To the Editor:
I am a graduate of Fairfield University, and first heard of the court case of William Rom v. Fairfield University on Monday, Feb. 6, and was outraged to hear that the University had been found guilty by a jury, and required to pay out sums amounting nearly $200K. I know that Fairfield University would not suspend or expel a student without the proper reasons for doing so, in fact Fairfield has been lenient and forgiving of students for offenses in the past suggesting other methods of penalties such as fines and community service, as it is a Jesuit University teaching the ideals of serving as men and women for others.
Also, I knew the student William Rom and knew him to be a social deviant; ignorant to rules and regulations, destructive of public property and violent towards other students.
I feel as though the jury must have been misled by Matthew Hirsch, Williams’s lawyer, into believing that William Rom was another person. According to The Connecticut Post article dated Feb.4, Hirsch stated, “This was a college student with one alcohol violation. No drugs, no weapons possession, no embarrassing vandalism in the community…this is not the kid you suspend from school, not based on the evidence, not based on the process, not based on the facts. It was arbitrary and capricious.”
Either his lawyer did not take the chance to get to know his client, or was duped just as the jury was into believing the previous statement to be true. Rom did not represent the characteristics of a student attending Fairfield University, and certainly did not deserve to remain as a student and graduate, only to go into the work force and real world carrying a degree from Fairfield University representing our student body and alumni.
I believe that the most important part of Fairfield University’s mission statement pertains to students coming together as a community sharing common goals, a common commitment to truth and justice, and a common concern for others which is the obligation of all educated, mature human beings.
Rom was not one of these members of the community and did not deserve to remain a member of the Fairfield body, as he lacked, more than anything else, the common concern for others. He was apparently not a mature human being, proven by his disciplinary record, as well as others’ impressions of him and his lack of class and character.
Sincerely,
An anonymous graduate of Fairfield University 2004
Leave a Reply