Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
7
Supreme missteps
ELAINE MORTON
E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU.
t seems as though everyone has
been so wrapped up in Solicitor
General Elena Kagan's judicial
confirmation hear-
ings that they've
unintentionally
turned a blind
eye to the rather
explosive decisions
recently handed
down by the nine
justices already sit- NOEL
ting on the bench. GORDON
Over the course
of a single month,
the Supreme Court incorporated the
right to keep and bear arms into the
14th Amendment, reworked the very
fabric of the Miranda warning and
affirmed a ban on soft money con-
tributions to political campaigns.
Given the rather ideologically par-
tisan nature of the Supreme Court
nowadays, two out of three correct-
ly decided cases isn't that bad of an
outcome. And even though I person-
ally would've left Miranda alone, the
decision in that case didn't trouble
me nearly as much as the one in
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.
I have a great amount of respect for
the Supreme Court, and that hasn't
changed - even when Justice Scalia
writes dissents that make my blood
boil. I readily admit that I have little
understanding of the complex inner
workings of our legal system or the
various approaches to interpreting
the Constitution. But I don't think
that a lack of experience or rigorous
study necessarily invalidates conclu-
sions that I reach that are different
from the High Court's.
No viewpoint
should be denied
recognition.
That said, the Christian Legal
Society at the University of Califor-
nia Hastings Law School allowed all
students to attend its meetings, but
they required that those interested
in voting or running for office sign a
statement of faith affirmingtheir com-
mitment to Judeo-Christian values.
Incidentally, gay and lesbian students
that had been attending CLS meet-
ings were not allowed to take part in
these activities since Holy Scripture
designates homosexuality a sin. This
eligibility requirement caused some
students to argue that the CLS was
in violation of the public university's
antidiscrimination policy.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme
Court narrowly held that a law
school can legally deny recognition
and funding to a Christian student
' / a
group that won't permit homosex-
ual students from being a part of
the organization. Justice John Paul
Stevens wrote, "Other groups may
exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and
women - or those who do not share
their contempt for Jews, blacks and
women. A free society must tolerate
such groups. It need not subsidize
them, give them its official imprima-
tur, or grant them equal access to law
school facilities."
However, I disagree with the
Supreme Court decision for two main
reasons.
First, the Christian Legal Society
should not have been denied recogni-
tion by the University of California
simply because it required an affir-
mation of faith from those interested
in taking a more active role in the
group. I don't find such a request to
be that unreasonable, especially con-
sidering that the requirement was
not a condition for general member-
ship. I think members of the CLS
had the same rationale the Supreme
Court did when it held in Boy Scouts
of America v. Dale that a private orga-
nization can exclude a person from
membership when "the presence of
that person affects in a significant
way the group's ability to advocate
public or private viewpoints." I think
senior members probably thought
that having an officer whose lifestyle
did not align with Holy Scriptures
would have significantly impacted
their ability to effectively advocate
their viewpoints and beliefs.
Second, and more importantly,
the Christian Legal Society should
not have been denied funding. Hast-
ings claimed that it withheld money
from the CLS because it believed the
group was in violation of its anti-dis-
crimination policy and was therefore
ineligible to receive said funding. But
I reject Hastings' liberal definition
of discrimination and feel as though
the Christian Legal Society's actions
should not have fallen under this
rather broadly construed category.
In Christian Legal Society v. Walker,
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
held that "traditional non-discrim-
ination policy may not be applied to
religious groups who require astate-
ment of faith from members."
For some reason, the Supreme
Court chose to ignore previous deci-
sion and allowed the Hastings policy
to stand. But the fact of the matter
remains that students from all back-
grounds benefited from the Chris-
tian Legal Society and its services.
CLS served as an invaluable resource
for students that identified as part
of a Judeo-Christian faith, and any
student organization that provides
a service that benefits a significant
portion of the student populace
should be funded, lest the state have
a compelling reason not to do so. And
in this case, the state did not.
- Noel Gordon can be reached
at noelaug@umich.edu.
