TO THE EDITOR:
I was disappointed by The Daily Tar Heel's editorial "What's the point?" I was primarily disappointed by the astounding lack of supporting evidence that the Editorial Board presented to make its case.
The Editorial Board stated that Chase Foster "wasted the (appellate) board's time by addressing almost everything but the central issues relating to his conviction." The Editorial Board did not, however, specify these central issues. Nor did it address how defense arguments (such as insufficient evidence presented in the original hearing, that the court's decision was contradictory, and that the charges were not appropriate) were erroneous and tangential.
Mr. Foster had two of the most intelligent and hardworking counsels on the attorney general's staff helping him during this process in the original Honor Court hearing and at the appellate level. If the Editorial Board believes that a more effective defense was possible, I would be amused to hear its suggestions.
The Editorial Board also stated, "From the start, this was a waste of University resources. ... Attention and resources shouldn't have been diverted toward what was basically a pointless exercise." If this means the incident should not have been charged, the Editorial Board owes the attorney general an explanation as to why this matter did not merit the Honor Court's attention.
If the Editorial Board intended to criticize Mr. Foster, it owes Mr. Foster an explanation of why the exercise of his right to due process was actually a waste of University resources. In either case, the DTH owes its readers some measure of explanation and evidence to justify its opinion.
Jud CampbellJunior
