While the essence of the reading that Ben offered to the
class for the week of GSI-specific discussion was about game and game playing,
one line in particular stuck out to me that was somewhat unrelated to these
concepts. Rest assured, however, that it does have to do with political
science, so please bear with me. The line that I am referring to occurs on the
very first page of the excerpt, Suits' "Death of the Grasshopper":
“But that kind of justice," exclaimed
Prudence, "is only the justice of ants. Grasshoppers have nothing to do with
such justice.”
This line got me to thinking: is there such a thing as
different kinds of justice for different people? While I recognize that this is
a very large question to tackle in just one small blog post, I think it is an
interesting one to investigate. I will not come to a definitive answer in this
post, but will refer to outside evidence, as well as a text we have examined in
class, in order to try.
In general, it seems that Americans enjoy thinking that we
operate off of one common justice system. We like to believe that everyone is,
and ought to be, treated equally, and that the system in place does this to the
best of our ability. However, what I would like to call into question by means
of this blog post is, does it? (Cue Ross and Rachel from Friends)
 |
| "DOES IT?" |
Does our judicial system really treat everyone equally?
Or perhaps, a better question is should it? By examining this question in the
context of a contemporary issue, the answer should become a bit more apparent.
I will then compare that issue to one of our most recent readings, “The Ballot
or The Bullet,” by Malcolm X. Should everyone always be viewed as entirely
equal?
The contemporary issue that I’ve chosen to apply to this
question is a recent ruling about DOMA. For those of you who don’t know, DOMA
is the “Defense of Marriage Act,” a law that explicitly defines marriage
as the union of a man and a woman, refusing to recognize same-sex marriage for
federal purposes. While “recognition” doesn’t seem like that big of a deal,
this lack of recognition results in many same-sex couples not receiving the
same benefits that the defined marriage does, resulting in discrimination. In
fact, Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the case Windsor v. United States which challenged DOMA, was
charged $363,053 more in federal taxes on her late wife’s estate than an
opposite-sex couple would have been charged. If you would like to read more
about this case, read the article that piqued my interest.
 |
| Edith Windsor, of Windsor v. United States |
However, whether or not this controversial law is just is
not what I intend to discuss in this post. What I intend to discuss is the
legal term that this article describes which is “the level of scrutiny.” This
term is used to refer to the extent to which the court needs to scrutinize the
matter at hand. The article sums this up fairly well:
I found this to be very interesting, simply because I always
saw the decisions that court justices made to be very clear-cut. My naïve way
of thinking was this: the justices refer to the Constitution and precedents,
and that’s that. And to a certain extent, that’s true. But when we bring in the
complex nature of discrimination and minorities, everything becomes a bit more
muddled.
The Supreme Court wound up voting to strike down DOMA due to
the fact that it was unconstitutional. The majority opinion decided that
homosexuals deserved to be put into the category of “heightened scrutiny,”
saying the group has “historically endured persecution and discrimination,” and
“the class remains a politically weakened minority.”
While this entire system makes a lot of sense to me, I find
the “level of scrutiny” to be intriguing. It calls so many things into question.
If this law were to disadvantage a particular group that hadn’t had a history
of being discriminated against, would it still be struck down? I think it’s so
interesting that we tend to think that the entire justice system exists without bias or knowledge, yet we take into consideration the social
backgrounds of certain plaintiffs to determine whether or not they are being treated
unfairly.
Now I am not saying this is a bad thing. In fact, I’m saying
the exact opposite. Being biased, in this case, can lead to advantageous
results for certain parties. However, it is interesting to consider this in the
context of the text that we considered this past week, Malcolm X’s "Ballot or the Bullet" speech. Being a text that deals with the idea of equality and the
idea of citizenship in America, I’m curious as to what he would think about the
DOMA case. In the context of Malcolm X’s speech, inequality and being regarded
as different resulted in severe disadvantages for Malcolm X and the social
group with which he identified: African Americans. While I realize that the two
situations being compared are entirely different, I think it is interesting to
consider what Malcolm X would say about the idea of the level of scrutiny. What
do you think he would say about using historical disadvantages of certain groups to lead to the advantage
of said parties? Would he find it necessary, and approve of the system? Or
would he simply say that everyone should be entirely equal no matter what, and
that the DOMA act never should have existed in the first place?
