UVa Students Assaulted on 17th St.

Belle writes: Two UVa students were attacked while walking on 17th St. in the early hours of Sunday morning. One victim heard “confusing” racial remarks and thinks that physical injury, rather than robbery, was the attackers’ intention. Police responded quickly because they were already in the area investigating a “similar” assault. Christopher Jones has the story in today’s Cavalier Daily.

17 Responses to “UVa Students Assaulted on 17th St.”

  • Here we go again. Give us some of that good old-time "Restorative Justice!"

  • Belle is going to be all over this.

  • think the FBI will investigate this one, or are they still too busy trying to catch the person who assaulted daisy lundy?

  • just remember this:

    If is was a white attacker on a black student yelling racial slurs then it is considered a ‘hate crime’.

    However if it is a black attacker on a white student yelling racial slurs then it is considered a ‘misunderstood youth with problems with the state must deal with’.

  • Daisy Lundy, as the present of the student council and having been a victim of a racial attack at UVa, will presumably be all over this.


  • That girl is developing into a real lightning rod.

  • Waldo writes: Daisy Lundy, as the present of the student council and having been a victim of a racial attack at UVa, will presumably be all over this. Right?


    Ms. Lundy is a member of a university group creating a “diversity exercise”. Last week she was speaking out against students opposed to a mandatory diversity training and, then, disrupting their organizational meeting and making at least several of them feel like David Duke’s hench(wo)men.

  • she’ll probably recommend mandatory diversity training for the attackers.

  • How many of us are assuming instantly that these students are telling the truth?

    How many of us assumed instantly that Daisy Lundy was lying?

    What do we base these assumptions on?

    Just curious.

  • How many of us are assuming instantly that these students are telling the truth?

    i do, because what happened to them is a lot more common occurance than StudCo Presidential candidates being assaulted and intimidated by phantom racist political activists.

    How many of us assumed instantly that Daisy Lundy was lying?

    i didn’t immediately assume she was lying. when i first read the story, i believed what she said really happened. but then, circumstances after the fact began to change my mind. i mean, her story all but assured her the StudCo presidency, and not even the FBI can come up with a single lead as to who did it. i’m sorry, but the whole thing seems orchestrated to me. i wouldn’t even be surprised if the administration put her up to it, in order to jumpstart their “diversity” initiative, which she seems to be an adamant supporter of.

  • I would say "presume" rather than "assume". The difference is that an assumption is something that you’re not aware of and are unwilling to reconsider in the face of evidence, whereas a presumption is something you expect is probably true based on what you do know unless you see more direct evidence to the contrary.

    That being said, yes, I think it is not just fair but only logical to presume that Lundy was lying and that these students are telling the truth. I base that on motive, corroboration, and on history of similar incidents.

    First, motive. Lundy obviously had every motive to invent her story – she gained an election by forfeit out of it, and became a civil rights crusader overnight. These students have little or no motive to invent this story – no one is going to think any more of them because they were victims of a random assault, racist or otherwise, and they’re not going to be elected to anything. While it appears Mr. Yau may try to use this as a platform for a public safety issue, I doubt this would be a calculated ploy on his part, because anyone with any sense would realize how much fire he’s likely to draw from University and City officials and dignitaries if he does so. Past history indicates they’ll always stick up for the poor oppressed and misunderstood youth (i.e., the guys doing the beating) against the depredations of the Rich White Folk who Just Don’t Get It (i.e., the guys who cruelly smashed their faces into their victims’ tender youthful fists.)

    Second, corroboration. Lundy had none. I won’t dredge up that thread here, but her story looked paper-thin at best, even from the start. These guys have no such problem (they ended up in the hospital – does anyone think they did that to each other just to get attention?), and in fact the police were already alerted to the presence of the perps committing similar assaults elsewhere in the neighborhood. So with Lundy we have the question of whether a single word of her story is true; with these students we have every reason to believe that they were assaulted as they say, which means we have no reason to doubt the racial aspect either.

    Third, past history. The University has hardly been a hotbed of racist lynch mobs howling for African-American blood over the last decade or two; in fact, it’s hard to think of a single other incident in recent memory which compares to the one Lundy would have us believe; her story is quite unprecedented. On the other hand the assault on these students would just be one more in a series of like assaults which seem to happen on a regular basis here and everywhere else. The only unusual thing about this incident is that it even made the news.

    So yes, in conclusion, I do presume that Lundy was lying through her dishonest, self-serving, race-baiting little teeth, and that these two students are probably telling the truth, and further I think those are perfectly rational presumptions. I think if you are looking for "fairness" in treating each of these "victims" the same despite the obvious differences in the facts surrounding their stories you’re just lying to yourself. but then you’re probably in the right city since your mayor, city council, University president, and local dignitaries all act the same way.

  • Waldo writes: Daisy Lundy, as the present of the student council and having been a victim of a racial attack at UVa

    Not proven.

  • Only if one presumes Lundy is that Machiavellian.

  • 29News adds:

    “Police will notsay if the attack wasracially motivated or if the attack islinked to any otherrecent crimes.”

  • the way i see it, when townies attack uva students, it’s more classist than racist. of course, i’m assuming that the assailants were townies. they may well have been students themselves. but assuming they are non-student locals, this type of thing is commonplace. i knew within my first week at UVA that there was a "tradition" of townies jumping students, esp. in the rugby area. i really hope they take the race card out of this deck, because i’m sure these thugs would have just as soon jumped a couple of black guys in UVA hats as they would have a couple of white guys.

  • I believe that, historically, race has indeed been a factor. I think that wishing it was otherwise is just that… wishful thinking.

    I find it interesting that when the racism is running the other way, when it’s black kids beating up white (appearing) kids, that all the apologists jump out of the woodwork. Even people that are otherwise sensible. But, historically, this has been the case as well.


  • going back to the whole daisy lundy thing…i was just reading back through the cav daily articles re: her "assault" last semester. it was interesting to note that, in the article, the investigating officer at the scene immediately said they were treating it as a hate crime, based solely on lundy’s statement that her attacker had used the "n" word. i wonder why that hasn’t been the case in any other assault that might have been racially motivated. i read this morning that the motive in the attack this past weekend might have indeed been race related, but so far, the police haven’t stated that it’s being treated as a hate crime.

Comments are currently closed.