Mean Girls (Toddlers)

The "A Group" dominated the social scene. From the tire swing to the jungle gym, the playground was their domain, and no one was going to mess with them.  The "A Group" is what one group of girls called themselves at a Florida school. Seems normal, right? Every school has their social hierarchy and cliques. But, the problem with this "A Group" is that they probably should have named themselves the "G Group." As in, the "Gerber Baby Group." You see, this particular group of girls was composed of preschoolers - girls who were 4 years old yet had already formed a clique, used peer pressure and manipulation, and dominated and bullied their peers.

This is obviously just one isolated incident, but since one of the first studies of pre-adolescent meanness in 2005, all sources point to American children, especially girls, becoming progressively meaner. The causes for this change could be many. Boys have traditionally been thought of as meaner than girls, yet studies in aggression show that, because boys are able to show aggression in socially-ordained and approved ways, such as sports that encourage rough physical contact, they do not manifest their aggression in social interactions with peers as frequently as girls.

Because girls are not given these outlets for aggression, their aggression may manifest itself in their social interactions, showing the same aggression boys do in other areas through their social manipulativeness and bullying. Other experts, especially evolutionary psychologists, also point out that social aggression may have been evolutionarily viable for females in the past, and thus the trait may be heritable.

Regardless, however, it is clear that social modeling plays a part as well. From movies such as Mean Girls to television shows on Disney, the American media is saturated with female role models who get what they want through bullying and meanness. Obviously, these role models need to change, especially with the recent tragic cases of cyber bullying.  The media and entertainment industry need to realize the ramifications of these portrayals, even one that may be as seemingly innocuous (and annoying) as Hannah Montana, and rethink their own complicit roles in this change in our culture.  If children can learn to be mean this early, then maybe they can learn to be nice as well.

No Mo' Loko?

Four Loko, a caffeinated, alcoholic beverage, has been causing a lot of controversy recently. The FDA has placed a moratorium on the beverage, which has been called a "blackout in a can." The FDA moratorium was largely in response to the deaths of several college students, which were linked to consumption of Four Loko. The combination of caffeine and alcohol is the main problem with these beverages, the FDA says - the mixture of a depressant and stimulus proving especially harmful, and in some cases, deadly. 

However, one can only wonder if the FDA's banning of these beverages is taking one step too far. Cigarettes have been linked to deadly diseases for decades, yet the FDA only places a warning label on them - a label they could easily place on caffeinated alcoholic beverages as well. Why is there a difference between the two? Why can't people choose for themselves if they are willing to risk their physical safety for the consumption of this beverage?

I saw a clear resemblance between this ban and the San Francisco ban of toys in McDonald's "Happy Meals," due to the fact that some saw the toys as incentives for children to eat unhealthy food. (CommuniKATE tackles this issue in her blog here.) I can't help but think that both of these situations are cases of the government overstepping its regulatory bounds. People should choose for themselves what they eat, drink, and smoke, and if they want to get a little "Loko" and put their physical well being at risk, then they should be able to. 

Patdown, Shmatdown

A little over three weeks ago, the T.S.A., Transportation Security Administration, declared that it would be enforcing much stricter screening procedures in airport security. With this new procedure, T.S.A. agents are free to screen passengers in a much more forthright manner, with little regard for their personal privacy or personal space. The T.S.A. argues that this policy benefits everyone - obviously, any stricter security measures will make commercial flights that much safer.

Yet, I can't help but think that this new protocol is a bit overboard. Obviously, the T.S.A. has a vested interested in maintaining the safety of commercial flights, but, with the technology available to us today, I wonder if these increased, rather invasive measures are necessary.

This new policy has caused a veritable uproar in the weeks since it has been instated, calling into question the scope of the T.S.A.'s power to invade passenger's privacy. The government, and, by extension, the T.S.A., obviously has less stringent prohibitions when inspecting a commercial airline passenger. One could argue that, by traveling by plane, a commercial passenger therefore sacrifices a certain expectation of privacy - one that is obviously foregone with the new T.S.A. policies.

I am ambivalent about this new policy. One the one hand, anything that makes flying safer, and could prevent another 9/11, could be a step in the right direction. But, on the other hand, how much are we willing to sacrifice our rights for this safety? There has to be a limit to the rights that will be sacrificed in order to ensure a safe and pleasant flight. Ultimately, I think that the line should be drawn here. The new screening procedures are clearly far too invasive, and may, in fact, eventually garner even more resentment towards the T.S.A. and the commercial airline industry in general - resentment that neither of them need. I think that these screening procedures should be halted by the T.S.A.

Politically (In)Correct

The gingerbread-men's-rights-movement had begun. Ever since they had been falsely labeled as "gingerbread people," these oppressed, zesty holiday confections have been striving to reclaim not only their gender identities, but also their dignity. Their protests, redolent with the smell of Christmas and butter cream, were filled with repeated, strident outcries: "Give us back our gender!" Or, at least, "Stop being so politically correct!"

