The Verdict

BY

IN RE ICE SKATING RINK, 118 RECORD 1 (2004)

Per curiam

I. “Ice belongs in my drink, not beneath my feet,” Chief Justice Pettinato noted in her book “A Frozen Liver: Personal Reflections on Rum and Ice.”

II. The facts of this case are not in dispute. One Saturday night several Court members were coming back from the Hong Kong when they decided to cut through Jarvis Field as a shortcut home. Although falling on their faces is not an unusual occurrence for a Saturday night, these Court members were sure it had less to do with the ingestion of rum and diets and more to do with the slippery ground. After waking up the next day amidst a hockey game, the Court members felt compelled to decide whether the ice-skating rink recently constructed by Dean Kagan is worthy of a student’s limited time and expensive tuition.

III. The issue before this Court is one of first impression. We have never been asked to decide the worthiness of a Law School facility or project. It has been asserted that the Court cannot exert its jurisdiction over HLS, as the school represents a separate organization or branch that is free from the Court’s scathing eye. It is furthermore asserted that the Court will be biased in its rulings on Law School facilities since its members pay large sums of money to HLS and Dean Kagan has the ability to turn off the lights to the Court’s public forum (i.e. The Record) if she became dissatisfied with a ruling.

IV. The Court is aware that it treads on thin ice in agreeing to hear this case. As Justice Dick said during his recent lecture series: “The credibility of this Court would be called into question if we abandoned reason in favor of whims; thoroughness in favor of an easy decision; universal judgment in favor of sucking up to the administration.” The standing ovation Justice Dick received is indicative of the trust people place in this Court to decide their fashion (“In Re Urban Outfitters”) or where to eat (“In Re Boca Grande”). This Court cannot abandon its paramount role in pathetic people’s lives simply because it risks expulsion from the Law School.

V. As such, the Court hereby asserts that HLS falls within the Court’s jurisdiction as the reviewer of everything that is Cambridge. The Court need only point to the thousands of amicus briefs filed by concerned adults who said they look to the Court for guidance. “If the unexamined life is not worth living,” one student wrote, “then how much more is life not worth living if the Court that tells me what to examine, or more importantly where to shop, is forbidden from reviewing the Law School itself.” Fear not, dear student, the Court will continue to exercise its Cambridge jurisdiction, even over the financial behemoth that is HLS.

VI. With this new sense of urgency, we turn to the new ice-skating rink. We cannot help but hear the Law School shudder at the sound of our banging gavel. We are reminded of the fighting words of Michael Smith as he led the charge against an Old Navy store in “Red Badge of Fashion”: “Let not their sale items slow you down. They may be rich, but they’ll never be fashionable.”

VII. The Court holds that the new ice-skating rink is really cool, just like anything else the Law School has ever done or built. We encourage all students, whether they want to or not, to ice skate everyday and smile doing it. We also encourage students to email the administration to let them know how really cool the ice-skating rink is. We hold that dissent is not an option in this case. We have previously held that students do not have a right to be wrong (“In Re Urban Outfitters”) and we extend that holding to especially include anything the Law School does.

VIII. We hold that the ice-skating rink is worthy of a student’s limited time and expensive tuition.

IX. It is so ordered.

Comments