These three letters demonstrate how a person of authority can be targeted with false information and misleading information then due to the gravity of the matter, in this case racism, feel a moral obligation, Orwellian or otherwise, to become involved then repeat this information or a variation thereof to others most likely being unaware or unwilling to consider that the originating information is or could be untrue. The first letter is a July 16, 2016 letter from the Hawkins crusader Harley Herman to the newly hired FSU law school dean Erin O'Connor. The second letter I acquired via a public record request of sorts indirectly involving FSU General Counsel Carolyn Egan and FSU Associate General Counsel Mike Pierce. The third letter is on FSU President John Thrasher's website as are other PDFs regarding his advisory panel's "research" and "public" meetings.

 

 

 

 

In July 2016 Virgil D. Hawkins lead crusader Harley Herman shamelessly targeted the newly-hired FSU College of Law Dean Erin O'Connor when he mailed her his plainly erroneous and misleading analysis of the Hawkins case for the sole purpose of convincing her to "remedy this long-standing injustice" and promote the renaming of B.K. Roberts Hall. For example, in his opening informative paragraph, the third paragraph of his letter, Mr. Herman states, 

 

"Almost thirty years ago, when I began my efforts to restore the reputation [of] Virgil Hawkins, the class action plaintiff whose case desegregated Florida's universities, at the cost of his right to attend the UF College of Law, (see my law review article Anatomy of a Bar Resignation, 2 Fl. Coastal L.J. 77 and in Re Virgil Darnell Hawkins 532 So.2d 669 [Fla. 1988]) I began to hear from FSU graduates and students for whom attending law school in a building named for Roberts has remained a lingering concern.",

yet as this website proves, especially at the "Truth, Lies, Videotape" blue slider, the Hawkins sacrifice, Herman's "at the cost of his right to attend the UF College of Law" never happened nor was Hawkins a party to the case for its final ruling, he had been dropped by his NAACP LDF attorneys - Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley and Robert Carter - two days earlier in lieu of his self-admitted testimony that proved he was a substantive and material liar.

 

Likewise Herman's, 

"Despite his other efforts during his legal career Roberts is the author of the 1955 and 1957 opinions of Florida's highest court that directly and repeatedly violated the direct orders of the United States Supreme Court." 

is a false statement since neither B.K. Roberts nor the Florida Supreme Court ever defied a U.S. Supreme Court order in the Hawkins case.

 

 

On Page 4 of his letter, Herman has,

"Even Justice Roberts as he violated the 1956 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, acknowledged in his 1957 decision, that his oath of office required him to comply with the direct orders of the U.S. Supreme Court:",

 

followed by a Southern Reporter 2d quote supposedly from Justice Roberts, however, the quote is actually from Justice Hobson and being in such a truncated form is entirely out of context, 

 

"HOBSON, Justice (concurring specially).

In the interest of both races, that is to say, the common weal, the writ of mandamus should, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, be withheld until the Supreme Court of the United States in this case, after consideration of those matters which it has not heretofore had an opportunity to weigh and evaluate, unequivocally directs that relator be admitted to the College of Law at the University of Florida. In such event the onus will rest, as it should, with the tribunal responsible for the initial departure from a constitutional interpretation which had served us for so many years. And since I am bound by the paramount federal law, if such ruling should be made by a fully informed Supreme Court, I could not fail to comply without stultifying my oath of office.", 93 So. 2d 354, 362.

 

Also Herman's letter makes repeated reference to Justice Sebring's "dissent" in the 1955 Florida Supreme Court order, when in fact Sebring concurred in part and dissented in part. Also keep in mind that no dissenting justice's opinion in either the 1955 Florida Supreme Court decision or the the 1957 Florida Supreme Court decision ever opined for Hawkins' admission to the University of Florida College of Law but rather they were arguing that the University of Florida should be forced to consider Hawkins' law school application without regard to his race. The legal phrase "grant or issue the peremptory writ" in the Hawkins case means that the court should order the University of Florida to consider Hawkins' application without regard to his race whereas most Hawkins advocates believe that the granting of such a writ is synonymous with ordering Hawkins to be admitted to UF's law school.

