Dear Source:
While I can well understand the frustration of the teachers who have been told, after 24 days on strike, that they must return to work because their 1991 to 1995 contract remains in effect and prohibits them from striking, attacking Judge Brenda Hollar is neither reasonable, fair, nor productive.
Once it was determined that the contract remained in effect, albeit on a day to day basis, the judge had no choice but to enforce its provisions. And the bargaining committee of the AFT acknowledged that the contract was still in effect in July 2000.
The apparently widespread belief that controversial judicial decisions are invariably politically inspired is acutely troubling. It implies an equally widespread disrespect for the judiciary and the legal system.
Those who are saying that the decision in this case was based on Judge Hollar's desire to keep her job obviously know nothing of Judge Hollar.
Whether you agree with her decisions or not, they are invariably based on her understanding of what the law is and how it applies to a given situation. She has never been known to make decisions based on expediency or her own personal interest.
It is also disturbing that Judge Hollar's decision should be described as based on her own self-interest when no one has challenged its factual or legal bases. There has been no suggestion that she was wrong in finding that the contract was both in force and that it prohibited the teachers from going on strike. There has been no suggestion that she was wrong in finding that the contract contained a procedure for settling disputes, a procedure which included first mediation and then, if that did not produce a resolution, binding arbitration. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest an improper motive for Judge Hollar's decision.
A court decision is not wrong or improper just because it goes against the position that we favor, even it that position appears to be morally right. The teachers may have been treated unfairly for years and we may be in sympathy with them, but if their union leaders agreed to extend a contract with a no-strike clause, can a judge ignore that? Even worse than the casual maligning of a judge, the view of this decision as "political" misunderstands the function of a court. Courts are designed to decide conflicts in accordance with agreed on principles and standards. The principles and standards are agreed on so that there is predictability about how a particular kind of conflict will be resolved. Without this agreement, there would be no guides to tell a judge what facts should be considered or what should be the basis of any decision. Every judge would be left to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
Judges are not appointed to "do good" or to "make the world better".
What is "good" and what "makes the world better" is a matter of opinion, and opinions differ. Judges are appointed to resolve conflicts according to the facts and the law. They should not be defamed when they simply do their job.
Judith L. Bourne
