Friday Round-Up (Too Tired Edition)

I'm not really in a blogging mood right now. It's unfortunate, because there I have a bunch of thoughts on anti-Semitism that I'd like to spin out, but I can't bring myself to put them down. It's such an important topic, but sometimes I feel like I'm the only leftist who really wants to focus on it. That's a lot of pressure, and sometimes (like now) I feel crushed under the weight of it. Eventually I gather up my strength and hurl myself at the gates once more. But not today.

So, in lieu of a normal post, I'll round-up some of the interesting stuff that's floating out in the blogosphere currently.

An explanation to concerned Whites on how to be an ally of persons of color. If you wander through the comments, you'll note that I tried to point out some perceived anti-Semitism in the post opener (which tries to link White power to American support of Israel). I'll forthrightly admit that this post and its comments are what precipitated my current feeling of exhaustion. (H/T: Slant Truth)

Noam Scheiber explains the true nature of Hezbollah's threat toward Israel. It's not that they're a threat now. It's that they could easily become one that's uncontainable, seeing as they are a non-state client actor of a nation (Iran) which a) is committed to Israel's destruction and b) is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. Destroying Hezbollah now may well be an example of try-or-die.

Two posts by Scott Lemieux on the subject of Jack Balkin (and company's) book What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said. I feel guilty saying I haven't read it, seeing as I specifically requested that the Carleton Library purchase it, but there just wasn't time to do more than skim it. Alas. (H/T: Feministe)

Eugene Volokh explains how Virginia courts are ignoring very, very clear statutory law in refusing to enforce a Vermont child custody ruling that stemmed out of a failed Civil Union between a lesbian couple.

Noting that both David Broder and Tom Friedman have begun to sound supportive of withdrawing from Iraq, Kevin Drum wonders if the tide of mainstream political punditry is finally starting to turn. I've long been a member of the Friedman-esque/TNR "liberal hawk" category, and I'll admit that I too am wavering on the value of our continued presence there--especially given the Bush administration's seeming constant ability to do no right.

Brilliant political theorist Iris Marion Young has died of cancer. Well before her time, she will be missed.

Latest Senate rankings are up. Top five most competitive seats are Republican-held.

It's a bit old, but this gem about the dismissal of an Arabic interpreter for being gay shows how deathly serious we are about the GWOT (Disenchanted Idealist).

Hill on Jackson on Cosby on Black men.

Iraq rallies for Hezbollah. I'm glad things are turning out so well over there. Incidentally, I've read that prior to the rise of Saddam, Iraq was actually a relatively friendly climate for Jews. In the space of a generation, Hussein's rabid anti-Semitic rhetoric has made it indistinguishable from the rest of the Arab League's pathological Jew-hatred. Head-bangingly frustrating (Eric Muller).

Restless Mania discusses shirts with communist themes on them. My friend Matt and I have discussed how we might each wear a Che Guevera shirt, only to mock him (what better way to subtly diss an anti-capitalist icon than turning him into a symbol of American materialism?).

Speaking of Slant Truth, the folks there lay the smackdown on the "blackfacing" of Joe Lieberman scandal. I can't tell which is more infuriating, when liberals engage in this crap, or when they try and defend it. Good for Kevin Andre Eliott for some highly justified ripping.

Tim Burke discusses the glories of LibraryThing. Like crack cocaine, it is.

Apparently, I inspired this post at Jurisdynamics. I'll give readers a hint: it's not because I have a natural affinity for the link between math and law.

Look Like He Made His Choice

GQ has a big-time story on the rise and fall of Ralph Reed. My favorite quote so far:

His own mother--his mother!--once told USA Today, "I used to tell people he was going to be either President of the United States or Al Capone."

The story comes to me by way of Feddie at Southern Appeal. Back when Mr. Reed was running for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, Feddie caused Publius to have a Say It Ain't So, Joe moment, when he found out that the big-time Christian blogger was endorsing Reed. Well, the man has now grimly come around to recognize that Reed is one of the lowest pieces of scum to walk on American political earth (and that says something).

Unspeakable Anti-Semitism

Phoebe Maltz has a superb post up about the continuing reality of anti-Semitism, and the strange reluctance of people to speak about it or even acknowledge its existence. "Superb", of course, is somewhat redundant when talking about a WWPD post, but this one particularly caught my eye.

I tend to run in leftist circles, and one thing I've really tried to impress upon people is the pervasive nature of anti-Semitism and why it needs to be addressed. I devour article upon article about structural racism, the patriarchy, heterosexism, you know an oppressed class, I've done at least some reading on it. And what's more, I buy the argument. I do believe that America, for example, is institutionally biased against Blacks, and that Whiteness is held as the norm to which everything else must measure up. It isn't fair, it isn't just, and it serves as a serious barrier to the creation and maintenance of a just society.

