Entitled Millennials v. Student Affairs
73 U.Va 3 (2020)
Justice Tonseth delivered the opinion of the Court.
I.
“If a hungry little traveler shows up at your house, you might want to give him a cookie. If you give him a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk.” While no one foresaw Laura Numeroff as the Nostradamus of UVA Law for her illustrious work, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, her words could not be more poignant or applicable. Driven by hunger, greed, and poverty, the class of Entitled Millennials of UVA Law, hereinafter referred to as “plaintiffs,” leveraged this quote to secure a judgment in the District Court of Petty Appeals in their favor. Awarding of damages against the Office of Student Affairs, in the form of an expanded fruit selection, increased slots for registration, and punishment for repeat participants, goes beyond the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction. Due to the faulty interpretation and application of 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA, 370 U. Va. 100 (2020), in conjunction with my personal disdain for stare decisis, the decision against Student Affairs and award of damages is vacated. We humbly ask Student Affairs to accept our deepest condolences for this miscarriage of justice.
II.
Hybrid classes, social distancing, mask-wearing, and the close of the Snack Office[1] all greeted students harshly upon their return to Charlottesville in mid-August. In a single ray of sunshine, Kate Duvall and the Office of Student Affairs established a partnership with Bellair Farms to deliver a mix of fresh vegetables, at no cost, to students every Friday.[2] While it is beyond me why anyone would willingly eat vegetables,[3] Student Affairs sponsored forty slots each week until October 6, on a first-come, first-serve basis, with SBA apportioning an additional twenty-five slots.
Plaintiffs complained to the District Court of Petty Appeals on two grounds. First, they claim that Student Affairs ignored their statutory duty to limit people from signing up for multiple slots, rather hoping to rely on the “collegiality” of UVA Law for law students to look out for each other. Further, plaintiffs complain the free produce they received was odd, whether it was a bag of beets,[4] a kohlrabi,[5] a single ear of corn, or assorted small squashes. In stating their claims, plaintiffs rely solely on the 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA precedent of a breach of contract to get more free food, at their own quality standards.
In 1L Cookie Monsters, Justice Stievater ordered Student Affairs to return “Weekly Wind Downs” and the associated free trays of cookies for 1Ls to enjoy on Friday afternoons. Relying on the UCC and the 1Ls’ detrimental reliance, Justice Stievater in dicta explained that sufficient consideration existed between Student Affairs and 1Ls to create a breach of contract for the failure to provide free cookies. Brief for the Plaintiffs applied this precedent to their situation stating “the cost of tuition, which is still over $60,000 for ridiculous Zoom classes, is consideration enough for a ‘Whole Foods’ style fruit selection. Registering for a slot clearly metered acceptance of the offer, and thus Student Affairs has breached our implied quality standard. Replace cookies with Kohlrabi and the cases mirror each other,” at 24. Oh, how the turn tables.
III.
Respondents willingly ignored the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure: We do what we want. Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers, 369 U. Va. 96 (2019). Through our landmark decisions, this Court has consistently shaped events and outcomes in favor of law students to the detriment of the administration. However, these decisions are often left to the whimsy of each Justice, weakening the support for their precedential value. It is thus the words of (a Supreme Court) Justice, Clarence Thomas, that drive my decision to follow and apply the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure to this case today, “when faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it.[6]”
The class of Entitled Millennials did not detrimentally rely on Student Affairs to provide free vegetables to their elevated standards, as neither did the 1Ls and their Friday cookies.[7] Student Affairs gratuitously provided these options, whether healthy or good for the soul, at their own discretion to generate a rare smile from a student while at school. The plaintiffs attempted to accept, yet demand better gifts[8] from Student Affairs is shameful. If anything, the plaintiffs ought to thank Student Affairs for thinking of them in their time of need. Further, this Court points the plaintiffs to Honor Code Committee v. Fried Chicken Thieves, 72 U. Va. 655 (2020), where blatant violations of the Honor Code not to steal free food is applicable here to slots for vegetables. The ire of the plaintiffs should thus be directed inwards, Lord of the Flies style.
