I am a bit surprised by the outrage on social media after the Student Court’s decision in McCahill, Hardy v. Kinghorn.
In my opinion, the court’s 22-page analysis showed a high level of judicial knowledge and careful weighing of the evidence. The court ruled on specific violations of the Constitution and Senate bylaws.
Supporters of Lawren Kinghorn took to Twitter to claim that she somehow “won the majority of the case.” That’s an interesting argument, and one that directly contradicts her statement to the Lariat Tuesday where she claimed justice had not been served.
Another person on Facebook claimed that the ruling from a “fake” court was invalid. But the Student Court spent a lot of time and effort on this case, ultimately arriving at a unanimous decision. Belittling them ultimately shows a bias on the part of the critic, not the court itself.
In my opinion, the court’s decision showed reasonable analysis that was unswayed by the inflammatory rhetoric on both sides.
— Chicago senior Danny Huizinga
Baylor Business Fellows