The same could be said about Judaism in the world. Judaism is perpetually marginalized in the world--it is always aberrant, always other. But the literature on Jewish marginalization is much scantier. People are simply far less willing to believe that Jews are oppressed. Partially, this is due to the particular manner in which anti-Semitic tropes have developed over the years. One of the stereotypes about Judaism is that we are the power behind the curtain; we pull all the strings. Think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Or the neo-conservative/Jewish cabal that is purportedly running White House foreign policy. Just a Mexicans are assumed to be lazy, or Blacks are assumed to be beastly, Jews are assumed to be possessors of unjust power (both unjustly acquired, and likely to be used for selfish and unjust ends). Since that is the prevailing mindset, people are less likely to entertain notions that Jews do face discrimination and double-standards in the world, except in the most extreme cases. And since such discourse is suppressed, the dominant view of Jews as being in perfectly good health, and thus presumptively part of the ruling caste, continues. It's a vicious cycle.

This analysis isn't particularly novel--indeed, it draws heavily from similar explorations of hurdles and obstacles faced by members of subordinated races, genders, sexual orientations, and ethnicities. What's bothersome is less the continuation of anti-Semitism than the fact that so few big-name theorists seem interested in critically grappling with it. That's supremely frustrating. And, I'd add, an indicator of anti-Semitism in its own right.

It's All The Feminists Fault

Feministe documents and dismantles another episode of everything in the world is the fault of feminists. Complete with pining for a return to 1950s race relations and the by-gone era where women didn't speak out, this one truly has it all.

The part that raised my eyebrow particularly, however, was this discussion of autonomy:

I believe that Planned Parenthood, NARAL, et al. are in a sense responsible for instances like the Kitty Genovese case.

NARAL sorts are, in a nutshell, saying to the larger community:

"Don't impose your morals on me. Get your rosaries out of my ovaries. It's my choice. I'm autonomous. No man's gonna' tell me what to do..."

The weary response of the community is to say (specifically, here, to the young women in society):
"OK. OK. Alright, already. I won't butt into your life. Do whatever the heck you want. Go get your &*%#$ abortion. Go, sleep with a dozen men per week."

Genovese was left to die by a society that had gotten the message, so to speak, that truly modern sorts don't meddle in one another's affairs.

To put a finer tip on my point, the upshot is that men and women are told, more and more, to disassociate from one another. In a world where no one harasses one another, also no one counsels or helps the other.

Aside from her assailant, Kitty was autonomous in the ally.

It's ironic, because feminist theorists have been at the fore-front of critiquing the formalist notion where "autonomy" is equated with hands-off laissez-fairism. Think C-Mac's (can we call her C-Mac?) critique of the "right to privacy." I'm also reminded of Mary Ann Glendon's discussion of the right to be "let alone" in the context of abortion cases:

won the right that had been understood from its earliest appearance in the American legal system as "the right to be let alone." And let alone she was. No one . . . had been willing to help her either to have the abortion she desired, or to keep and raise the child who was eventually born. [from her book, Rights Talk

Martha Minow has discussed the formalist belief that within a classical liberal paradigm, one has no obligation to save a drowning man (but one can be sued if one attempts and does it incompetently). The notation that true autonomy cannot come without some sort of societal intervention, be it in the economic sphere (living wage, decent working conditions), or the sexual sphere (access to contraception, protection from harassment) is one that is being explored, hashed out, contested, and debated vigorously inside the feminist community. By contrast, the belief that freedom and laissez-faire are identical is the war-cry not of the left but of the right. Whatever one might have to say about the feminist community, this seems like one sin that cannot be laid on their heads.

Worst Sports Team Town

Okay, here's a good debate topic for all you sports fans out there.

My family and I have been discussing which is the worst town in sports. By "worst", we don't mean atmosphere or fan loyalty. We mean in terms of the overall performance of its major, professional teams in recent memory (say, the mid-80s and up).

The criteria:
1) The town must have at least two professional teams in the any of the four major sports (Baseball, Basketball, Hockey, Football).

2) These teams have to have been in the town for at least four years, so we can get a sense of how they're doing (so New Orleans wouldn't qualify, because it has only the Saints and the Hornets, and the Hornets have only been in N.O. for a few years [they've actually been there since 2002, but considering that they're also part time in Oklahoma City, I don't think they meet the standard]).

So, for example, has the aggregate performance of the Washington teams (Capitals, Wizards, and Redskins--the Nationals don't count because they just moved here) been worse than that of the Houston teams (Astros, Rockets, Texans)?

For what it's worth, my money's on Cleveland (Indians, Browns, Cavaliers). But Seattle (Mariners, Seahawks), Cincinatti (Reds, Bengals), Houston and Washington all are competitive.

Duke it out in comments.

Beyond Marriage

An interesting petition and statement lends a new dimension to the "marriage equality" fight. Signed by an all-star cast of left-wing affiliated notables (such as Gloria Steinem and Kenji Yoshino), the statement deftly and impressively sidesteps the issue of marriage entirely. Rather, it says that we should focus on providing benefits to all family types regardless of status.

