Students v. Law Library
73 U.Va 18 (2021)
Justice Kulkarni delivering the opinion of the court.
During finals month, the Law School kept the library open until 8:30 p.m.[1] This provided the opportunity for students to spread out, focus, create outlines, and attempt to pass their exams or write their papers. Even with limited capacity, the library provides at least three distinct areas to meet students’ needs: study rooms, the upstairs area, and the aptly named “Gunner Pit.” The sanctity of law libraries is respected in all similar jurisdictions as a place to get away from annoying roommates and the allure of one’s bed. Recently, and especially in the wake of the newest round of restrictions, the library now closes at 5:00 p.m. As such, the students of the Law School bring this case seeking to compel the Law School to return to its previous hours.
This case is exactly the kind of issue this Court was designed to hear. It cleanly falls within the jurisdiction of the Court as an issue regarding the Law School. The library is a location used exclusively by law students and the changing of the hours affects them directly. On the merits, the plaintiffs provide a clear harm and show a straight line from changing hours to issues studying. The Court addresses each of the main arguments in turn.
First, plaintiffs contend that the Law School is committing a clear act of discrimination by favoring day studiers over night studiers. This Court is inclined to agree. For those students who would consider themselves responsible, and who this Court would classify as ‘gunners,’ studying during the day provides them the opportunity to get their work done and be home in time for the Bachelor. For the other half of students, studying during the evening allows them either to maintain their college schedule or meet the demands of the work or children. Each student should be allowed to make the choice of when to study. The defense argues that students can still study in any other areas of the Law School and in Scott Commons.
This leads to plaintiff’s second argument: That the hours of the library are creating an unbearable choice to either suffer through terrible roommates and distractions at home or study in very limited spaces in the Law School. The defense is that the Law School has closed seminar rooms, limited hours on weekends, and created stringent guidelines in the wake of the-thing-which-shall-not-be-named. For good reason, the Law School is unwilling to budge on that last requirement. They additionally argue that the adjusted law library hours are serving the purpose of protecting public health. In the opinion of this Court, it should be up to students to decide whether to potentially get sick studying in limited spaces or to hamper their studying at home. The Law School has to, and indeed already has, decided what is their priority.
For both issues, the existence of alternative study spaces lies at the center. The Lounges provide limits of up to eight people. Classrooms get locked in the evenings. All that remains, for most students, is Scott Commons. The reality is that there is very limited space in that area. The tables in the quiet room are restricted to two people. The tables outside are restricted to one. Beyond space restrictions, there are other detriments to students in packing them into this one area. Students should be allowed to select the environments that they study in. Scott Commons, or ScoCo as it is colloquially referred to as, is an environment of collegiality and distraction.[2] For the students who wish to avoid this type of workspace, they are not left with many options.
Thus, I hereby order the Law School to return the library to its hours from November. The Law School has admitted, both in their arguments and through past actions, that the health and wellness of students is their top priority. This issue implicates both students’ physical and mental health. In packing students into limited areas after 5:00 p.m., the School increases the risk of exposure to the-thing-which-shall-not-be-named. Grades and sleep schedules are paramount for the mental health of law students. In restricting the times and places where students can study, their habits are affected with adverse future effects on grades. As I noted a few weeks ago, rights are not abrogated simply because of the class of people involved.[3] In this case, the rights of night studiers and those who wish to study alone are being affected. This would be the appropriate relief.
Birch, J., dissenting, in which Tonseth, C.J., joins. Pickett, J., joins as to the part of the opinion beginning with “While my young colleague”. Luk, J. also wants to join.
At the outset, Justice Kulkarni’s jurisdictional holding is flawed outside of the currently-effective, temporary statutes. While it is true that, under the guise of COVID policy, the administration has finally restricted use and access to the library to those who are law students, that was not always the case. Having personally watched several “I’m a real doctor”[4] students sleep at upstairs library desks and undergraduate pre-gunners[5] “try to find a quiet place,” this Justice recognizes this issue is not one historically held exclusively by law students. Decisions need to be made in light of the current policies, but with the larger community on grounds, welcome or not, in mind.
