4- The Michigan Daily Summer Weekly - Wednesday, July 1,1992 420 Maynard Street EDITOR IN CHIEF ANDREW M. LEVY OPINION EDITORS GIL RENBERG DAVID SHEPARDSON Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of a majority of the Daily's editorial board All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Daily. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 764-0552 Edited and Managed by Students at the University of Michigan The Supreme Court hits home Roe vs. Wade intact for now, but the Court upholds Three rulings uphold basic but endangered tenets of restrictions on women's fundamental right to choose the Bill of Rights; Court strikes down segregation First of two editorials clinics that regularly perform abortions. For In a series of recent decisions, the Supreme public schoolmay notinvite areligious figureto n a stunning 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court poorwomen whomusttravellong distancesand NCourt has confirmed its commitment to free- give anon-sectarian invocation and benediction 'reaffirmed the basic tenet of Roe vs. Wade, then wait24hours, theprocessof takingtime off dom of speech and the separation ofchurch and at graduation ceremonies. Justice Anthony Ken- guaranteeing the fundamentalrightof women to from work and spending two days away from state. These rulings come as a welcomed sur- nedy wrote for the majority,"The Constitution choose to have an abortion and have complete home can be a serious obstacle in obtaining an prise from a court that had been suspect on civil forbids the state to exact religious conformity control over their bodies. At the same time the abortion. The ruling suggests that the justices libertarian issues. These recent rulings provide from a student as the price of attendingher own Court affirmedfouroutoffiveharshrestrictions think that women cannot make rational deci- aglimmerofhopethattheBushadministration's high school graduation." ofthe Pennsylvania Abortion ControlAct.Only sionsconcerning theirbodies;instead,theyneed desired policies, which tend to be out of step In so ruling, the court rejected the admin- six years earlier the Court had found these a"cooling offperiod"to with those of the citi- istration's attempt to replace the three-part test restrictions unconstitutional. The Court's deci- reflect on whether they zeus, will not be rub- which the court has used since 1971 to judge sionrepresents amajordefeatforthepro-choice have made the right de- 6 6 i ber-stamped by a Court church-state separation cases. The current test forces who have tried to prevent paternal and cision. that has been shaped by invalidates any law or government practice that arbitrary restrictions on abortion. The one restriction In the last week before it 12 years of Reagan- primarily promotes religion, has no secular pur- Theruling appears toinvalidateseveralmore that the Court did over-. Suprlmeet Bush appointments, pose, or involves excessive entanglement with restrictive laws that will come before the Court tumn was a law that recesse, th urm Ourt tuled In a case that began religion. The Bush administration wante to next term from Guam, Louisiana, and South forced married women on some of the most divisive issues inForsyth County,Ga., replace the three-part test with a "coercion" test Carolina. Under the decision, at no point in a to certify that they had facing the nation. The Daily the justices ruled that which would invalidate government practices pregnancy can states completely outlaw abor- informedtheirhusbands theoinnlocalcommunitiesmay promoting religion only if people who choose lion; they can only placeserious restrictions. As of their desire tohavean dedicates opinion page to an not charge arbitrarily not to participate feelcoerced to do so.The court Justice David Souter said, "It is therefore im- abortion. Evidently the evaluation of decisions on issues high fees for demon- correctly said that a high school graduation is a perative to adhere to the essence of Roe's origi- Court does recognize that have touched everyone - from stration permits based "milestone"andstudents should not be forced to nal decision, and we do so today." that there are some situ- on the content of the take part in school prayer. It is frightening that In reaffirming Roe, the majority opinion ationsinwhichawoman speech to segregation. Next week, demonstrators' mes- tiis basic reaffirmation of the separation of said, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of shouldcontrolher body the Daily will resume publishing sage. The ruling struck church and state was upheld by only one vote. all, not to mandate our own moral code." In withoutoutsideinterfer- letters in addition to editorials down a law giving the With this reinforced separation of church castingtheirdissenting votes, fourjusticeswere ence. However, the _ county administrator and state and protection of free speech, the willing to ignore all past precedents and over- Court did not apply this broad discretion in set- Supreme Court, the First Amendment and the turn Roe as a way of demonstrating their collec- concept to other aspects of Pennsylvania's law. ting fees based on the estimated cost of police nation all had a very good week. tive oppostion to the rights of women to have an This decision allows states to force prospec- protection and administrative time. The Court U U abortion. In the last major ruling on abortion, tive abortion patients to listen to and read propa- rightly ruled that an attempt to hinder controver- One should not overlook another important Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services in ganda that is intended to change their minds; sial speech constitutes a breach of the right to decision handed down by the Supreme Court 1989,only Justice Antonin Scaliawas willing to these mandatory information sessions could free speech. Groups with unpopular opinions, last week. Ruling for the first time on a segre- overturn Roe vs. Wade. It is important to note prove emotionally traumatizing. In