Professor Blackwell, and Dean Sutin is that sort of investigative reporting would run afoul of the Virginia-based NRA. Questions would be raised that few want to address such as: “How can a man who abuses his wife and is known to do so by the courts, still get his hands on a gun?” Just to ask that question rouses an irrational response from otherwise well educated, well-balanced individuals.

When I raised this question with a member of my family, he immediately fell back on such platitudes as, “We can’t restrict hunters from their right to hunt.” What does that have to do with a school shooting? Most hunters have children and if you were to ask them, I’m sure these hunters would say, “Yes, keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and emotionally unstable. Keep guns out of the hands of spouse abusers.”

The media, particularly the media here in Virginia, won’t raise these questions even in the most circumspect way. They back away from addressing the subject of whether there is any merit to restricting the access to guns—even for individuals known to have a history of domestic violence.

The bias that prevents laws restricting unstable and dangerous individuals from owning guns is in fact, a bias on the part of individuals who are either unwilling or unsuited to deal with the real world. This bias has prevented laws being considered, much less passed that would block individuals with ties to or sympathy for terrorist groups from buying weapons.

There is only one way to change a flawed bias once it has taken root, and that is through exposing ourselves to new information and objectively weighing that evidence against our mindset. If we have only half-truths and fragmentary evidence, and are not exposed to all sides of the argument, we come up with conclusions that make us feel comfortable in our prejudice, but we are woefully lacking in all other aspects of reason and logic. We fall prey to sound bites and clever playing with words. The sad truth is that most of us accept sugarcoated words in order to avoid truth, in order to avoid reality.

The choice of words—the need to be ethical in what you say and write, and the need for accuracy—recently came up in a course I was teaching, an analytical writing course for a member of the Intelligence Community. To my dismay, one young intelligence analyst (a lawyer) said that in official publications, she could not use the word “genocide” in describing the widespread killings in Bosnia. The reason given was international law. To write and call the execution of thousands of innocent civilians “genocide” in official U.S. publications would trigger some aspect of a UN treaty. She explained that under international law, if the term “genocide’ is used, the UN and its member states must take action to stop it. I have no problem with that. Isn’t that why we signed the treaty?

Furthermore, the members of the Intelligence Community give their analysis to policymakers; they do not set or make policy. Anytime you prevent members of the Intelligence Community from using the correct word to describe a situation or a problem, you do a disservice to not only our elected officials, but also the American public.

Instead, the U.S. government, and the news media called what was happening in Bosnia “ethnic cleansing”—never mind that there are examples in history of “ethnic cleansing”—where groups of people are forcibly moved from one area to another without anyone losing his or her life. This, too, was “ethnic cleansing.” This lack of precision in language describing an atrocity undercuts the whole idea of getting at the truth. Yet, this type of word game is what the lawyers are forcing on us—whether it involves the murder of Angela Dales, or the mass murder of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia. (To be continued)

THE MURDER TRIAL THAT WASN'T

The State Of Virginia spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to assure that Peter Odighizuwa’s rights were protected and that he got a fair trial. A major law firm, whose partners oppose the death penalty, came to Odighizuwa’s aid. The spending of this time and money is exactly the way it should be in our democracy. A life hangs in the balance—even if it is the life of a murderer. No stone should be left unturned, no expense spared to ensure a fair trial. But what about the lives of the victims and their families? Neither the state nor the “prominent” law firm representing Peter Odighizuwa did anything to ensure that a seven-year-old the life of a seven year old whose mother had just been gunned down was put back in some semblance of order.

Indeed, according to some sources, the state paid over $100,000 to the law firm of Turk and Groot for Odighizuwa’s defense. But, when Angie’s parents wanted copies of the court proceedings, they were charged 10 cents a page. As if the loss of their daughter wasn’t enough, Buchanan County wanted to squeeze every last dime out of the Dales.

Time and time again before the Dales family questions went unanswered, or promises to get back to them were unfulfilled. Rather than seek the truth, law enforcement officials and the prosecutor in Grundy seemed determined to do what was best for the Commonwealth of Virginia and not what was best in pursuit of truth, justice, and the rights of the victim.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the whole ordeal leading up to Peter Odighizuwa’s trial was the family’s dealings with the Commonwealth’s Attorney. On first impression, she exuded sympathy for the Dales’ loss. And, I’m sure her expressions of sympathy were sincere. But, having sympathy for a murder victim’s family and being disingenuous are not mutually exclusive.

Death Penalty Off the Table

The Dales were repeatedly assured that the Commonwealth’s Attorney was going for the death penalty, but she did not. Indeed, from the outset, the Dales were strongly pushing the death penalty. Dean Sutin’s and Professor Blackwell’s families (and possibly the law school), however, apparently wanted life in prison. In the meetings that took place with the Commonwealth’s Attorney, Angie’s parents had the distinct impression that they were being asked to go along with agreements that had already been reached. In the final analysis, after repeated assurances that the death penalty would be pursued, the Dales were called in and told a deal had been struck for life in prison—there would be no trial.