The cookie-men (can I call them that?) have a point. We, as a culture and people, have become far too politically correct, so much so that this frantic effort to avoid, even remotely, offending anyone and everyone has consumed, digested and regurgitated cultural discourse - transforming it into a deformed, cheapened imitation of what it should be. Much like a gingerbread-man with his legs bit off, cultural discourse and debate in America, and, indeed, the globe, has nowhere to go, no means to evolve or transform itself without the lurking, omnipresent force of "political correctness" stifling it.

Take, for example, the litany of instances in recent years in which political correctness has reached new heights of frivolous absurdity. In 2007, Australian recruitment firm Westaff banned its oft-hired troupe of Santa impersonators from saying "ho-ho-ho", insisting that the phrase, which has been an integral part of Ol' Saint Nick's routine for much longer than "ho" has been used as a derogatory term for women, is demeaning and may scare small children. Westaff insisted that its Santa impersonators say "ha-ha-ha," instead. Unfortunately, nobody is laughing.

The political-correctness-craze has not limited itself to just the holiday season, however, as no facet of culture and society has been left unaffected.

From newscasters to movie trailers, political correctness is becoming a form of censorship. Why can't Vince Vaughn call a hybrid car "gay" in a movie trailer? Calling something "gay" has transformed beyond simply denoting sexual orientation in the American vernacular. Vaughn even recognizes this distinction in the film, clarifying his statement that hybrid cars are "gay" by distinguishing the various meanings of the word to, in this case, mean "stupid" rather than homosexual.

Yet, gay advocacy groups, such as GLAAD, are still incensed by the trailer, claiming that it is derogatory and mean.  Whether or not the word "gay" is being used in a derogatory manner in this case should be up to the viewer to decide. (Personally, I thought the scene was funny and touched on some relatable aspects of American culture.)

If Ron Howard had cut the scene from the film, which he ultimately didn't, he would not only be relenting to the zeal of politically-correct-followers but the film would be prevented from possibly stirring a meaningful cultural discussion.

I am often ambivalent about the use of the word "gay" in the modern American dialect, but simply ignoring its use would be neglecting to recognize an aspect of contemporary American culture that should be discussed and considered. If we, as a society, can't portray cultural trends in a film without offending someone, what can we portray?

Similarly, why can't Juan Williams say that he becomes "nervous" and "worried" upon seeing people in "Muslim garb" board his plane? Obviously, his view is fueled by generalizations about Muslims and their connections to terrorist organizations. But, somewhat less obviously, these generalizations are not unfounded - many of the people that have been responsible for terrorist attacks on America and in Europe have been Islamic fundamentalists. Why isn't Williams able to share his views without repercussions?
 

Simple: His views do not mesh with the politically-correct media. (Sick of reading the words politically correct? Because I certainly am.) Simply because Williams' views do not fit this mold, or, dare I say it, run the risk of offending someone, does not mean that he should be silenced or fired. Rather, the consequences of his comments only serve to perpetuate fear in America: the (now-ingrained fear) of offending someone.
 
This fear can only lead to one thing in political and cultural discourse - hesitation.

Diffidence is the last thing one needs in a democratic society. People should be free to express their views, regardless of whether they risk offending someone.

Now, let me clarify. This is not to say that people should have free reign to bully or demean others, as, especially as seen recently, the power of hateful words is often terrifying.
 

Rather, my criticism of political correctness pertains to its role in limiting intelligent, civil public discussion.

 
Clearly, if conforming to the parameters of political correctness is the first thing that one considers before making a comment in today's society, there is something fundamentally wrong with the ways in which we communicate with one another.
 

I think we could all benefit from honesty - the ability to speak candidly and openly with one another without the looming shadow of political correctness hanging over every word.

And, if I won't offend anyone by saying so, I think all of America could use a little thicker skin.

Role Models

      It seems like, in today's age of heightened, omnipresent media scrutiny, you can't win - no matter what you do. Visiting a foreign country in which the drinking age is not an anachronistic relic that only encourages unhealthy drinking habits? Well don't have a beer. 24-years-old? Well, make sure you don't do anything considered sexual, especially if you happen to play a high-school student. (see another blogger's take on the GQ/Glee Photo Scandal here)
       I mean, really. I understand the argument - if someone is going to be in the public sphere, market themselves to impressionable youngsters, and thereby become a role model for said wide-eyed tykes, then they shouldn't do anything outrageous or morally base (otherwise newborns might start mimicking them as soon as they come out of the womb, society will explode, etc., etc.). But, what about when celebrities do things that aren't really that bad? And, furthermore, who decides whether what they do is morally deplorable or not?
     The two examples I used above, Miley Cyrus sipping a beer in Spain, and 24-year-olds posing suggestively in a magazine, are two such instances of the media once again completely sensationalizing situations that really aren't that big of a deal. So what if Glee's stars posed suggestively in GQ? They're 24-year-olds, I think they can make that decision for themselves. And what does it say about our sexually repressed society if there is such a large backlash about a dozen sexually suggestible photos in a magazine? We all know where sexual repression leads.
     I think our society not only needs to reexamine it's priorities and values, but also the ways in which our media tends to be, frankly, a little melodramatic.