For the most part, I think that's a worthy goal. While I think marriage equality has tremendous symbolic importance and should be pursued for that reason alone, in general I think the manner in which law nurtures relationships should be primarily designed to a) provide basic protection to all members of the relational unit (especially particularly vulnerable ones, such as children) and b) give people the tools to support and protect the people important to them, regardless of status. When I get married, I definitely want my wife and children to receive the full panoply of rights and benefits I receive. But if, God forbid, my parents need to turn to me for support in their old age, I'd like that same assurance that I could provide whatever resources I could to them as well. As such, I think the role of law is not to mandate certain types of relationships (beyond the aforementioned stipulations about protecting the vulnerable), but to provide an "enabling environment" for relationships that already exist. For gay couples then, the wrong question to ask, I think, is whether or not the state should be encouraging or discouraging their formation (and/or them raising children). Gay couples already exist, and they already are raising kids. The question for the state is how we ought treat these relationships, what obligations we have to its members, and how we can create the best possible environment for flourishing and human freedom within such a context of choice.

I do wonder if the group has run ahead of itself when it makes statements like this:

For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?
...
Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.

If that is (as it sounds to me) a reference to polyamorous relationships, then they've probably gotten a bit ahead of the rest of the population. But by-and-large, I think this is an interesting document, and one well-worth considering.

The H/T goes to Rob Vischer, who asks (fairly, in my view) for greater elucidation of the theoretical underpinnings that are behind the statement.

One or more of the following premises seems to be operative: 1) individuals' structuring of their household relationships is unaffected by the law's content; 2) all categories of household relationships are of equal value to the long-term health of communities; or 3) regardless of the comparative social value of relationships, the government overreaches if it tries to reflect that comparative value in public policy. Whichever premise is doing the work here, the statement would benefit considerably from bringing it to the surface where it can be unpacked and engaged.

I'm not sure this is (or is intended to be) an exhaustive list, but I would probably come down on a modified version of number 3. I've seen some evidence that two-parent homes are better than one-parent homes for raising children, no evidence that heterosexual homes are better than homosexual homes for the same. But regardless of what the evidence is on either of those counts (or any other family structure, not to mention the numerous cases where there are no children to speak of), I think that whatever marginal benefit might be accrued from forcing people into the "ideal" relationship is wildly outweighed by the harms that come from not giving benefits to already existent non-ideal relationships. That is, even if one could find an ideal relationship "type", I believe the benefits of encouraging that type to the exclusion of all or most others are negligible compared to the harm suffered by those persons who are not and will not become part of said relationship type. For example, even if it could be shown that heterosexual families are better for children than homosexual ones, depriving benefits to homosexual families would do far more damage to the children of such unions than could be justified by whatever benefits might come out such a deprivation.

Castro Watch

With regards to Fidel's recent surgery, I thought it would be proper to bring up this oldie from the State Department:

QUESTION: Did you hear that Castro fell?

MR. BOUCHER: We heard that Castro fell. There are, I think, various reports that he broke a leg, an arm, a foot, and other things, and I'd guess you'd have to check with the Cubans to find out what's broken about Mr. Castro. We, obviously, have expressed our views about what's broken in Cuba.

QUESTION: Do you wish him a speedy recovery?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

I doubt the sentiment has changed much in the intervening months.

Apology Accepted (Captain Needa)

If you don't get the reference, watch The Empire Strikes Back, and come back. I'll wait.

Finished? Good. Okay, so the latest guest-poster at Blackprof, Marc Lamont Hill, has a really interesting post up on the dynamics of apology. Using Mel Gibson's drunken anti-Semitic tirade as a launching pad, he notes the danger of being too quick to accept apologies from parties who have consistently wronged. This is especially true when the underlying factors that caused the offense can and will continue to perpetuate the harm even if the most egregious violations are reined in.

For Black people, the politics of apologies is particularly dangerous, as mea culpas are often used to end public discussion about complex and consistent problems. For example, what good is the Senate's 2005 resolution to apologize for lynching if the modern day prison industrial complex is replicating the conditions of the very slave industry that enabled Black people to hang from trees? After such apologies are offered and accepted without concrete concessions (such as reparations), further public conversation is considered excessive, and persistent activists are conveniently tagged as race card players and pain pimps .

This is probably true on a systematic level. But I will confess my anxieties when reading this call as a White male. It should be clear why: If I inadvertently cause offense, I want to be able to rejoin the progressive racial community, not be shunned and excommunicated.

I want to be clear that I don't read Mr. Hill as calling for such "one-strike you're out" standards. But it is a complex situation (as race issues so often are). For example, White people do consistently cause racial offense--as a community, we have not done nearly enough to get beyond this. But it is quite difficult to determine whether any individual White person is making a genuine effort, i.e., whether the mistake is truly that and an aberration. This is a double bind, because it's just as problematic to say "judge each White person individually," when we're dealing with systematic injustice. But I think that discussions of this issue at least have to acknowledge the sentiments amongst some sympathetic and/or progressive Whites that delving into race is akin to stepping into a minefield.

Ultimately, I feel like we should hold public figures (and especially government officials) to higher standards than Joe-average-citizen on this respect. And, perhaps more on point to the issues of past racial injustice, when we're dealing with corrections of policy rather than of mindset, it is perfectly justifiable (and wise) to demand remedy for the ailment, and not merely an apology. As Critical Race Theorist Taunya Lovell Banks wrote in response to the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond affair, "focus on...remarks, rather than on...opposition to civil rights for black Americans, probably cause[s] many white Americans to be reluctant to discuss race, for fear of similar misstatements" [Exploring White Resistance to Racial Reconciliation in the United States, 55 RUTGERS L. REV. 903, 948 (2003)]. A two-tiered approach which differentiates between person-on-person racism and policy- or structurally-supported racism would help mediate this conflict (though I doubt it would eliminate it entirely).

