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
It is with hesitation and a degree of uncertainty that I write this piece. In the judicial branch there should be no need to be politically defensive; all justification is intellectual in the form of written court decisions. However, in this particular situation, I feel compelled to explain in a medium other than our published opinions my perspective as an associate justice of the Union Judiciary that oversaw the case Klionsky and McElhaney v. Student Union.
Let me be clear: I am not writing to espouse any particular view on reverse discrimination or even to reinforce my legal understanding of this case. That would be unprofessional and unnecessarily defensive. Our opinions, which are accessible to all and which I encourage every student involved in the trial to read, do so in a by-and-large academic manner. I am writing instead as someone with a passion for critical thinking and fair analysis committed to giving all sides, no matter how unpopular, a shot at explaining their points of view in an established, professional and procedural way-in a courtroom setting-without letting political leanings obstruct an unprejudiced examination of a claim's merits. It is in that capacity that I reflect on experiences from the case.
From the outset, when we granted certiorari to hear the case, we knew it was going to be a personal and impassioned issue for many. The respondents soon filed a motion to dismiss the case, which echoed a broad public sentiment that the UJ should not hear a case on the legality of Student Union racial minority positions, positions regarded by some as too crucial to the experience of minority students for a handful of elected students to abruptly dismantle.
We met to analyze and evaluate new issues arising from the motion, taking very seriously and carefully considering all arguments. At the same time, two rooms down the hall of the Shapiro Campus Center, the Senate happened to hold an emergency meeting in response to the somewhat heated reaction to the news of the upcoming trial. During its meeting, the Senate passed an emergency resolution urging us to dismiss the case. And as the five of us privately deliberated, deeply focused and passionately engrossed in an intellectual exchange regarding the communal legal issues involved, a Student Union official walked into our room and personally hand-delivered a copy, printed just for us, of the Senate resolution, which he had signed.
Let me be clear: I am not writing to espouse any particular view on reverse discrimination or even to reinforce my legal understanding of this case. That would be unprofessional and unnecessarily defensive. Our opinions, which are accessible to all and which I encourage every student involved in the trial to read, do so in a by-and-large academic manner. I am writing instead as someone with a passion for critical thinking and fair analysis committed to giving all sides, no matter how unpopular, a shot at explaining their points of view in an established, professional and procedural way-in a courtroom setting-without letting political leanings obstruct an unprejudiced examination of a claim's merits. It is in that capacity that I reflect on experiences from the case.
From the outset, when we granted certiorari to hear the case, we knew it was going to be a personal and impassioned issue for many. The respondents soon filed a motion to dismiss the case, which echoed a broad public sentiment that the UJ should not hear a case on the legality of Student Union racial minority positions, positions regarded by some as too crucial to the experience of minority students for a handful of elected students to abruptly dismantle.
We met to analyze and evaluate new issues arising from the motion, taking very seriously and carefully considering all arguments. At the same time, two rooms down the hall of the Shapiro Campus Center, the Senate happened to hold an emergency meeting in response to the somewhat heated reaction to the news of the upcoming trial. During its meeting, the Senate passed an emergency resolution urging us to dismiss the case. And as the five of us privately deliberated, deeply focused and passionately engrossed in an intellectual exchange regarding the communal legal issues involved, a Student Union official walked into our room and personally hand-delivered a copy, printed just for us, of the Senate resolution, which he had signed.
Be the first to comment on this story