TO THE EDITOR:
The editorial "What's the point?" troubled me. In criticizing Chase Foster's situation, the editorial board overlooked the fact that his was a frivolous charge. The student attorney general should not have charged him for creating a satirical address, especially considering that it had been disabled anyway. His "offense" was miniscule and victimless.
As his defense counsel noted, the investigation did not even produce evidence of disapproval on the part of Molly Broad, and only one overzealous student misunderstood the joke. Foster's action simply did not affect University interests.
The editorial board betrayed its bias in referring to his "clear-cut violations." Chase Foster's defense counsel did an excellent job of revealing the Honor Court's contradictions and the investigation's failures. His actions were undisputed, but whether they were wrong was not.
I only work on a fraction of honor system cases through Independent Defense Counsel, but I see at least one frivolous charge per year (and two for this semester).
If The Daily Tar Heel is so concerned about wasted resources, it should turn a critical eye toward the prosecutors, not the accused.
Glenna GoldisSenior