No En Banc Review in Poway

Via the VC, the 9th Circuit has denied an en banc review of Harper v. Poway Unified School District. Poway dealt with a school preventing one of its students from wearing a t-shirt bearing various anti-gay slogans, due to a school history of tension between homosexual and anti-gay students. I gave my reasons for supporting the ruling here, although I admitted it was a close call.

Message to the People

I want to take Europe seriously on Foreign Policy, I really do, but sometimes they just don't appear to be living in the same world as me:

The foreign minister of France, Philippe Douste-Blazy, is in Beirut today. This is the wisdom he imparted to his listeners: "In the region there is of course a country such as Iran--a great country, a great people, and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region."

And the reality-based community gets a little smaller.

Starve the Beast

Miami Law Professor Michael Froomkin points to a new Las Vegas ordinance that would ban feeding poor people in public parks. As Froomkin notes, giving a sandwich to a rich man still is presumptively legal, but heaven help you if you decide to show compassion for the starving. I'm not even going to bother hoping that anyone in the Vegas city government is familiar of the maxim "feed the hungry," much less its source. In the meantime, we find a major American city treating human beings as the equivalent of an animal pest to be regulated and contained.

Twisted.

Unheeded Innocence

I'll lay it straight for you. One of my absolute, deepest fears, is of being charged and/or convicted of a crime I did not commit. I fear that despite knowing my innocence, I won't be able to convince a prosecutor or a jury of that fact. I fear that I'll be villified by everyone I ever loved. I fear I'll spend my entire life behind bars based off a mistake. It terrifies me.

It's articles like this that explain why. If for no other reason than to prevent horrors like this from happening, we must be ever-vigilent in making sure that our criminal justice system does everything possible to prevent an innocent man from being convicted. That commitment may not be politically popular, but it represents the baseline of how a just society conducts itself.

H/T: Ann Bartow

On Being a Jewish Democrat

Kevin Drum points to several conservative commentators accusing American Jews of, among other things, being "downright stupid" for being Democrats. The reason is because right now we have a Republican President who is incredibly pro-Israel. Both Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias point out that such a claim makes it then difficult to condemn the statements by some that Jews have "dual loyalties" divided between America and Israel. That's true, but (speaking as one of the idiots) I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own.

First of all, even if the GOP is slightly more pro-Israel than the Democratic party, it's not by any meaningful amount. There was, what, around 10 votes against the last resolution supporting Israel in its conflict against Hezbollah? In America today, both parties are strong on Israel, so from my perspective it is effectively a wash, and any advantage the GOP has is negligible. And of course, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Israel is disadvantaged by poor foreign policy decisions and misadventures elsewhere in the Middle East. Stirring up instability there means bad things happen to Israel.

Second, it's arguable (indeed, I think it's evident) that the reason that the Democratic party is so strong on Israel is because of its strong, consistent Jewish base. Remember, Jews are matched only by Blacks in terms of party loyalty. I think we've done a good job keeping the Dems in line on the issue. Contrast that to Europe, where Jews are far less politically influential and Israel (and Jews themselves) are time and again kicked to the curb by both the left and the right. I'm not saying that Democrats only defend Israel because its politically expedient, but I am saying that a mass exodus would significantly strengthen the hand of the McKinney wing of the party and probably result in a net weakening of support for Israel in the body politic.

Third, and not to be obvious, there are a lot of issues besides Israel that are important to Jewish voters. Democrats have the advantage on nearly all of them. On abortion, social justice, church/state (that's a huge one), economic justice, and civil rights, Democrats are far more in tune with Jewish positions than are Republicans. It's not even close.

There are Democrats who take positions on Israel I find objectionable. Frankly, that's what primary battles are for, and as Representative McKinney is about to find out (again), more Democratic voters than not won't stand for constant, single-minded Israel bashing. But by and large, I feel I'm giving up little, if anything, for Israel by my Democratic affiliation. And in terms of the issues that matter to my faith, I'm gaining a lot more.

Stateside Terrorism

A Pakistani gunman opened fire on a Seattle Jewish Center, killing one and wounding five. The suspect apparently targeted the Jews due to his hostility towards Israel.

Local coverage from both the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Seattle Times.

I've been to synagogue services that have had to be held under police protection on multiple occassions. Just another reminder that there are plenty of people in the world that want to see me and my family dead.

Tied Together

If you ever needed a clear view of Republican priorities, this is it. They're willing to bring a minimum wage hike to a vote, but only if its tied to an Estate Tax cut. Because it would be grossly unfair to give a boost to hard-working Americans if it wasn't matched by a giveaway to Paris Hilton.

Of course, the GOP is entirely unwilling to play by those rules when it comes to its own (congressional) pay raises. Only the little people must suffer.

Carpetbagger Report runs the political math and thinks the Dems will come out on top here. I certainly hope so.

