Hungry People
v.
Law School Student Orgs
75 U.Va 12 (2022)
E. Brown, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
Background
This class action suit concerns an ongoing dispute between literally every student at the University of Virginia School of Law and student organizations that engage in a particularly odious form of tomfoolery. Of the dozens of student organizations at the Law School, many offer food to entice students to come to panels, job discussions, workshops, and other godforsaken wastes of time for which there is no other legitimate reason to attend.[1] At one end of the spectrum, some student groups give out crappy food, like grimy Domino’s with no napkins or paper towels.[2] Some are more generous, shelling out big bucks for Mezze, Mellow Mushroom, or—when god smiles upon us—Roots. But regardless of the culinary options offered, student organizations face an implicit expectation to provide at least three free meals a week for the Law School’s scrappiest and grittiest among us.
Respondents are accused in this suit of the greatest Law School sin: arbitrarily withholding food from event attendees. In several cases reported to the Law Weekly, representatives from student groups have refused to let attendees eat the provided food until after the event’s conclusion. This means that some hapless students, just hoping to get a free meal, have been forced to sit idly, gazing at perfectly hot and ready food just out of reach. As speakers give long speeches and panels answer questions, students sit hungrily, wishing for their swift and merciful demise. I didn’t want to name names, but I’m looking at you, Federalist Society.
This Court has appropriate subject matter jurisdiction over all food-related crises at the Law School, as well as sufficient personal jurisdiction to enforce judgments against all Respondents.[3] On appeal, Petitioners allege that Respondents’ behavior unjustly deprives them of the ability to get what matters out of events—free food—and seek an injunction against all student organizations that practice this hellish scheme. Respondents argue they should be able to shape guidelines for food distribution at their own events. We grant Petitioners’ request for an injunction because I will absolutely never recover from when this happened to me last month, and I have no qualms about turning an institutional problem into a rant about my struggles.[4]
Analysis
First, we reject Respondents’ argument that they should be able to decide the food distribution practices at their own events. What is a student organization if not a syndicate of students? And as expressed in this suit, students at large vehemently oppose the predatory practice of dangling food in front of one’s face. Respondents cannot disabuse themselves of the expectations of their attendees by hiding behind the veil of student group governance. They face a responsibility to act in accordance with the norms of the Law School, which specify that food is good and food must be made easily accessible to all students—and without undue delay.[5]
Respondents also argue on appeal that their practices disproportionately harm 1Ls, who are more likely to attend the type of throwaway panels and events that offer free food to motivate attendance. And because this Court has long respected the right to dump on 1Ls, particularly annoying, gunnery ones who regularly show up at events, Respondents claim their activities are protected.[6] This is an inaccurate reading of the law. The Court has clearly held in previous cases that in events open to 2Ls and 3Ls, the quality of these events must be at a threshold acceptable to 2Ls and 3Ls should they attend, even if 1Ls are disproportionately represented.[7]Therefore, Respondents cannot get out of their obligation to practice basic human etiquette by coming for the 1Ls—they will not succeed.
Finally, Respondents claim that if Petitioners succeed, they will come to events for the food and leave immediately once their plates are full, potentially lowering audience turnout for the event itself. This frivolous and hypothetical claim cannot be entertained, for there exists a simple remedy outside the authority of this Court to enforce: Make the events better, so people actually want to stay.
So, this Court, long respecting the rights of Law School students to use food as one of the few pleasures left to us in this cruel world, finds for Petitioners. All student organizations are enjoined from preventing food from being served the instant it is available, lest they face the legal penalties and wrath set forth by these chambers.
Pazhwak, J., concurring.
“How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, Old Man?”[8] This quote by a blue fish on SpongeBob SquarePants well encapsulates this Court’s frustration with the ongoing antics of student organizations at UVA Law regarding their event food practices. They continue to provide less than an adequate supply of it for the flood of newly interested, post-pandemic attendees, or they erect arbitrary and capricious barriers to its consumption, as the majority well describes in its background on the instant case. This Court has been forced to continue to issue injunctions to deal with these disturbing trends, remaining a vigilant guardian of justice for those law students—particularly the 2Ls and, most importantly, the 3Ls, who rely on the bounty of free law school food.[9]
The majority properly issues yet another injunction enjoining a specific behavior, yet this approach to the food cases poses the problem of the overconsumption of valuable judicial resources. A clearer standard is needed, since student organizations are evidently not getting the idea.
A proper reading of our caselaw indicates that the handling of event food at UVA Law falls under the dormant collegiality doctrine. The collegiality doctrine, while not elaborated upon in any single document, is nevertheless deeply interwoven into the history and traditions of UVA Law.[10] In its “dormant” form, this doctrine implicitly governs the relations and interactions between students, between student organizations, and, as we have repeatedly found, between students as individuals and student organizations.[11] Thus, the distribution of event food by student organizations to students must comport with the dormant collegiality doctrine.
We next must turn to the original public meaning of collegiality. Its first known use was in 1887, where it was defined as “the cooperative relationship of colleagues.”[12] Without dissecting this language further when applied to the instant situation, withholding food until the end of an event would not advance a cooperative relationship among colleagues, either now or in 1887. Rather, it appears to be the source of a great deal of consternation. Thus, the dormant collegiality doctrine would indicate that this and all other annoying event food distribution practices are un-collegial and make a mockery of justice.
---
bwj2cw@virginia.edu
mwp8kk@virginia.edu
[1] Yes, okay, there are some worthwhile events with no food, but the Court of Petty Appeals has no time for your nuance.
[2] A note from the Chief Justice: We love and respect the Domino's Pizza on Millmont for their lasting commitment to supporting the hungry editors of the Law Weekly.
[3] The Law Weekly is all powerful and can get student groups to kowtow to its every demand.
[4] I attended FedSoc’s “Marijuana Federalism” event in October and had to wait an hour to eat the Mellow Mushroom sitting one row away from me.
[5] Students v. Empty Food Table, 75 U.Va. 10 (2022).
[6] 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 939 U.Va. 111 (2019).
[7] 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va. 6 (2022).
[8] How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, Old Man?, YouTube (Dec. 3, 2018), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVxJ016xb4Q (providing a clip with the relevant quote, originally from the SpongeBob SquarePants episode “The Bully”).
[9] See 1L Gunners, 939 U.Va.; 1Ls, 75 U.Va.
[10] See, e.g., 10 Things Law Students Love About C'ville, Univ. of Va. Sch. of L., https://www.law.virginia.edu/charlottesville/favorites/student (last visited Nov. 13, 2022).
[11] National Lawyers Guild v. Federalist Society (NLG VII), 23 U.Va. 5 (2009).
[12] Collegiality, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collegiality#dictionary-entry-1 (last accessed Nov. 13, 2022).