THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, May 3, 1996 TAG: 9605030500
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: VIRGINIA BEACH LENGTH: Medium: 93 lines
Pat Robertson and Regent University must stand trial for a scathing 1994 letter that Robertson wrote about some rebellious Regent law professors, a judge ruled Thursday.
Judge Edward W. Hanson Jr. said parts of the letter are ``pretty damaging'' to the professors' reputations, but he will let a jury decide if the letter is libelous.
Three Regent law professors are suing Robertson and Regent for $10 million each. They claim the letter, which compared them with Branch Davidians and cult leader Jim Jones, irreparably hurt their reputations.
The five-page letter was widely circulated at Regent and later published in The Virginian-Pilot. It blasted a group of nine law professors, three of whom - Roger Bern, Paul Morken and Jeffrey Tuomala - sued.
On Thursday, Hanson denied a motion by Robertson and Regent to throw out the lawsuit. Robertson and the university argued that the letter was simply opinion, not provable fact, and therefore was constitutionally protected speech.
Hanson also denied Robertson's motion to be dismissed personally from the lawsuit. Robertson's attorney argued that Regent's founder is immune from nearly all lawsuits because he is an unpaid chancellor at a tax-exempt university.
The Virginia immunity statute is intended to protect volunteer charity workers from most liability in performing good works. The immunity does not apply, however, in cases of ``willful misconduct.''
The professors argue that Robertson's letter ``reeks of willful misconduct.'' Hanson did not rule directly on that issue, but he cited three paragraphs in the letter that ``certainly provide a jury question, in my opinion, as to whether there is willful misconduct.''
The judge said other parts of the letter may also raise the ``willful misconduct'' issue for jurors.
Hanson cited paragraphs in which Robertson wrote that the rebellious professors were:
``Myopic,'' ``lacking in common sense'' and ``inept as lawyers.''
``Not capable teachers of law'' and ``third-rate minds.''
``Extremist fanatics'' and not ``rational persons'' because they had filed complaints with the American Bar Association. ``Only cultists after the order of Jim Jones or the Branch Davidians do such things,'' Robertson wrote.
The controversy began when Robertson fired law school dean Herbert Titus in July 1993. Most of the law school faculty rallied behind Titus.
Some complained to the ABA that Titus' firing violated the school's tenure system.
Titus later sued Robertson and others with ties to Regent. That lawsuit is set for trial in August in Virginia Beach.
On Feb. 22, 1994, Robertson wrote the disputed letter to one law professor.
He sent copies to Regent's president, provost and new law dean, with a postscript, ``Please feel free to share this letter with your colleagues on the faculty.''
In the letter, Robertson claimed that the rebellious professors wanted to sabotage the law school's ABA accreditation efforts or have the school ``crippled or closed down.'' He said that was professional suicide, comparable to the actions of Jim Jones or the Branch Davidians.
At Thursday's court hearing, the judge responded harshly to an argument by a Regent attorney that Robertson had a legal right to write the letter. Hanson again cited the part of the letter that referred to the professors as ``not capable teachers of law'' and ``third-rate minds.''
``Pretty damaging to a law professor, isn't it?'' the judge said. ``And this, of course, was written by a man who is a lawyer and well aware of the power of words.''
Later, Hanson returned to this argument: For a law professor trying to find a job, Hanson said, ``What could be more damaging than a letter from the chancellor saying he's not a competent teacher and has a third-rate mind?''
But a lawyer for Robertson argued that Robertson had a responsibility to write the letter in response to the ``absolute revolution'' and ``mutiny'' in the law school at the time.
``This is something these professors, this gang of eight, brought on themselves. . . ,'' argued the attorney, Glen A. Huff. ``The chancellor has a fiduciary duty to do something, to point out the craziness that was going on.''
Earlier in the hearing, the judge wondered out loud whether jurors might not read another message into the letter, given the running feud between Robertson and the professors.
``Is there an inference in the context that this could be spite?'' Hanson asked.
Hanson scheduled the case for trial for Feb. 3. ILLUSTRATION: Photo
Judge Edward W. Henson Jr.
KEYWORDS: LAWSUITS REGENT UNIVERSITY LIBEL by CNB