Non-Combatants in Asymmetric Warfare

Those of you who were piqued by the suggestion that the laws of war are unfair to non-state actors who don't have big armies and apparatuses ought to read this post at Obsidian Wings. Among a bevy of really important points on a variety of issues that everyone should read, the post offers a very clear and sobering look at what might happen if we were to provide greater protection to so-called "mixed use" sites, which have both civilian and military purposes:

First, and in my mind most importantly, it would dramatically extend the length of wars. Fighting guerrillas is already very tough, and the proposal to severely curtail attacks on mixed targets would make it even more difficult. This (combined with the often loose organizational structure found in many guerrilla groups) would make negotiated settlements or surrenders very unlikely. The wars can (and do) continue across many generations. This isn't good for civilians.

Second, it would reinforce the already existing impulse to mix military and civilian targets. If you give extra-special protection to mixed targets, you are directly incentivizing the co-location of military and civilian targets. This will tend to be very bad for civilians in the long run unless you completely ban attacks on mixed targets, in which case you lead directly into the indefinite war scenario I outlined above.

Third, it gives no incentive to engage with combatants on the other side. Why fight soldiers who can fight back? You can attack civilians exclusively and retreat to your mixed civilian/military sites with impunity.

Fourth, it gives state actors an even greater incentive to engage in proxy wars with guerrillas as their soldiers. Warfare with non-state guerrillas is bad enough, but thought not to be as dangerous because they don't have regular access to the weapons that only states can produce. If you combine them with state sponsorship, they become much more dangerous to civilians because they have access to the weaponry of a state war but fail to respect non-combatant immunity.

Fifth, and perhaps as important as the first, it directly plays into the propaganda war that the guerrillas want to play. It not only reinforces the tactical need for safety, it helps the strategic goal of propaganda--if mixed targets are offered heightened protection when used by guerrillas as opposed to regular military then any civilian deaths (or combatant deaths that can be reported as civilian deaths) have even greater propaganda impact.

This is a definite "read it in full" post. It has some of the sharpest analysis of the dangers that lie in changing the international law status quo I've seen anywhere.

Bury the Hatchet

Kos really has to get over his beef with The New Republic. Seriously: There's no solid foundation to it (Kos is certainly more liberal, but he loves to trumpet how he's interested in building a party, not about purging ideological foes), he's wildly over-estimated their hostility to him (cf. Beinart's positive review of "Crashing the Gates"), and there is no real question that TNR has (and I'd say always has) taken just as hard a line on the follies and failings of the Bush administration as any major Democratic media group.

Seriously. Quit it. You're only hurting your cause.

In The Name of Tradition

Compare and contrast two views of "tradition"; the first from the concurring opinion by J.M. Johnson in today's Washington anti-gay marriage court decision, the second from J.M. Balkin's article, Deconstruction's Legal Career [27 Cardozo L. Rev. 719 (2005).

From the concurrence:

Nor is Justice Madsen's claim that "history and tradition are not static," Madsen, J., op. at 26 coherent, at least outside the context of a George Orwell novel. Our history and tradition are real and ascertainable. This court and the United States Supreme Court have always applied these principles to inform the understanding of the privileges and immunities clause, rather than current political notions. Under our constitutional separation of powers, such issues are for the legislature and/or the people, and here the legislature has clearly spoken. This is not to suggest the constitutional right of marriage may be redefined at will by legislative process; that may be a case for a different day. [concurring opinion at 14, emphasis added]

From Professor Balkin's piece:

Claiming to speak in the name of tradition can also be a kind of betrayal in several different ways. First, traditions are often contested. Hewing to one particular vision of tradition obliterates other interpretations of the past and other alternatives for the future. Tradition never speaks with one voice, although, to be sure, persons of particular predilections may hear only one. In this way, a tradition can be a kind of extradition, banishing other perspectives and handing them over to their enemies, so to speak. Second, to respect tradition is also to betray, submerge, and extinguish other existing and competing traditions. It can lead us to focus on a falsely unitary or unequivocal story about the meaning of the past when we should recognize the past as a complicated set of perspectives in tension with each other. Finally, to act in the name of a tradition is often to betray the tradition itself, by disregarding the living, changing features of a tradition and substituting a determinate and lifeless simulacrum. (726)

Professor Balkin is playing on the shared root of "tradition" and "betrayal." To advocates of a "living constitution," the call to look towards tradition seems like a betrayal of the active liberty that animated the founders in writing a constitution; men who wrote a document designed to outlive them; a government of laws, not men. Tradition also runs up against the same problem that I have with Kant--the prescribed action mandated by tradition (just like that of the "categorical imperative") varies wildly depending on how broadly or narrowly one interprets the tradition. If the accepted tradition is "one man, one woman," then gay litigants will likely lose. If the accepted tradition is "marriage is an important institution that all should have the right to participate in, on equal terms," then gay litigants seem more likely to win. Both seem to have solid roots in how we understand the "tradition" of marriage. More importantly, at their inception these two concepts were not seen to be in opposition, while currently we see a severe tension. The "ideological drift" by which concepts which used to stand for one idea come to stand for something else entirely is another point in favor of a heterodox traditional standpoint. Balkin continues:

