The UTSU has decided against seeking a second legal opinion on the lawsuit involving former executive Sandy Hudson. The vote was prompted by the Black Liberation Collective (BLC), who demanded that the UTSU seek legal advice on the proceedings from a lawyer who identifies as Black.
Outcries against alleged racism toward Hudson have sparked much debate over her case. Some, like the BLC, perceive the lawsuit to be race-motivated, and by extension, anti-Black. Contrary to this perception, however, the UTSU made the right decision in light of the facts.
There have been many allegations of racism against Hudson, but there is no actual evidence to support them. No proof of discrimination against Hudson has been brought forward — neither within the lawsuit itself nor in general on the part of the UTSU.
Lacking this proof, there is no basis for seeking another legal opinion. Putting funding toward rectifying unsubstantiated allegations is not an effective use of student resources, especially given the extremely high costs associated with legal help. Additionally, involving a second lawyer only brings unneeded complication to the lawsuit. Although some might argue that hiring a Black lawyer would counteract the UTSU’s alleged racial bias, if that bias has not been shown to exist, there is nothing to counteract.
This already complicated lawsuit will not benefit from additional layers of analysis based on unfounded suspicion. The focus should be on the facts of the case itself; only then can matters be effectively resolved.
Andrea Tambunan is a first-year student at University College studying Life Sciences.