The “clear act of discrimination” that the majority agrees with is a matter of choice. Planning[6] one’s studying during the day, or during the night, is a matter of choice and priority. If a student prioritizes the Bachelor, working during the day, and going to sleep before 2:30 a.m., then the hushed air of the library is available to them 9 hours a day. If an individual makes a choice that exposes them to the consequences of their choice, they may not simply ask the Court to rescue them from themselves. Those who prefer to work at night, the “class” of individuals alleging discrimination, has never been a class protected by this Court or the administration. A little more evidence is needed than to look at the schedules of classes from this semester alone: Roughly twenty-four classes start before 10:00 a.m. and another eight start before 9:00 a.m.[7] Night studiers have always been placed outside of their comfort, and their inability to tell their roommate to turn down the music does not grant them a class of their own. Accordingly, it is outside this Court’s review to challenge the policies enacted by the administration.
This dissent should not be read to restrict access to an equitable remedy to those that are of a historically protected class. Outside of the traditionally outlined classes, this Court notes prior protection of parent-students, those working outside of the legal field to support their studies, and those 3Ls who actually still come to the Law School. Additionally, this Court has modified age discrimination to protect those over the age of thirty at any time during their attendance. Should any of these classes present a discriminatory claim as to the law library’s hours, this Justice would readily address appropriate equitable solutions. Even without a proper claim, I will address some of the merits Justice Kulkarni may be unfamiliar with.
While my young colleague on the bench has no memory of a library open past 8:30 p.m., I firmly do. In the before-times, the law library was a place to study between classes, catch up on work, watch the gunners work ahead while outlining, and interact with your peers. This last activity was the most crucial for those not in the Pit of Internal Despair Gunner Pit. Socialization as a form of procrastination and stress-relief has long been a main draw of the library. The decibel levels remained low, but this was often accomplished by rolling chairs right next to each other. The appeal of this method of procrastination peaked in the late evening hours. This is exactly the behavior that the administration is attempting to dispel and is closely tied to the restrictions put in place. Additionally, time seems to move differently as you read in near-silence. Students have sat to read from the red- or blue-covered texts that strain their backs, only to lift their gaze and realize that two hours has resulted in three pages of progress. The deafening silence of the library is a trap, and this Justice has felt the hot rush of shame walking home at 11:30 p.m., only to continue the assignments started in the library. By removing students at 5:00 p.m., the health and safety of the staff is preserved, law students are more likely[8] to eat a real meal for dinner, and shame from late hours of studying are confined to one’s own home.
For the reasons listed above, I grumpily dissent.
Tonseth, C.J., dissents.
To be honest, I didn’t even read the majority's opinion, but 1Ls always lose.[9] Insofar as this case applies to 1Ls, stare decisis rules and those plaintiffs are severable from the case at hand. It is antithetical to our esteemed Bench and my reign of terror to allow this precedent to change. I vehemently dissent.
---
omk6g@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
[1] Plaintiffs inform the court that the library used to have even longer hours. Since this Justice has no memory of such a situation, this opinion is rendered with a baseline of 8:30 p.m.
[2] The Court acknowledges that this decision will allow the group known as the “ScoCo Gremlins” to return to their deviant ways without worrying about adverse effects on fellow students. This is a risk the court is willing to take in order to protect the rights of other students.
[3] 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va 16 (2021) (Kulkarni, S, Dissenting).
[4] Emphasis in original dialogue
[5] “I’ve taken the LSAT, so I’m basically in law school, right?”
[6] More realistically: Cramming
[7] Many of these are classes for 1Ls, and therefore are superfluous and mentioned here simply for effect.
[8] Not a guarantee
[9] 1L Gunners v. Every- one Else, 324 U.Va 22 (2019)