In the time since the shooting, the answer that is emerging from the mountains of red tape, the legal mumbo-jumbo, the stonewalling, the silence—is that victim’s families have few if any rights to answers. If this impression is true, how can the average citizen believe “in the system?” If “what is best for the Old Dominion” is decided in smoke filled back rooms and then put ahead of the needs of individual citizens, how can anyone believe in “rule by law?”  (To be continued)

GUN CONTROL AND PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT

 On those rare occasions when the subject of any restrictions on guns is raised in the Virginia media, the words are carefully chosen. The media uses words that stop short of causing the reader to ask whether something is wrong with his or her reasoning; wrong with his or her values as these values relate to violence and the use of firearms. The words, in and of themselves, often mask rather than shed light on the truth. The words miss an opportunity to raise in the reader’s mind the fact that he or she needs to rethink a flawed bias. The deceitful aspect of this word parsing is that it gives the reader a false sense of security and confidence in a terribly flawed line of reasoning. The media’s words tend to obscure the truth, rather than expose an insidious line of illogical thinking.

Indeed, when it comes to guns, logic collides with bias and emotions—logic loses. This fact has always puzzled me. Morgan Jones in his book, The Thinkers’ Toolkit, points out that “most (humans) earn a failing grade in elementary logic… We’re not just frequently incompetent (in thinking logically), we’re also willfully and skillfully illogical.

Jones’ book adds that “compelling research on cognitive psychology has shown that we are logical only in a superficial sense; at a deeper level we are systematically illogical and biased.” I would go a step further, we not only prefer the emotional gratification of our biases, but many humans are anti-intellectual to the point of being intellectually dishonest and in some cases, paranoid. In fact, the paranoia of some is frightening. This element of society advocates unrestricted access to weapons—even if it means giving the mentally ill and unstable—the right to bear arms. And, when this paranoia reaches into the pulpit, it is even more alarming. I want to ask—would Jesus have carried a gun?

The bias that prevents laws restricting unstable and dangerous individuals from owning guns is in fact, a bias on the part of individuals who are either unwilling or unsuited for dealing with the real world. This bias has prevented laws being considered, much less passed that would block individuals with ties to or sympathy for terrorist groups from buying weapons.

There is only one way to change a flawed bias once it has taken root, and that is through exposing ourselves to new information and objectively weighing that evidence against our mindset. If we have only half-truths and fragmentary evidence, and are not exposed to all sides of the argument, we come up with conclusions that make us feel comfortable in our prejudice, but we are woefully lacking in all other aspects of reason and logic. We fall prey to sound bites and clever playing with words. The sad truth is that most of us accept sugarcoated words in order to avoid truth, in order to avoid reality.

The choice of words—the need to be ethical in what you say and write, and the need for accuracy—recently came up in a course I was teaching, an analytical writing course for a member of the Intelligence Community. To my dismay, one young intelligence analyst (a lawyer) said that in official publications, she could not use the word “genocide” in describing the widespread killings in Bosnia. The reason given was international law. To write and call the execution of thousands of innocent civilians “genocide” in official U.S. publications would trigger some aspect of a UN resolution. She explained that under international law, if the term “genocide’ is used, the UN and its member states must take action to stop it. I have no problem with that. Isn’t that why we signed the treaty?

Furthermore, members of the Intelligence Community give their analysis to policymakers; they do not set or make policy. Anytime you prevent members of the Intelligence Community from using the correct word to describe a situation or a problem, you do a disservice to not only our elected officials, but also the American public.

Instead, the U.S. government, and the news media called what was happening in Bosnia “ethnic cleansing”—never mind that there are examples in history of “ethnic cleansing”—where groups of people are forcibly moved from one area to another without anyone losing his or her life. This too was “ethnic cleansing.” This lack of precision in language describing an atrocity undercuts the whole idea of getting at the truth. Yet, this type of word game is what the lawyers are forcing on us—whether it involves the murder of Angela Dales at the Appalachian School of Law, the Virginia Tech killings, or the mass murder of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia. (To be continued)

THE GREAT HOPE LEADS TO MURDER

The Appalachian School of Law opened in the fall of 1997 in a renovated school in the center of Grundy. The school was an integral part of a concerted effort to bring new life to this once prosperous community. The Appalachian School of Law was universally viewed as the crown jewel of the effort to bring renewed prosperity and opportunity not only to Grundy, but also to the whole region.

But from the outset the school appears to have been riddled with mismanagement, questionable ethical practices, sexism, and even racism. In hindsight, the magnitude of the problems was so great that it is difficult to explain why no one focused in on the need to deal with the problems and to have campus security.

The school apparently had some problems attracting a first-rate staff—not unusual or unexpected for a new college. But, the examples of immature and childish behavior raise serious questions. A very telling example of the staffing problem is found in a lawsuit filed by Professor Steven Cooper in the second year of the school’s operation. On October 20, 1998, Steven Cooper filed a suit against the school “for wrongful discharge brought by a tenured and accomplished professor of law who was unjustly dismissed for cursing at a junior colleague who had rudely questioned his character and honesty.”

