Josh Wolf must pay damages to professor

ODwire.org NewsBot

NewsBot
Staff member
Jul 30, 2007
8,313
60
0
School/Org
Newsbot U
City
Barre
State
VT
A bizarre dispute between indie journalist Josh Wolf and an optometry professor reached its dramatic conclusion Friday in Berkeley small claims court. At issue was whether Wolf had to reimburse Cal Professor Robert...

More...
 
berzerkley

As a Cal grad, I find I often have to explain to folks that while the Bay Area,
and especially Berkeley in particular, are very liberal in their politics,
The University of California is often quite right-wing in its outlook and policies.
 
I met Bob Di Martino 15 years ago at a 10 day pathology course in Berkeley. He was the hardest working faculty member I've ever seen, working 12 hour days doing the nitty gritty work of putting that elaborate seminar together. He was probably just trying to do the job that he was assigned to do (probably with no pay) when this Josh Wolf guy started show boating the whole matter. I hope they sold some good lemonade for Bob's sake. Go Bears.
 
Good guy, bad policy

I met Bob Di Martino 15 years ago at a 10 day pathology course in Berkeley. He was the hardest working faculty member I've ever seen, working 12 hour days doing the nitty gritty work of putting that elaborate seminar together. He was probably just trying to do the job that he was assigned to do (probably with no pay) when this Josh Wolf guy started show boating the whole matter. I hope they sold some good lemonade for Bob's sake. Go Bears.


I also took that path course, and yes, Dr Di M is a hard working guy, who really seemed to care about putting on a good program, and making sure we all got a lot out of it. Still, I think its a bad policy to deny a student the opportunity to have counsel, if he wants to pay for it, when dealing with a career threatening situation, opposing a massive organization like the UC system. I think, looking at these facts, as both a Cal grad, and a JD, I have to side with the journalist. I think the hearing made a bad call, and he has evey right to be pissed. My opinion is that in the case of these costs, this court made a wrong decision. Sometimes even a jerk deserves to be able to exercise his rights.
 
I also took that path course, and yes, Dr Di M is a hard working guy, who really seemed to care about putting on a good program, and making sure we all got a lot out of it. Still, I think its a bad policy to deny a student the opportunity to have counsel, if he wants to pay for it, when dealing with a career threatening situation, opposing a massive organization like the UC system. I think, looking at these facts, as both a Cal grad, and a JD, I have to side with the journalist. I think the hearing made a bad call, and he has evey right to be pissed. My opinion is that in the case of these costs, this court made a wrong decision. Sometimes even a jerk deserves to be able to exercise his rights.

Does one have the right to legal counsel in an academic disciplinary case? :confused:
 
Your rights

Does one have the right to legal counsel in an academic disciplinary case? :confused:

First off, this was a "disciplinary" hearing, NOT an "academic" hearing.
It is important to keep those issues separate. One refers to misbehaviour,
the other to just plain failure to do well enough in classwork.

As is often ther case in legal questions, the answer in this case is ...sometimes, maybe.
Some Courts have ruled there IS a right to counsel in University hearings, some have disagreed.

Here is a very good discussion on the situation:


http://www.ncherm.org/pdfs/rtoattny.pdf

Let me clarify that my comments were based on my own sense of what is FAIR,
not particularly on what actually goes down in the guise of being "legal" in lopsided actions
taken by bullys such as a big universities, which themselves have virtually unlimited access to legal counsel,
lots of money, and often the ears of a lawmaking body to support their tyranny..

This guy was, in his mind, acting as a journalist,
and was (perhaps improperly) treated as though he were an active participant in the protest.
(Or so he claims)

Perhaps more appropriately, he should have been arrested,
and tried criminally for trespass, the only crime I can see which he may have committed.
In that case he would have had an absolute right to counsel, and an appeals process in the case of error.
If found guilty, and the conviction upheld,
The UC might have exercised some arbitrary policy to expel him for the criminal conviction.

As it was, they convened a Kangaroo Kourt consisting of the good Dr,
and perhaps some others, who may or may not have had any real judicial authority whatsoever,
and, as I understand the report, simply told him he had no rights.
In this case, UC had the ability to intimidate him with the threat of ruining his academic career.


However our hopelessly right-wing skewed US Supreme Court rightly or wrongly rules, eventually,
I think its a pretty sad situation when we are all just okey dokey
with stripping an individual of the right to counsel in ANY action critical to his life and livlihood,
just because we CAN. :eek: