Opinion

Mixed messages from a mixed court

“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.”

— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 78.

Much to the contrary, the Supreme Court had little trouble injuring the political rights of the Constitution when it upheld an admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School that exists with a reckless disregard for the 14^th Amendment.

The 14^th Amendment is extremely clear in stating, “No state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Yet the University of Michigan, a state-run institution, makes no secret that when it carefully reviews every application for its law school, people who are not in certain minority groups are not as protected as people who are – meaning that any notion of “equality” is laughable.

The court actually issued two decisions. One decision overturned the same university’s undergraduate admission system, which gave select minorities twenty free points on a 150-point admission scale, as being unconstitutional because it was too mechanical.

The common thread between the two decisions is that racial consideration is acceptable so long as it serves a “compelling state interest.” In these two cases, the compelling state interest is diversity.

This is refreshing and disturbing. It is a positive step in so far as it finally lies to rest the idea that affirmative action must either exist as reparation for previous mistreatment or as a stepping block for minorities who are otherwise unqualified for admission. It is a negative step in so far as it professes that the well being of a majority is dependent upon discrimination of that same majority.

The concept is that non-minority students receive a superior education in a diverse atmosphere and therefore, the admission of minority students is necessary, even if their qualifications are inferior.

Yet the high court insists that such admission decisions must be made on a “narrowly tailored” basis. What the court really seems to be saying is the point system is troublesome because it is so visibly racist. The court appears to be suggesting that race-based decisions are such a sensitive political issue that they must be made on an individual base, not an automated one. But the court expressed little concern as to what factors play into those individualized decisions – only that they must somehow factor into a “compelling state interest,” a deliciously vague and potentially dangerous term.

The substantive effect of the decision will likely prove more positive than negative. Although discrimination will continue, minority students will be aided and non-minority students will benefit from the totality of the aid. But the United States cannot operate on a Machiavellian basis, allowing noble ends to be justified by wrongful means. No, this country must hold itself to a higher standard, achieving noble ends through noble means.

For those of you who are prepared to dismiss these means as being innocuous, consider this: Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, in writing the opinion of the court, has deemed,  “student-body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” In doing so, despite Hamilton’s promise, she has injured the political rights of the Constitution.

Now ask yourself what Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, who penned the 1857 Supreme Court opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford, might have considered a “compelling state interest.”

Mac VerStandig (UWiscconsin2006@aol.com) is asophomore majoring in rhetorical studies and economics.