Never been kissed
I'm kind of like Drew Barry-
more's character in that movie,
"Never Been Kissed," except I
doubt that my
story will end
with me mak-
ing out with my
Prince Charming
on a baseball field.
Okay, I've
never actually
seen that movie. RACHEL
But I know its VANGILDER
basic plot. And
I'll be honest: One
of my biggest fears is ending up like
the spinster aunt from any namber
of films and TV shows. I'm nearly 21
years old and I've never had a boy-
friend or been kissed. So Courtney
Fletcher's most recent column struck
a chord with me.
Fletcher, a fellow Daily staffer
and a member of the University's
volleyball team, discussed her his-
tory with the opposite sex (Boys and
arrested development, 06/25/2010).
She described a heart-wrenching
experience of rejection at age nine
(I've been there, Courtney), and her
lackluster high school dating record
(I've been there, too). She also said
that college hasn't been much better
(Join the club - I'm the president).
I wasn't encouraged by this tale of
woe. Courtney is a lot better looking
than me, plus she's athletic and intel-
ligent. If Fletcher hasn't been par-
ticularly lucky in love, what hope is
there for me? I asn so S.O.L.
But that's enough of that pity
party. Fletcher meant her column
as encouragement to other young
women and expressed a gung-ho
spirit that I admire, but she reached
a conclusion that I don't agree with.
She determined that "boys are mere-
ly a distraction." Being in the same
boat as Fletcher, I think the situation
is more complex than that. Young
women certainly shouldn't base their
self-worth on their relationship (or
lack thereof) to guys. But they also
shouldn't let a rocky start to relation-
ships define their perspective of love
- or the opposite sex.
Fletcher's reaction is one that
a lot of people have. It's certainly
very prominent thinking in a lot of
feminist circles. I often hear strong,
intelligent women announcing that
women don't need men.
I don't buy that. Women need men.
And men need women. People need
each other.
I think that the "women don't need
men" battle cry is often repeated as
an act of self-preservation. It's cer-
tainly easier to become defensive
than feel lonely. Or, worse, to feel
like there's something wrong with
you. I've felt that way. But a quick
Google search revealed thread after
thread started by young women who
feel the same way, and a handful of
blogs discuss the topic as well. The
search made me feel a bit better. It's
encouraging to know I"m not a one-
of-a-kind romantic anomaly.
According to 2005 statistics - the
most recent I could find - accumu-
lated by The Kinsey Institute for
Research in Sex, Gender, and Repro-
duction, about 75 percent of men and
women have sex between the ages of
18 and 19. And 19 percent of women
between the ages of 20 and 21 are vir-
gins. The percentage drops to about
8 percent between ages 22 and 24.
Granted, having sex and having a boy-
friend aren't the same thing by any
stretch of the imagination. But being
part of the minority here is still an
uncomfortable place to be, because it's
easy to see yourself as the freak.
I'm lonely.
And that's
just fine.
That's why I'll admit that saying
that women don't need men isn't the
unhealthiest perspective a woman
can develop. It certainly encourages
self-reliance and inner strength. Of
course I support these qualities in
the modern woman and like to think
that I have both. And I certainly don't
think that women - especially young
women like me who are in the process
of growing and developing their indi-
viduality - should feel like they need a
boyfriend tobe complete.
My outlook on relationships -
which has been determined mostly
by love songs, literature and bad tele-
vision shows - is that people need
to feel confident about themselves
in order to be capable of having a
healthy romantic relationship. I've
known a few people who have vest-
ed too much of their self-worth and
identity in having a relationship. And
that can't be healthy.
Women should be able to stand
on their own two feet before they
attempt to lean on someone else or let
someone else lean on them. And rela-
tionships - romantic and platonic
- are about reciprocity. But you can
be complete and lonely at the same
time. For example, I like to think I
am generally a complete person. But
sometimes I also feel like the focus of
a crooning country song about lonely
hearts and neon moons. I don't think
that makes me weak. I think it makes
me human.
- Rachel Van Gilder is the Daily's
2010 editorial page editor. She can be
reached at rachelvg@umich.edu.