A year ago on Independence Day, Curmie wrote this: “The standard line among liberals is that the system is stacked against anyone who isn’t white, male, rich, heterosexual, and Christian. The male and Christian parts of this aphorism certainly seem to have been upheld by SCOTUS of late. We’ll see about the others.” (Curmie was referring to the Dodds, Carson, and Kennedy decisions.)
SCOTUS has now completed the clean sweep, as “white” in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, “rich” in Biden v. Nebraska,
and “heterosexual” (and Christian) in 303 Creative v. Elenis all emerged triumphant in SCOTUS decisions issued in
the last few days. Or, rather, their
opposites were unquestionably the losers.
All of these decisions were depressingly predictable along partisan
lines.
Certainly the profoundly unethical machinations of the evil
(yes, evil) Mitch McConnell can be blamed for a lot of things… but not
this. Yes, the Carson and Kennedy
decisions were both abominations, but the others were at least understandable,
and most were actually the right call.
Dodds overturned a pretty bizarre rationale in Roe v. Wade. We can object to the mendacity of the Trump
appointees in declaring that Roe was “the law of the land” during their
candidacy and then jumping at the first opportunity to reverse it. We can also wonder whether Roe was so
bad a decision that a right granted to American women for decades
could legitimately be removed. But as a
matter of Constitutional law per se, Dodds is likely the correct ruling.
Similarly, whereas some form of recognition of racial
diversity as a positive force in society would be preferable, the fact is that the
Constitution is pretty absolutist about favoring one race over another. And President Biden’s student loan forgiveness
plan was indeed an overreach, probably in policy terms and certainly in terms
of executive authority.
That leaves the 303 Creative case, which Curmie intends to
come back to in a future post after he’s has a chance to really study the
arguments. There are some definitions to
be clarified… which means there is at least a case to be made in favor of the
SCOTUS decision.
Ultimately, what is revealed in all this is what we already
knew: that politics will intrude into every decision, that Confucius was right that
no set of laws can possibly anticipate every eventuality, and that the Venn
diagram for that which is just and that which is legal is not a circle. More importantly in terms of understanding where
we are as a nation, someone is going to feel shortchanged (and not without
at least some reason) by any decision made by SCOTUS or anyone else in the
position to render a judgment.
Those perceiving others to have privilege will behave antagonistically. Those perceived by others to have privilege will
behave defensively. At some point, it almost
doesn’t matter if the descriptor is accurate.
But the key word here is “almost.”
More significantly, all of us have some form of privilege that others
don’t; all of us lack some form of privilege that others enjoy. Maybe we ought to remember that.
Curmie remembers a workshop at a conference he attended many
years ago. Participants were divided consecutively by some distinguishing
characteristic—say, race. Then the
workshop leader would say a few words, and we’d all be part of the whole again…
only to be divided by gender, or rank in the professoriate, or institutional
affiliation (R-1s over here, private liberal arts colleges over there,
non-flagship state universities in that corner, community colleges way in the
back…). What we found was that whenever
we were in the privileged group, we just stood there, awkwardly; when we were
in a marginalized group, we chatted freely, even with people we’d never seen
before. There’s a lesson there.
The country is being pulled apart by factionalism. The left and the right accuse each other of
authoritarian tactics. They’re both
right on that score, which is about the only thing either is right about
consistently. And neither major
political party has exactly bestowed its leadership roles on people of great
insight or integrity. The country is
more divided than at any time since the time of Curmie’s youth and early
adulthood: the days of race riots, “women’s liberation,” the Vietnam War, and
Watergate. We live, in the words of that
supposedly Chinese curse, in interesting times.
The ”more perfect union” envisioned by the Founding Fathers
is a journey, not a destination. There
will be detours along the way. Roadblocks
may force us to double back from time to time to find the road that will ultimately
lead us in the direction of our goals.
Some remarkably stupid utterances will no doubt emanate from our left
and our right; we must not allow ourselves to be distracted, to get caught up
in minutia rather than continuing our quest.
Our nation is comprised of people. That makes us fallible on a good day,
self-destructive on a bad one. Independence
Day may seem little more than a day off from work, a chance to eat some burgers,
drink some beer, and watch some fireworks.
But there is something ennobling about it nonetheless. For a few moments every year, we’re together
as denizens of the same flawed but miraculous assemblage of disparate races,
religions, socio-economic classes, and political views. We are reminded, briefly but materially, that
we not defined by our politicians or our differences. Today, we don’t cease to Republicans,
Democrats, or Independents, or any of the other labels that divide us. But we do, ephemerally at least, put those
taxonomies to the side and become Americans above all else.
Curmie isn’t naïve enough to think we’re all going to hold
hands and sing “Kumbaya” (or “The Star-Spangled Banner,” for that matter) together. We’re going to fight and scrap and call each
other names. We’ll punch each other in
the nose (metaphorically, I hope). But
at the end of the day, perhaps… just perhaps… we’ll celebrate what we have and who
we are, without losing sight of what we wish we might be.
‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.
No comments:
Post a Comment