addition, the such as the Ku Klux Klan, are now guaranteed gatedcollege system, the Court maintained that that abortion rights are now as delicately bal- Court upheld the rights of states to require that the same access to public forums which other, the state of Mississippi had failed to provide anced as the Court itself; the next justice to be teenagers receive parental consent before un- more mainstream groups enjoy. In doing so, the minority students the same educational oppor- appointed to the Courtcould upset tip the sales. dergoing an abortion. Courthas reminded allofus that eachnAmerican tunities that white students have received. In upholding the Pennsylvaniaabortion law Taken individually, these restrictions could has the right to voice an opinion, no matter how Both the Bush administration and civilrights in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Court be considered unobtrusive, but together they reprehensible, to the majority of citizens. groups, which fought for this ruling, have hailed articulated a new standard for determining the represent a major obstacle to women - espe- Inathe same vein, the Supreme Court struck the Court's decision as a major victory for constitutionality of state restrictions on abor- cially poor women -seeking an abortion. The down a St. Paul, Minn., ordinance prohibiting minorities. However, the Court overlooked the tion.Theoldstandard, asstatedinRoe vs.Wade, Pennsylvania decision will not allow states to "hate speech."By upholding the right to express fact that traditionallyBlack colleges receive less mandated that the state show a "compelling outlaw abortion, but it goes further than ever opinions even through such traditionally racist state funding than white colleges: while de- interest" in forming restrictions on the removal before in allowing the states to set grave barriers practices as burningcrosses, the Courthas forced manding equal opportunities for enrollment, the of viable fetuses. Now, under the new ruling, a to women getting abortions. In examining each numerous goveming bodies on the state and Court ignored fiscal inequalities. pregnant womanmustdemonstratethatthestate- aspect of the case individually - as is usually local level to reevaluate existing statutes. In At the same time the Court ruled that aspects imposed restrictions constitute an "undue bur- the Court's method - the justices were oblivi- addition, many of the nation's universities will of the Mississippi decision were suspect - den" in the process of obtaining an abortion. ous to the problem that the law when taken as a be scrambling to modify their speech codes (see including the duplication of programs and dif- One of the restrictionsupheld in the decision whole constitutes an unfair and undue burden. bottom edit). Like the Georgia case, this deci- fering admission standards at Black and White was amandatory 24-hour waiting period before Next week: In light of the Supreme Court's sion justly reinforces the laws protecting free- universities. In correcting this segregated sys- gettingan abortion.InPennsylvania,aprimarily decision, whatactionsshouldthepeople andthe dom of expression. tem, Black colleges should not be eliminated: rural state, only eight of the 67 counties have government take to support abortion rights? In Lee vs. Weisman, the Court ruled that a they should be reinvigorated. *I n a unanimous, landmark decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled that legislatures or universities may not ban religious, racial, or sexual insults or threats as "hate speech." The ruling on R.A.V. vs St. Paul explicitly invali- dates large portions of the University's interim policy on discriminatory harassment. The 5-4 majority decision reaffirmed the impropriety of speech codes. In addition to this university, there are ap- proximately 100 colleges and universities that have adopted speech codes regulating discrimi- natoryharassment.Justice Antonin Scalia, writ- ing the majority opinion, said that it is not permissible for the government or a university to judge the intent of a person who uses offen- sive language. Supreme Court decision on hate speech should spell the end of speech codes at the University The University does not need a code of non- academic conduct. State and federal laws are sufficient in protecting citizens from harm - there isnoneed to oppress student rights further by trampling on the First Amendment. While the goal of protecting minorities from ethnic intimidation is admirable, there is no benefit in setting apart students from other citizens in meting out punishment. If students are guilty of assault or any crime motivated by hateful feel- ings, they should be prosecuted under the law, not by the University. Of the 46 states that have hate crime laws, most stiffen penalties when group bigotry is the cause of criminal acts. The Court's ruling cast doubts as to the constitutionality of these hate- crime statutes in regard to their application vis- d-vis the First Amendment. In the St. Paul case, the defendants should have been prosecuted for arson, trespassing, or other non-violent crimes, not violations of the First Amendment. The Court's decision has prompted the Uni- versity to begin yet another rewriting of the code, according to University General Counsel Elsa Cole. However, Rod Smolla, a free-speech expert at the College of William and Mary, said the ruinug "makes almost all possible forms of hate-speech bans unconstitutional" The fram- ers of the code should bear in mind that the proposed code must meet the strict standard articulated by the Court, whose justices de- clared, "We find that the ordinance is unconsti- tutional in that it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects ad- dressed." In attempting to regulate speech on campus, the University must adhere to the Court's guide- lines on hate speech. To do less would violate the law and disregard the value the Supreme Court has placed on the First Amendment. Per- haps it is time to scrap the code altogether.