Justice Sebring, who knew as did the rest of the Court that Hawkins was not qualified and that he had lied on his law school application, injects this into his blended concurring/dissenting opinion, 

"Thereafter, the relator filed an amended petition in which he averred, in substance, that he possessed all the educational and moral qualifications necessary for admission to the College of Law of the University of Florida; that he had an A.B. degree from Lincoln University, Pennsylvania;", 83 So. 2d 20, 30

giving reminded notice to his fellow justices (Justice Sebring would soon leave the court to become the dean of Stetson's law school)  that Hawkins had falsely "averred" that he had "an A.B. degree from Lincoln University, Pennsylvania;"

 

And Sebring's, 

"I am of the opinion, therefore, that the amended return of the respondents fails to present any valid defense to the allegations of the amended petition and that consequently a peremptory writ in favor of the relator should be issued commanding the respondents to consider the application of the relator for admission to the College of Law of the University of Florida on precisely the same basis that the respondents would consider the application of a white person, and that if, upon this basis, the relator is found to have the necessary qualifications for admission, he should be admitted to the College of Law of the University of Florida under the same rules and regulations, and upon the same conditions, that a white person would be admitted.", 83 So. 2d 20, 33-34, 

 

clearly shows by delineation that granting or issuing a peremptory writ in the Hawkins case is not the same thing as ordering his admission into UF's law school, but rather that granting or issuing the peremptory writ would mean that UF would have to consider Hawkins' law school application without regard to his race.

 

And Herman's gullibility to believe any oral history is demonstrated by his Page 3, 

"While not noted in the Bar's brief, Hawkins' Florida attorney, Horace Hill, confirmed in his recorded oral history that when he presented oral arguments to the Florida Supreme Court, the Justices turned their chairs around, so that he was arguing to their backs.", 

in that someone can confirm their own statements as true by simply having them recorded and also this back-turning incident almost certainly never happened since the Hawkins case was a widely-covered and widely-attended case and this incident is nowhere in the historical record plus it is hard to envision someone like Justice Sebring, let's say, turning his back on anyone in a public courtroom especially since there were two dissenters in both the 1955 and 1957 Florida Supreme Court opinions.

 

 

 

Despite the above Harley Herman July 16, 2016 letter to Dean Erin O'Connor stating that B. K. Roberts "directly and repeatedly violated the direct orders of the United States Supreme Court", it is noteworthy that Dean O'Connor's letter to her students doesn't parrot that B. K. Roberts defied the U.S. Supreme Court although she does somewhat suggest it with her,

"While serving on the Florida Supreme Court, he authored two opinions that had the effect of protecting the UF College of Law from racial integration, despite the US Supreme Court's mandate in Brown v. Board of Education."

and even more strongly with her, 

"A College of Law alumnus has created a website advocating for the removal of BK Roberts' name on the Hall: https://www.renamebkrobertshallnow.org/. This website provides information on BK Roberts and his controversial Florida Supreme Court opinions.", 

an endorsement she never should have put in her letter since like the accusations in Harley Herman's letter this "College of Law alumnus" website homepage opens with the faulty, "B.K. Roberts Hall at FSU's law school is named for a segregationist justice who defied the U.S. Supreme Court to deny admission to a prospective law student because he was black." (A poorly worded, double-negative almost ambiguous though context-saving sentence and especially so when opening for a website and having been written by a law school graduate.)

 

It seems to me that Dean O'Connor has done some research on this topic and isn't so sure that the U.S. Supreme Court would ever allow any party or court to defy one of its orders as others in the UF and FSU law school community have been so boldly claiming for a few decades.

 

 

Neither B. K. Roberts nor the Florida Supreme Court ever defied a U.S. Supreme Court order as this website www.VirgilDHawkins-wtf.org overall proves and according to the Florida Supreme Court librarian and archivist the Florida Supreme Court most likely never issued a "formal apology" for their treatment of Virgil D. Hawkins but rather hosted a 1999 commemorative ceremony for Hawkins. Hear my statements on this "formal apology" matter at 1:20:04 of my March 12, 2019 appearance before the Florida Senate Education Committee.

It is mystifying that FSU President John Thrasher, an attorney, has been led to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court would have ever allowed anyone to defy one of its orders especially a school desegregation order during the Jim Crow era. The power of GroupThink!!!