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