The phenomenon of ideological drift is related to the multivalent meanings of a tradition, and to the important connections between tradition and betrayal. Ideological drift guarantees that the concrete exemplars and symbols of a tradition will take on multiple and conflicting meanings and implications over time. As a result, different groups can claim to be faithful adherents of the tradition and yet wish to continue it in radically different ways. Traditions are thus the result of and the site of interpretive struggles between adherents all of whom claim to be faithful to the tradition. Each group, however, wishes to consolidate and continue the tradition in ways that seem like a betrayal from the perspective of the other camps. We might say, then, that the seeming unity of any tradition is actually, on closer inspection, a complicated set of nested oppositions, whose conflicts may appear only with the passage of time and the arrival of new circumstances. Traditions often try to submerge and suppress their multiple meanings, enshrining some interpretations as orthodoxy and banishing others as heresy. Yet the multiplicity of meanings and the instability of interpretations continue to emerge incessantly as the tradition travels through history. (731-32)

Both camps in the gay marriage debate see themselves as preserving the tradition, although only one camp has managed to appropriate the label "tradition" to its side. But this is a misnomer--both parties are defending a different branch of "traditional marriage", branches which once were seen as harmonious but now have been revealed to be in conflict. The fact that this conflict has only truly emerged recently does not make either side anti-traditional: the side that wishes to banish the view of marriage as something accessible to all, on equal terms, is equally anti-traditional as the side that wishes to banish the view of marriage as one man, one woman. And of course, this sort of Hegelian dialectic is not an aberration anyway: traditions are always evolving, taking on new roles and casting off old ones. The tradition of marriage as primarily a contract designed seal political alliances has largely been abandoned, for example. To say that tradition is fluid is not anything Orwellian, it is a recognition of tradition as a part of history, and history, as they say, has been going on for a long time and has seen many changes.

Teach Me

Over at Alas, a Blog, there is a post up by Tekanji assailing the argumentative tactic of making the "oppressors into the oppressed". This can happen in a variety of contexts, but it's generally when a White complains of racism perpetuated against him by a Black, or a man complaining of sexism by a women, or something of the like.

This comes back to the age-old question of whether minorities can be racist, which I've addressed in several previous posts, both as an intersectionality issue and on the far more controversial question of whether minorities can be racist against the majority. At the outset and as a matter, I reiterate my agreement with Critical Race Theorist Frank H. Wu: "[A]n approach that categorically denies the possibility that in some instances a white male plaintiff may have a valid claim is rightly repudiated as unfair," and "It is unclear that anything would be gained, or that the result would be especially principled, if white ethnic minority individuals were denied the ability to sue for straightforward discrimination by an institutional actor (i.e., the case was not a collateral challenge to affirmative action.)." That being said, I will agree that many claims of minority-on-majority oppression are wildly exaggerated, to say the least, and are usually less serious and less pervasive than like discrimination faced by minorities.

Tekanji makes three points. The first is on when justified rage crosses over into undeserved viciousness. There isn't much I have to add to this, other than my two part view of the role of "civility" in racial discussions (both recognizing that civility is, generally, a good thing, while remembering that calls for civility are often disguised demands for silence).

The second and third demand stricter scrutiny, however. The second point deals with Nubian (aka Blac(k)academic) complaining about White feminists who view her as a "teacher" and write to tell her how much they've learned (the quote is in the comments, so I can't evaluate in context. So to be clear, I'm only evaluating the spin Tekanji is placing on it, not the particularized event Nubian was referring to). Nubian finds these comments degrading, wishing to respond "I'm not here to teach you!" This is a contextual issue, because I agree that it would get tiring to constantly have to be in "teacher" mode, always expected to serve as the "minority view" and to hand-hold the privileged as they crawl toward awareness. But at the same time, teaching is important, and White people are constantly (and correctly) told by their Black peers to seek out Black stories and learn from Black experiences as a tool in discovering the reality of the American racial schema. I would not be writing this today had I not read the works of scholars of color like Delgado & Stefancic, Lawrence, Matsuda, Bell, Williams, and others. So I can personally vouch for how important and revealing such stories can be. It honestly would never occur to me to be wary of telling one of those professors (or any of the scholars or bloggers of color who have written insightful, eye-opening posts) that I found their argument useful and informative and that I learned a lot from it (ironically enough, AAB is also hosting a discussion on whether Whites have a difficulty discussing racial topics with racial minorities). And that is somewhat key--these are statements written on a blog (or magazine, or journal, or book). We should be so lucky if White people read them and learn from them. That, I think, is qualitatively different from walking up to Josephine-random-Black-woman and saying "teach me all there is to know about the Black experience." Censoring the impulse to learn from the written, expressed experiences of Black intellectuals, such a frail instinct to start with, strikes me as counter-productive and orthogonal to the goal of increased racial awareness amongst Whites.

