Spring Break
UJ Justice considers difficulties of RMS trial
by Judah Marans
Forum | 5/19/09
Posted online at 6:41 PM EST on 5/18/09
I can cite potent sayings from political philosophers regarding the utmost importance of judicial integrity and separation of powers in any democracy. But no need. Res ipsa loquitur-the matter speaks for itself. We were being nothing short of pressured from another political branch for nonlegal reasons to change our minds. Perhaps, from a social point of view, it indeed is best to leave this issue for town hall meetings or the constitutional review process, as was in fact the court's final verdict. And let there be no misunderstanding: I concurred with this ruling. But it is not up to the UJ to summarily and without trial make this decision. A mechanism must exist by which students can challenge something allegedly illegal other than subjecting the validity of their claims to a popular student review. And as then-Chief Justice Rachel Graham Kagan '09 wrote in her opinion, "No mechanism other than the UJ currently exists within this university by which students may challenge a portion of the Constitution." Even if we disagree about how the petitioners exercise their rights to challenge, surely we shouldn't be asked to deny them those rights.
Most, if not all, of those who signed the resolution urging dismissal of the case wanted the racial minority positions to remain intact. They did not sign on to the resolution purely to inform us of their understanding of appropriate jurisdictional foundations as per their views of jurisprudential theory and philosophy of the legal system in general. In reality, they didn't want us to hear the case for fear of an outcome they didn't want. They might as well have signed a resolution urging us to hold a trial but to then vote for the respondents without paying attention to any of the trial's arguments or proceedings. I believe that even in the face of pressure from an emergency Senate resolution, influential Student Union officials, community leaders and others alike to dismiss the case, the petitioner's voice deserves the chance to be heard in our adversarial system of justice regardless of the opinion it espouses.
Most, if not all, of those who signed the resolution urging dismissal of the case wanted the racial minority positions to remain intact. They did not sign on to the resolution purely to inform us of their understanding of appropriate jurisdictional foundations as per their views of jurisprudential theory and philosophy of the legal system in general. In reality, they didn't want us to hear the case for fear of an outcome they didn't want. They might as well have signed a resolution urging us to hold a trial but to then vote for the respondents without paying attention to any of the trial's arguments or proceedings. I believe that even in the face of pressure from an emergency Senate resolution, influential Student Union officials, community leaders and others alike to dismiss the case, the petitioner's voice deserves the chance to be heard in our adversarial system of justice regardless of the opinion it espouses.
Be the first to comment on this story