“Emotional distress is a harm within the risk of attending school.” 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U. Va. 22, 24 (2019). Just because plaintiffs are already stressed in the first week of September[9] does not mean they can blame Student Affairs for not meeting their astronomical expectations (i.e. beggars can’t be choosers). It is therefore decreed that this Court is no longer bound by stare decisis,[10] that 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA is overturned as an erroneous abuse of discretion, and every plaintiff owes Lisa or Kate Duvall a handwritten apology.
STIEVATER, B. dissenting.
I confess myself to be bitterly disappointed with the majority’s outcome in this case. For one, this is the Court of Petty Appeals and the Justices who preside over it are similarly petty. Since handing down what I believed to be a landmark holding in 1L Cookie Monsters v. UVA, 370 U.Va 100 (2020), I have come to revel in my unofficial titles of reverence, which include, but are not limited to: King of Cookies, Sultan of Snickerdoodles, and the Chocolate Chip Khan. To be stripped of these so early into my 2L year burns deeply, like a tray of cookies pulled out of the oven with no mitts. Justice Tonseth includes a reference to the fictional Dothraki language from Game of Thrones in footnote five. Perhaps he will recognize this one: The North remembers. So too will the countless cookie monsters that Justice Tonseth has wronged today.
Secondly, Justice Tonseth builds his abominable decision on faulty ground. Indeed, it is ground no sturdier than a crumbly cookie. The decision today concerns the alleged quality of vegetables, which the majority writes the plaintiffs have no legal right to argue over. I need not wade into the waters of this argument. The class in 1L Cookie Monsters did not argue over the quality of cookies, only that they continue to be provided once the contract was formed. My holding recognized this right to continual cookies at Weekly Wind Downs because there was sufficient consideration, in the form of tuition, to form a contract. It did not purport to demand a quality of cookie. The Entitled Millennials before the Court today erroneously imagined 1L Cookie Monsters to provide them a legal argument. That might have been the case if the Bellair Farm Fridays were suddenly discontinued by Student Affairs and no vegetables were available at all, but it is not the case when the vegetables are to their displeasure.
I condemn Justice Tonseth’s disregard for stare decisis and the majority’s crumbly legal reasoning. They were not too mighty to partake in cookie eating themselves last year, I might add. I rebuke the Entitled Millennials for attempting to fly too high as a collective, greedy Icarus in their search for “Instagram-able” vegetables, thereby sacrificing the 1L right to cookies. I lament the loss of my legacy as the Protector of (Baked) Goods. If I can’t use my legal education to secure my friends and myself cookies, what’s this all been for? I dissent.
---
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
bes4cf@virginia.edu
[1] We miss seeing your face 3x a day and still love you dearly Lisa!
[2] See “Friday Farmstead with Student Affairs” email, Kate Duvall, August 17, 2020.
[3] The only green I eat is tiny cilantro pieces on my pizza and the limes in my Coronas.
[4] The 1L recipient of this bag failed to call Dwight Schrute to ask for the best way to utilize these, to his own detriment.
[5] Which I sadly just learned is not part of the Dothraki language, but a part of the cabbage family.
[6] See Clarence Thomas Is Actually Right About Supreme Court Precedent, Slate (last visited September 3, 2020).
[7] But seriously, who would eat kohlrabi? Why can’t you just use lettuce or a regular turnip instead?
[8] Yes, I looked up the rules for gifts from my property outline. It didn’t help my argument, as I must’ve zoned out when Professor Nicoletti talked about them, so let’s appeal to ethos attacks instead. I really should pay attention more.
[9] Same, I keep getting my seat stolen in class because my professors won’t do a seating chart. ☹
[10] It is with my own whimsy I have declared this power. My rule of tyranny begins now.