Which brings me to the final point Tekanji makes, which is a general dismissal of the oppressor-as-oppressed argument. I've already explained why I don't think that argument can be made categorically, but in the context of this post it comes off as a cruel joke. One theme I constantly hear when talking to my White friends about race issues and anti-racism is this depressed, crushed hopelessness about their ability to do anything in the face of the critique. It isn't anger. It's sadness. They read these discussions and hear these arguments and find a huge list of things they can't do, but nothing they can do. They're told to "lose their privilege." But they are given virtually no indicator of how to do it, and are given mixed signals (at best) as to the propriety of asking how to do it. So they don't. It's a sense of hopelessness which breeds political quiescence, which in turn feeds into minority anger that the majority doesn't care about setting things right, and it creates a vicious cycle.

I should add that the whole "lose your privilege" rhetoric itself I find misleading. There was an old adage in the cold war about the difference between communists and capitalists: "The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.'" This is, to say the least, a dumb quote, both because capitalists are not particularly interested in giving every one so much, and because communists are certainly not locked in to demanding nobody have so much. But it gains some saliency here, because the goal shouldn't be for Whites to lose privilege, it should be for persons of color to gain it. I've explained the concept of White privilege to my friends who proclaim "White innocence" through the lens of being shadowed in a department store. You won't get shadowed, your Black friend will. It isn't your fault that you don't get shadowed, and you shouldn't go up and kindly request the store employee to shadow you to "remove the privilege", but that doesn't change the fact that it is a privilege that works to your advantage and to your Black friend's disadvantage, on account of race. The proper response is to that is to work to have everyone gain the privilege though. Feeling guilty about the privilege and quietly wishing that you were as marginalized is both depressing and ineffective. Imprecise rhetoric, again, hurts the cause by reinforcing the hopelessness of sympathetic Whites that they'll ever be able to satisfy the terms of the critique.

Racism is a problem. A very large one, in fact. But that does not mean that Whites never have legitimate concerns, it does not mean that they never are unjustly marginalized, and it does not mean we can simply ignore their requests for help and then blame them from not helping. "It's much easier" to not complicate things this way. But that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't make it likely to work.

UPDATE: Feministe gives some context. I'd note off her specific example that while she's right that a constant stream of "beautiful", even in good-faith, is not a substitute for true equality, I'd still point out that there is very little in the way of suggesting what would be a proper response where generic bromides are caught up in and marked by structures of domination.

Striking Down Supported Legislation

This morning, the Washington Supreme Court held that there is no right to gay marriage in the state, reversing two lower court rulings to the contrary. The decision was 5 to 4, but the majority was split into a 3-judge plurality, which ruled quite narrowly, and a 2 judge concurrence, which was far more vigorous in its defense of "traditional" marriage. Three separate dissents were authored, but one was clearly the main and the other two were written to clarify separate objections (whereas the concurrence disagreed fundamentally with the tepidness that the plurality used in its analysis).

I think the dissent gets the better of the exchange, which is unsurprising, as I have long since stopped believing that (absent the political charge surrounding the issue) marriage discrimination presented even a moderately difficult question of law. Indeed, here the plurality only managed to pull together a barely coherent rational basis argument by finding the homosexuality is not "immutable", which a) is almost definitely untrue, b) premised on a view of "immutability" that is overly narrow, and c) puts the cart completely before the horse in terms of what type of groups demand strict scrutiny protection. Even if homosexuals don't deserve strict scrutiny for discrimination, I've always been at a loss as to why they don't at least deserve heightened scrutiny. But even that is irrelevant here, because the court so badly mutilates the issue at hand that it is more than self-evident that an objective look at the issue would conclude that anti-gay marriage laws would fail rational basis--and hard.

However, what I want to talk about is the issue of courts refraining to let their personal views as to a laws merits or morality cloud their judgment as to its legality. Right at the top of the plurality opinion, the judges admonish their colleagues (both the dissenters and the concurrence) that:

It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be....A judge's role when deciding a case, including the present one, is to measure the challenged law against the constitution and the cases that have applied the constitution. Personal views must not interfere with the judge's responsibility to decide cases as a judge and not as a legislator [slip op. at 3-4].

Though I am not entirely sure how much a judge can divorce her personal beliefs from interpretations of constitutional law, I think the sentiment is fine in general. What I do question is why this argument is always limited to indicting judges who strike down legislation, and never to ones who uphold it.

In gay rights cases particularly, we have seen several instances where judges who have upheld discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans have expressed their reluctance and their sincere hope that the legislature will soon see the light and agree to grant equality via statute where the court could not do so by fiat. For example, in Lofton v. Department of Health and Family Services, the judge wrote at the end of his opinion that

I will conclude on a purely personal note. If I were a legislator, rather than a judge, I would vote in favor of considering otherwise eligible homosexuals for adoptive parenthood. In reviewing the record in this case one can only be impressed by the courage, tenacity and devotion of Messrs. Lofton and Houghton for the children placed in their care. For these children, these men are the only parents they have ever known. Thus, I consider the policy decision of the Florida legislature to be misguided and trust that over time attitudes will change and it will see the best interest of these children in a different light.

Similarly, Justice Thomas wrote a brief dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that was comprised almost entirely of his belief that

the law before the Court today 'is ... uncommonly silly.' Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

I do not question the sincerity of such statements. However, I wonder why we do not apply an equal mandate upon judges who vote to uphold statutes or enactments based on deeply held personal beliefs, even when it seems clear that the legally mandated result lies elsewhere. In other words, there is a lot of pressure on liberal judges to put their personal beliefs aside and apply law "neutrally" (i.e., upholding anti-gay legislation). But there is very little pressure on conservative judges to put their personal beliefs aside and apply law neutrally, striking down anti-gay laws.