I would be very interested to know what you have to think about the issue, and look forward to your comments!
Images and Sources referenced:
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/quiz/576000/576551_1302988055010_396_355.png
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/ninety-years-of-discrimination-is-enough-court-declares/263858/
https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dW1pY2guZWR1fHBvbHNjaTEwMWYyMDEyfGd4OjI3Mzc5NDRmMjNjNmE3ZjQ
https://docs.google.com/a/umich.edu/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dW1pY2guZWR1fHBvbHNjaTEwMWYyMDEyfGd4OmM4ZmZkOTVlYzM1YjE0ZQ
I'd like to begin my comment by saying that this is one of the better-written posts on this blog, so props for that. Also for the Friends reference, which I loved. Now to address content. I think it's interesting how you applied the idea of multiple ideas of justice to the United States and same-sex marriage. We are and always have been a pluralist nation (e pluribus unum), and that's always given us headaches, from the Philadelphia Bible riots to the issue of same-sex marriage today. There are actually some really interesting books about the fractious nature of the American idea of justice (Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" is a great read if you're interested). Obviously the United States has a singular legal system, but we have great disagreements as to morals and values.
ReplyDeleteI'm very interested to see how US v. Windsor plays out. It'll be a nail-biter for sure, but I think ultimately the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA. The equal protection argument is strong, and there's precedent (albeit a century old) to support the claim that marriage is a civil right.
I suppose that Malcolm X would be opposed to same-sex marriage, as almost all people of his time were. But to take his ideas and apply them to this situation, I'd argue that he'd have been opposed to DOMA in the first place, as it relegated millions of Americans to second-class citizenship in much the same way as African-Americans were (and still are).
I like your original question, should there be different types of justice for different types of people? I think that for a society to be just, everyone in it must be judged by the same codes. But I do think that there could be different types of justice among different countries. In countries that are culturally homogenous for example, religious law isn't as scary as it sounds to Americans. In fact in Indonesia, each island uses different legal codes, some have secular laws, and some have religious laws that come from Islam, Hinduism, and Catholicism depending on the island. America has started motivating a lot of its actions overseas by claiming that other countries are not just towards their people. But I really don't think we are to judge the way other countries run their own affairs. If Egypt elects an islamist government, then they have a right to that government, even if it judges them on the basis of sharia law. As Socrates says, no man knows anything, and in the spirit of Mill, why not let different concepts of justice exist? May the best system win.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your first question (Should different people have different types of justice?), I think all people seek and should have the same type of justice. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, Martin Luther King Jr. gives a great description of justice, explaining that a just law is “a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God”. Moreover, MLK claims a just law “uplifts human personality”. If we follow these two basic guidelines, I think we can create laws that are universally just.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to your question “Should historical disadvantages of certain groups give those groups an advantage in acquiring justice?”, I have mixed feelings about this. This question alludes to affirmative action, which I have always had mixed feelings about because I can see both sides. Since minorities have been oppressed for centuries and many are still at a disadvantage due to their economic background, I can see why they should get an advantage in the job application and college admissions processes. By giving minorities this advantage, however, you are putting the majority at a disadvantage simply because of the color of their skin. Ideally, I would like a group to experience justice regardless of their ethnic or historical background. I’m just not sure if it’s realistic in our unfair world.
Regarding the idea of justice, I don't know if historical circumstances should have a say in whether or not a group acquires justice at all. I understand that groups yes, have had disadvantages in the past, but I think that everyone should just be seen on equal terms. When it comes to gay marriage, I think that they should have the same rights because it gives them equal protection under the law, however, like Jackson above me said, it's not fair to put the majority at disadvantage. I just don't understand why if we are all people who are abiding by the law, and paying our taxes, why someone's sexual preference, skin color, etc. should have their treatment be different, whether it puts them at advantage OR disadvantage.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, different people might have different ideas of what is just and what is not. I believe that justice is an impossible ideal, however we can strive to approach it as closely as possible. And for that to happen, we must all abide by a universal interpretation of what is just, as everyone must be hold to one standard, so as to approach justice. I do not believe in a higher spiritual or metaphysical being where justice originates from, but that justice is a human concept.
ReplyDelete