Extroverts v. Introverts
72 U. Va. 224 (2020)
PICKETT, J. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GLADDEN, DESKINS, TANG, SCHMID, and LUEVANO, JJ. join.
I.
Despite UVA Law’s reputation for collegiality, the recent surge in Bluetooth head gear has left various students stunned and embarrassed as they attempt to greet their friends and are shut down by silence and a glazed look of distraction. In this opinion, the Court will establish the substantive due right to bother people you know at the Law School by issuing an injunction against in-ear Bluetooth headphones in the hallway.
I would like to introduce this opinion by stating that I know this is a hot take. I know that many individuals hate talking to people and seek solace from the miseries of law school in their music/podcasts. In fact, I wanted to name the opinion “Extroverts v. Introverts” but I liked this title much better given that it sounds like the show about the OJ Simpson trial. I’m not even sure if the opinion I am writing right now is a majority, plurality, or dissent. But, given that I volunteered to write the COPA at this week’s Law Weekly meeting, I am claiming to be in the majority and taking my word to be the mandate of the Court.
I have also taken the extraordinary step of acting as the plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel, and the judge in this matter, but heavily refute any claims of inappropriate bias. Sometimes you can find no one to sympathize with your complaints quite like yourself. And it just so happens that I am a member of the Law Weekly staff.
It is worth recognizing, however, what this case does NOT cover. The injunction does not extend to (1) talking on the phone into wireless headphones; (2) listening to music as you enter the law school, having just arrived and not yet settled into the rhythms of the law school; (3) big Bluetooth headphones or wired headphones that are present for all to see; or (4) using Bluetooth headphones at any other time, including on walks to and from school.
II.
On February 10, 2020, plaintiff Sam Pickett was walking down the hallways of the law school when he made eye contact with his good friend, Rue D. Boi. Pickett looked forward to saying hi to his friend and maybe even offering him a customary fist bump. Rue D. Boi didn’t particularly care to talk to people, but Pickett wanted to bother him anyway. Why did Pickett do this? Deep-seated psychological issues? A constant desire to reenact scenes of memorable friendship like those in romantic comedies? Watching too many cringey shows about high school? Watching too much High School Musical? Who knows, but he looked forward to saying hi to Rue D. Boi regardless.
But, as Pickett approached Boi and called out his name, stretching out his fist, his greeting was returned by an empty gaze. They passed each other, leaving Pickett heartbroken and embarrassed. He looked back at Boi with the kind of sadness contestants on The Bachelor look back at Peter as they realize he is messing up every decision he possibly could on that show. But at the last second, he saw in Boi’s ear a little black circle; Boi had been wearing headphones that were imperceptible without careful examination of his ears.
Pickett had had enough. It had happened too many times with too many different kinds of wireless headphones. AirPods, Android knock-offs, Covington AirPod knock-offs—he had seen them all and been burned too many times. He sued to enforce his substantive due right to bother people he knew.
III.
The right to bother people you know provides that students shall be permitted to be bothered when they are in open fields. The right strictly forbids students from completely isolating themselves from the world unless they retreat to a restricted space, such as their locker, the library, or their own homes. This includes, more specifically, a ban on isolating oneself in the world of good music or good podcasts; the right rather encourages people to delve into the world of good vibes.
The right to bother people you know is as old as time itself. It began with the cave people, who would bother each other by boring their friends with extraordinarily long stories, often involving the drawing of stick figures on the wall, about a hunt that actually hadn’t even been that eventful.[1] As society developed, so did the methods of harassment. Attila the Hun rampaged across much of Asia with his nomadic forces. Marcus Junius Brutus and the senators of Rome stabbed Julius Caesar twenty-three times with daggers. The French Revolution decapitated Marie Antoinette with a guillotine.
The right was first articulated, however, in the case of Professors v. Students Who Want to High Five Them in the Hallway, 268 U.VA. 13, 89 (1990), in which the Court held that “Professors have it pretty good here, the least they can do is give the overeager gunner the occasional high five.” More specifically, the Court ruled that the right to bother people you knew was a property right, claiming that “friendship brings with it the obligation to be bothered, and if you are willing to accept the positive of friendship, you must be willing to endure the bothering as well.” The right has been affirmed several times, with each new development of technology. There is the right to be sent unsolicited faxes with weird jokes in them. There is the right to send those weird chain emails that claim you will be cursed if you don’t forward them on. There is the right to send those strange texts with all those emojis and sexual innuendos to your friends on national holidays. And now, there is the right to just say a good old-fashioned hello, even in the face of rapidly advancing headphone technology.
This is not meant to take aim at headphones with wires, or people who listen to music with the huge headphones. Those people have sent a clear message that they will not be bothered—they have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in an open field. Does this opinion seem contradictory? I don’t care, because it is really a very narrowly tailored opinion—it applies whenever I, the plaintiff and judge, choose.
IV.
We hold in favor of the plaintiff and order an injunction against all of those weird in-ear wireless headphones in the hallways at school, unless excepted in this opinion or by Pickett personally. In addition, we hold that everyone must buy Pickett a drink at the next bar review.
CALAMARO, J., Dissenting:
This question of “the right to bother” is about entitlement. This issue of wearing earbuds in the hallway is about personal freedom. Personally, I choose to wear earbuds, not because I enjoy the songs I listen to far too many times, but because I enjoy walking around the law school, immune to engaging in niceties with those who I deem unworthy of them. Who among us hasn’t been saved by their earbuds in Withers Brown after making unwanted eye contact with someone whose name you refuse to say because it might be wrong? Who hasn’t wanted to have earbuds when walking by a talkative person, and all you want to do is get home and die on your couch, but instead you have to talk about the direction of the wind? There is solid utility for earbuds, and I will not give up my right to this utility for any reason.
Furthermore, if the majority chooses to invoke ancient Rome, I shall invoke ancient Greece, where Socrates, the man who damned us to answering inane questions asked by professors on auto-pilot, was so annoying in Athens because he would accost the rich and poor alike that they made him kill himself. This type of punishment is not preferred in this day and age,[2] but perhaps bringing the town stocks back for those who accost earbud wearers is an appropriate measure. I am open to suggestions, but ultimately, one is no more entitled to accost people in the hallways than Socrates himself was in the streets of Athens. I strongly stand against banning earbuds, and this court finds itself in grave error as a result of this ruling.
[1] See Neander T. Hall, The Cave People Actually Hated Those Drawings on the Wall and Wish You Would Stop Talking About Them, Va. L. Rev. 13, 29 (0009).
[2] An unfortunate consequence of some misguided thinking on proportionality of punishment.
___
shp8dz@virginia.edu
dac6jk@virginia.edu