Dear Editor,

Richard Duboc’s opinion piece on the death of Rutger’s student Tyler Clementi (October 7, 2010) touched on several significant points, and I appreciated his tone of reasonableness concerning a highly emotional topic. But I’m a little confused about the premise – and the conclusion – of his argument. Duboc states that, “If Clementi had not committed suicide Ravi and Wei would have only been subject to Rutgers administrative action as Clementi did not seem interested in placing criminal charges.” Isn’t this conjecture on Duboc’s part? Doesn’t it ignore the fact that Rutger’s administrators are obliged to contact the police if they determine, at any point in time, that a serious crime has been committed? Furthermore, I would suggest that Clementi was in no emotional state to determine an appropriate legal course of action during the few days between the time in which he discovered that his privacy had been grossly invaded and the time he learned of his fellow students’ (alleged) threat to downstream the film in question.

But it’s Duboc’s conclusion that really baffles me. He states that, as Clementi hadn’t lodged criminal charges, “Therefore I would assert the two students are guilty of horrible negligence and invasion of privacy but not a hate crime induced manslaughter.” However, it doesn’t follow that, because Clementi hadn’t lodged formal criminal charges before his suicide as the result of harassment, his tormentors are not guilty of either the lesser charges of invasion of privacy and harassment, or the more serious charge of manslaughter. Charges can be brought at any time following the discovery of a crime, and often are. In addition, Clementi wasn’t the only victim of this most recent case of cyberbullying. Because of their tragic loss, his parents, relatives, and friends are victims, too, and they also have the right to press for charges against the offenders, and to sue for emotional distress. I don’t know if these students are guilty of a hate crime or not, but I do believe they’re guilty of something more than “horrible negligence,” as Duboc concludes. Negligence connotes a failure to perform appropriate action, but the parties involved appear to have gone out of their way to stalk, film, and harass Clementi on a large scale. To dismiss any possible guilt for the charge of hate crime induced manslaughter on the basis that Clementi didn’t press charges before his death seems to me illogical, if not disingenious.

Sincerely,
Jerry Gagnon