In general, the mark of "judicial restraint" is when a judge, presented with a law she finds odious, repugnant, misguided, or just plain foolish, puts those sentiments to the side and recognizes that, as a judge and not a legislator, she is not in a position to make policy, and (however reluctantly) upholds the law. However, presumably there are cases which present the exact opposite scenario: A judge is presented with a law she believes in passionately, thinks is both wise and just, but appears to violate quite clearly some constitutional right. It seems apparent that we should be equally strident in demanding the such a judge bite the bullet and strike down the law (however reluctantly). But in general, the issue is not put that way.

I don't think we are completely at loss to do this. We would properly, I think, condemn southern judges who let their bias against African-Americans and their sincere belief as to their inferiority motivate them into upholding blatantly discriminatory Jim Crow laws. We can still attack Justice Hugo Black for his role in upholding Japanese Internment in Korematsu, even though it seems that Black genuinely believed that the program was legitimate (and perhaps necessary) for national security.

But it seems more difficult to demand it in a contemporary context. Why is this so? Well, constitutional clauses are not only worded broadly, but are phrased in terms of sacred rights and commitments that (to be blunt) you'd have to be a real chump to want to violate. Nobody likes to think that their views--when enacted into policy--are a violation of the constitution's defense of equality. Nobody likes to think of themselves as a discriminator, or having a preference for violating rights. When upholding statutes that one would prefer to strike down, the argument runs like this:

This law, in my view, is unwise and unfair to X persons. However, we live in a democracy, where courts must give deference to the legislature's pronouncements as to matters of policy. As much as it pains me, I can find no constitutional violation with the law at issue here.

When striking down a statute that one would prefer to uphold, however, the rhetoric would have to run something more like this:

In my ideal world, a government would be entirely permitted to discriminate against X/suppress Y's speech/not follow strict due process rights for suspect Z. However, the fact remains that the law mandates equality/free speech/due process, and so I must reluctantly strike down this law as a violation of the constitution

In the former, you're a bold defender of democracy even as you subtly suggest that the law should change. In the latter, you are (for all intents and purposes) declaring yourself to dislike the constitution (there are, as it happens, plenty of things about the constitution that are dislikable. But it's still not a good recipe for popularity to declare your preferred policy agenda to be in contrivance of constitutional norms). This isn't to say that deference to democracy in the face of a perceived bad decision isn't laudable--I think it often is. However, I don't see why it is any more laudable than striking down a democratically enacted decision that does conflict with the constitution. If there is a bona fide violation, shouldn't we be as vociferous in demanding judicial remedy as we are in demanding judicial restraint when the violation is absent?

The upshot of this, however, is that the true test of a judge's commitment to judicial neutrality isn't restraining herself from striking down the law she hates. It's being willing to strike down a law she supports. We should be equally suspicious of a judicial philosophy which upholds every law a judge thinks would be ideal, as one that would strike down every law the judge finds unwise. I can think of a few instances where I can conceptualize laws I might find agreeable being unconstitutional (especially in 2nd Amendment jurisprudence). But in general, there isn't the same pressure, and I don't think there is a principled reason why.

Other coverage of the Washington Decision:
Gay rights expert law professor Dale Carpenter has a nice big analysis up.

Nathan Bradfield believes that rulings like Washington's will keep coming until either "homosexuals prove to the courts that homosexuality is NOT a sin and traditional families are not a cornerstone of society, or a humanist President is elected and succeeds in nominating several hundred Stephen Reinhardt's. [sic]." He seems to think that this is a good standard. I think it just buttresses my point about the perceived benigness of conservatives injecting extra-constitutional views into their legal decision-making.

Mike Silverman notes that this decision is an improvement in that the plurality is respectful of the gay plaintiff's claims, and rejects the concurrence's gay-bashing. It's a step forward. I guess.

Andrew Sullivan thinks the "court pause" could be a break for the marriage equality movement, as New York Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Elliot Spitzer endorses gay marriage.

Pam Spaudling responds to an argument made by AmericaBlog that gay-rights advocates should focus on other (non-marriage) issues.

Shakespeare's Sister draws an interesting paradox between the conservative procreation argument relied on by the court here (biological parents are so important we can discourage gays from even having the option of marrying!) to the conservative "snowflake baby" argument we've been hearing on the stem cell debate (we should be encouraging these cells to be adopted by any willing family--biological or not!).

Shock and Blog only has a blurb, but it made me smile: "Washington Supreme Court upholds traditional marriage." Because if the decision had gone the other way, nobody would ever be able to obtain a traditional marriage again. Now that I think about it, I'm frowning, because this basic conceptual misunderstanding is actually pervasive in the plurality's analysis, which examines the reasons for letting heterosexuals marry (which is not disputed by any party) rather than the reasons for excluding homosexuals from marrying (which it really does not get into at all). As Professor Farsnworth might say: "ohh...I made myself sad."