University of Virginia Library

The Continuing Chaffin Caper

Last week the Walter Chaffin case found its
way into newspaper headlines and public
controversy again, only days after the
announced settlement between the University
and Mr. Chaffin's attorney had indicated an
end to the overblown issue. It was–as we have
come to expect in this matter–oversights,
misjudgments and misinterpretations that were
ultimately responsible for this latest episode.

When University legal advisor Neill H.
Alford Jr. spoke to Student Council last
Tuesday night about the reasons behind the
settlement with Mr. Chaffin (which are fairly
obvious to begin with), he did so with the
understanding that his remarks would be held
"in confidence" and not generally reported
by the news media, a stipulation which he
made due to fear of being quoted out of
context in his answers to student questions.
One can imagine his surprise and dismay upon
reading Thursday's Daily Progress in which
some of his remarks had been quoted in a
manner which appeared to imply that the
University was welshing on its part of the
bargain with Mr. Chaffin.

However, we can only agree in part with
Student Council President Jim Rinaca's
Friday statement that "the publication of Mr.
Alford's remarks...in The Daily Progress was
irresponsible and outside the bounds of
journalistic ethics." Although we had agreed
earlier to honor the confidence (knowing Mr.
Alford was merely going to address himself to
the legal implications of the case and perhaps
personally theorize on a few points), Mr.
Rinaca failed to elicit such agreements from
all the other media representatives, but simply
made a blanket statement before Mr. Alford
spoke, asking reporters to honor the
confidence. In this, Mr. Rinaca displayed a
naivete and a lack of caution. Having not
agreed to any confidence, The Daily Progress
was in no way breaching journalistic ethics by
reporting the event. Its editors cite "the
public's right to know," and we concur.

But what the public has the right to know is
the truth, and in this regard we agree with Mr.
Rinaca that the Progress was "irresponsible."
Despite that newspaper's editorial claims that
they are reporting the whole truth while
University administrators and students
"officially tell half-truths," what they are, in
reality, reporting are distorted truths.

Yes, Mr. Alford used the term "chicken
feed" to refer to the amount of money the
University is spending to educate Mr. Chaffin.
And, maybe, the Progress is right that such an
amount, taken at face value, isn't "chicken
feed." But compare that to the amount the
University could have lost in litigation had
the case remained in the courts, and the
terminology becomes more accurate.

Yes, Mr. Alford said that "Mr. Chaffin has
made his last patrol here at the University,"
but his statement, when taken in the context
of his other remarks, was a mere speculation
based simply on whether or not an officer
with a B.S. degree, who can demand higher
salary than the University offers, would
indeed return. It was not in any way, as the
Progress strongly implied in its no-byline news
story on Thursday, a hint of double-cross on
the administration's part. If Walter Chaffin
wishes to return to the University Security
Department upon successful completion of
his degree requirements, there will be a
position for him (though, as Mr. Alford was
getting at, not necessarily on patrol duty).

And yes, as The Progress proffers, if the
University did merely want to get rid of Mr.
Chaffin, "the most practical sort of
judgment" would have been to fire him
months ago. Only the University couldn't fire
Mr. Chaffin, because he is a state employee
and, as such, would have been entitled to
appeal his dismissal to the State Director of
Personnel, an appeal which he would have no
doubt won due to the University's dearth of
tangible evidence against him.

The University could perhaps have avoided
being in the touchy and unenviable position it
was in when the settlement was reached by
handling the issue more adroitly and
perceptively at its critical stages, beginning
last January. But once the situation existed,
the alternatives were limited. Would it have
been fair to persecute Mr. Chaffin and
possibly impair his future when indeed no
tangible evidence existed? Would it have been
fair to black students at the University to
reinstate Mr. Chaffin for active and immediate
duly here when it felt (in Mr. Alford's words)
"The blacks' fear of Mr. Chaffin is real, I'm
convinced."? We think not in both cases.
Whatever one may think of the way the
situation was handled from the beginning, the
option finally agreed upon was, at this point,
the only viable solution–a solution which the
taxpayers may have to finance in part, but a
solution which provides one of those
taxpayers with an education which hopefully
will benefit society in general.