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.