According to Professor Cooper’s lawsuit, he was awarded tenure “effective August 1, 1997, upon the recommendation of (the school’s) president, all as evidenced by the letter dated January 17, 1997, from President Lucius F. Ellsworth……” The suit further states that Cooper accepted “the low salary only because he had been assured he would be awarded tenure, i.e., a lifetime employment contract.

The suit then recounts the following events: “On or about April 21, 1998, a professor at ARLS, Eric Holmes (“Holmes”), rudely shouted a string of curse words during a meeting of several members of the law school’s staff and faculty. Holmes’ foul language included repeated declarations of ‘bullshit’ and ‘horseshit’ well within earshot of those in attendance.”

Then the suit asserts, “Before walking out of said meeting on April 21, 1998, Holmes approached Cooper from the rear in a threatening manner, shook his finger, and stated loudly ‘shut the fuck up.’”

On May 6, 1998, Cooper apparently had an argument with another faculty member, Gail Kintzer, which centered on Kintzer calling Cooper “lazy,” impugning his commitment to the law school and its mission, and questioning his request to be reimbursed by the school for school-related expenses. The lawsuit claims that Kintzer complained to the school dean, Dennis Olson, about Cooper cursing her as well as Holmes cursing at Cooper. The dean subsequently reprimanded both Holmes and Cooper.

The lawsuit then cites a memorandum dated July 15, 1998, in which the chairman of the school board charged that Cooper had violated various rules and laws when he cursed Kintzer. The suit then says that on July 23, 1998, the school board voted to suspend Cooper without pay and bar him from the campus. The board did not suspend Holmes; in fact, they promoted him to dean in July 1998 after removing then Dean Olson.

In September 1998, Cooper appeared before the school board, expressed regret for cursing Kintzer and asked to be reinstated. He was not.

The lawsuit recounts some rather unprofessional conduct by faculty members who are part of a profession that prides itself on intellect, education, and the use of English. The lawsuit not only puts a cloud over all three of those attributes that are said to be at the heart of the legal profession, but also is a disturbing look at the law school’s faculty.

Had the above been the only example of poor judgment on the part of the school’s faculty, one could chalk it up to an exception. But, at least one other member of the staff had a reputation for not being able to conduct a class without using a string of four letter words--frequently.

Professor Dale Rubin had a reputation for profane language. According to students in his classes, he would pick on a student and unmercifully ridicule him or her for the whole semester. His conduct made many feel exceedingly uncomfortable and certainly was not conducive to learning. Despite his education at Stanford and Berkley and his many articles in learned publications; he appears to have never mastered civility, dignity, or some of the more lofty ideas commensurate with his chosen profession.

Earlier, when the position of Dean of Students had opened, Professor Dale Rubin was one of the three candidates for the position. Professor Tony Sutin and Professor Tom Blackwell, the two murdered faculty members, were also candidates. Professor Sutin was awarded the post.

The law school, in its understandable enthusiasm to become established, appears to have been willing to cut corners and dance around the edges of ethical behavior. For example, The Cannons of Official Conduct for the State of Virginia includes a statement that “(judges) shall not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund raising or membership solicitation.” Yet, the school has held, until recently, an annual fund raising golf tournament to solicit and raise money. Judge Nicholas E. Persin’s name and the prestige of his office, was used to publicize the tournament. Indeed, the tournament was referred to as the “N.E. Persin/Appalachian School of Law Golf Tournament and Gala.” Linking Judge Persin’s name to a golf tournament may not be an infraction of the law, but it is indicative of a willingness by all parties involved to “bend” the limits of ethical behavior.

More disturbing indications that the school was willing to cut corners, has come from former school employees. In one instance, a former employee claims to have been privy to school officials’ willingness to “play fast and free” with statistics. The individual claims to have been reading a file containing evidence that the school was willing to “adjust” evidence relating to the school’s minority enrollment—specifically to Peter Odighizuwa’s status as a student.

The employee was seen by a school official and was told to destroy the file. The employee made a copy of the file and then followed instructions. That copy was given to attorneys who filed a lawsuit against the school on behalf of Angela Dales’ estate.

The same employee says that he was called at home when insurance investigators were on the campus after the shooting. The school officials told him to stay at home and he would be paid for his day off. It was best for the employee to stay home, he was told because the school was sure that the employee “…would not want to do or say something that would hurt the families of the victims.”

After reading the above, is it any wonder that the Appalachian School of Law, failing to control conditions on the campus in general, ignored Odighizuwa’s danger signals and largely dismissed his threatening behavior toward faculty, administrative staff, and students. (I will go into the Odighizuwa’s threatening actions in greater detail later.) On the rare occasions the school did respond to Odighizuwa, it did so in ineffective ways. (To be continued)