4
Monday, July 9, 2007
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
C, he Iffichibgan Oaflu
Brown v. Roberts
Supreme Court's decision ends busing, opens up resegregation
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu
GARY GRACA
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
IMRAN SYED
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorialboard. All other
signed articles and illustrations representnsolelythe views of their authors.
FR OM T AI LY
o one's benef1it
State law leaves 'U' in a tough spot
When Michigan voters passed the ban on gay
marriage in 2004, they made a mistake.
When Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox
used his position to further his personal beliefs and ban
same-sex benefits as well, he made the voters' mistake
much worse. Now, the University is in a tough spot as it
must mitigate these realities. Its attempts to deal with the
dumb law and Cox's dumber interpretations are flawed.
The only solution is that Michigan voters must abolish
the nonsensical gay marriage ban.
here are few Supreme
Court decisions as hal-
lowed and untouchable
as the Warren court's 1954 deci-
sion in Brown v. Board ofEduca-
tion. Not only was that decision
a brave condemnation of our
nation's racist practices, but it
also represented a hope that one
day all people could live togeth-
er without skin color separating
them. While perversely citing
the Brown decision in its recent
ruling, the current court made
it clear that if the conservatives
have their way, these ideals of
equality arevulnerable to change
just 53 years after Brown.
Last week's 5-4 ruling was
supposed to decide whether the
busing policies of two districts
in Seattle and Louisville, which
attempted to combat the defacto
segregation of their districts,
were constitutional. But more
than just the integration policies
of two districts were at stake:
Before the court was a landmark
case about racial diversity and
the legacy of the Brown decision.
The court's opinion was
watered down by a concurring
opinion from Justice Anthony
Kennedy, who asserted that
race-conscious policies are legal
as long as they are "narrowly
tailored" enough to advance
society's best interests. Yet, the
majority opinion by Chief Jus-
tice John Roberts essentially
ruled that race-conscious policy
is unconstitutional. Nothing
could be further from the court's
decisive ruling 53 years ago.
As Justice Stephen Breyer
points out in the primary dis-
senting opinion, this "color-
blind" approach to promoting
racial equality ignores the reali-
ties of American life. In our
society, there is a blurred line
between dejure and defacto seg-
regation that makes them nearly
indistinguishable. And until last
week, the Supreme Court cham-
pioned itself on combating all
forms of segregation.
The Court's conservatives also
twisted the Equal Protection
Clause itself. While the weak
majority of Roberts, Clarence
Thomas, SamuelAlito andAnto-
nin Scalia claims that using race
to place students in schools is no
different from Jim Crow laws,
the difference is that Jim Crow
laws were policies of exclusion,
not inclusion. In the Brown deci-
sion, the court determined that
racial diversity in our schools
was a goal with both educa-
tional value and society's best
interests in mind. This principle
shouldn't change.
As Breyer said when the deci-
sion was read, "It is not often
in the law that so few have so
quickly changed so much."
For the University, the court's
ruling leaves mostly uncertainty.
While Kennedy's concurring
opinion implies that the Univer-
sity's post-Proposal 2 diversity
policies of recruitment and race-
The problem with the Univer-
sity's same-sex benefits policy
goes back to the Michigan ballot
initiative in 2004 that banned
gay marriage and civil unions.
Although this shouldn't have
affected the University's ben-
efits policy, Cox made it so. Sub-
sequently, the state Supreme
Court ruled last February that
the University and other pub-
lic institutions must follow this
interpretation.
So it was back to the drawing
board for the University. Instead
of specifically providing benefits
to same-sex couples, it expanded
its benefits policy to include any-
one that meets a list of criteria.
These criteria, which denote an
"other qualified adult," specify
that to receive benefits one must
cohabitate with the partner for
at least six months, share a joint
bank account, be a primary ben-
eficiary of the partner's will and
possess the power of attorney.
While this is exactly the type of
benefit policy that the University
should be providing to same-sex
couples, there is one big catch:
The new policy also states that
non-married heterosexual cou-
ples are only eligible for benefits if
they marry. This is a hypocritical,
discriminatory stance by the Uni-
versity against unwed couples,
but what choice does the Univer-
sity have? Striving for inclusive-
ness, it has inadvertently taken an
exclusive stance.
Although the effort to equal-
ize the distribution of benefits
within the law is flawed, its fail-
ure is not due to the University's
own views but the insurmount-
able obstacle of Michigan's ban
on same-sex marriage. It is an
unconstitutional law, stretched
by Cox and the state Supreme
Court to further block the rights
of same-sex couples.
While it is a strong public insti-
tution,the University doesn'thave
the power to protect those who
should already be protected by
state and federal law. It's time for
the state's voters to take responsi-
bility for their mistake and abol-
ish the gay marriage ban.
conscious scholarships could
be legal, it seems far-fetched to
believe that the legality of Pro-
posal 2 would be struck down
by the current court. But with
the precedent of the 2003 rul-
ings regarding the University's
admissions policies, there is also
reason to believe that the Univer-
sity may be able to lawfully con-
sider race despite Proposal 2.
Unfortunately, with hotly con-
tested social problems like racial
equality, ambiguity is the last
thing our country needs. In fact,
this is the same reason Chief Jus-
tice Earl Warren rallied his court
toaunanimousdecisioninBrown.
As a testament to the ineffective-
ness of Chief Justice Roberts, all
of the most important decisions
this year - including decisions
on global warming, campaign
finance and pay discrimination
- were 5-4 decisions. These deci-
sions will inevitably force divides
in our society rather than foster-
ing progress.
When the court ruled against
race-conscious policieslastweek,
it didn't just ignore the realities
of our society, the intent of the
Fourteenth Amendment and the
precedent of more than 50 years
of both conservative and liberal
justices alike; it ignored the con-
sequences of its actions.
For all the bravery and ideal-
ism of the Warren court in 1954,
the current court managed to
wipe those goals away with just
one cowardly decision.
MORE ONLINE
at michigandailycom
LETTERS
Readers are encouraged
to submit letters to the
editor. Please include the
writer's name, college and
* class standing or other
University attiliation, Let-
ters may be edited fr
length and clarity and
all submissions become
property of the Daily.Send
letters to tothedaily@
umich.edu.
BLOGS
fl Read more up-to-date
opinion at michigandaily.
com/thepodium
U
I
I
0
ALEXANDER HONKALA
- r
~~o~s4Gos-~sssV
Vllpr
Editorial Board Members: Mike Eber, Kellyn Jackson,
Jennifer Sussex, Kate Truesdell, Radhika Upadhyaya