Some Takes on Cyber Bullying

Check out this great blog post and Op-Ed about cyber bullying!

Once I Loved a Table

The love affair with my table was a whirlwind.  I mean, after all, who could resist its finely sanded finish, its enchanting, swirling grain, its delicate decorative accents? If only that Human-Table Marriage Act had passed, maybe I would have put a ring on it. I miss that table.

Why did our romance fizzle? What did I do wrong? Why can’t I have my table back?

Why don’t we ask the resident expert on human-inanimate-object-relations, Rebecca Kleefisch, the Republican candidate for Wisconsin lieutenant governor?

Kleefisch, oddly enough, seems possessed by the notion that extending marriage rights to gay couples will naturally lead to the marriage of people to furniture, animals, and assorted knickknacks. In her case, she seemed particularly taken with a table and a “you know, clock.” (Back up off my table, Kleefisch)

Ah, the slippery slope argument. Sorry Kleefisch, I almost forgot about that one, looks like you’ve kept up on your reading. Be sure to highlight the chapter about inane and absurd arguments, okay Becky?

Kleefisch’s statement is just one example of a debate that has been reduced to little more than bombastic, divisive and often-bigoted mud slinging on both sides. The debate about gay marriage in the United States is currently gripping the nation, providing one of the most telling glimpses into the insidious intolerance and ignorance that still lurk in every corner of our nation.

It’s hard to believe that, a little over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court was hearing arguments about the legality of Anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. Hopefully, a little over 40 years from now, the citizens of America will look back on the current struggle facing LGBT individuals with the same outrage and disgust.

For now, however, the debate continues.

What then, is the best course of action for those who seek reform?

Social attitudes are evolving. President Obama stated that his attitudes are evolving about gay marriage, a sentiment that I hope many Americans echo. However, they clearly have not changed enough. Conservative political groups are lobbying Iowa voters to vote against the retention of the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who unanimously overturned an Iowa law banning same-sex marriages in April.

Anti-retention leaders argue that the judges had overstepped their bounds, “legislating from the bench” and, as U.S. Representative Steve King states, going “outside the limitations of the Constitution “ and deciding, “that they are going to impose special rights on people.” Call me crazy, but last time I checked, equal isn’t special.

The irony in the arguments of these Anti-retention protestors is so glaring that it’s almost comical. The people of Iowa, in 1998, passed a law that defied the basic tenets of the Constitution. In no way are the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court overstepping their bounds.

Rather, they are doing exactly what their job demands of them, exactly what the judicial oath they took demands of them – protecting the Constitution, even against the whims of the majority.

In this case, what was once the majority opinion in 1998 does not seem to be the majority opinion in Iowa today, or at least, it’s much less disproportionate, anyway.

The irony is that it was the voters, through the legislative process, that abused the American political system by passing a law that fundamentally discriminated against a minority. The judges are simply protecting the Constitution from this abuse by overturning this law.

If true, enduring legal reform is to be established, however, we cannot simply rely on the courts as a means of accomplishing our goals. Rather, the LGBT community must work towards passing comprehensive legislative protections that clearly outline and mandate equal civil rights for LGBT citizens.

Obviously, these solutions will not be without their opponents. Not only will those who are against legalizing basic rights for LGBT citizens object, but also some will argue that, by arguing about these rights in a social forum, we will be undermining their inherent fundamentality.

Yet, the reasoning behind favoring legislative solutions is twofold, however. Not only will legislative reform be less vulnerable to overturn and appeal than judicial rulings, but it will also carry a weight and significance that judicial reform will not.

If a law is passed in a country or state through the legislative branch, it means that a social consensus has been reached, the people have spoken and a majority has voted for political and legal change. Thus, by passing legislative reform, the LGBT community will not only help usher in a tide of social awareness and cultural change, but will also set a concrete legal precedent that will be much less tenuous and open to criticism and overturn.

So, look forward, fellow table-lovers, and do not despair. One day, we will have our time in the sun, and society will look back at these dark times with a disapproving gaze. As for you chair-lovers, you sickos will have to wait your turn. 

Double Double, Toil and Trouble

O'Donnell (right) with her sisters in 1993, (her witch sisters, not like, the birth kind)

          Since Halloween is quickly approaching, I thought it would be appropriate to write about a certain political candidate who most likely shares my affinity for this spooky, and often underrated, holiday. (Thanks for stealing my thunder, Christmas). The candidate I'm talking about is Sereta the Enchantress. Oops, I mean Christine O'Donnell. In a recently released campaign advertisement that O'Donnell released in an effort to dispel (hehe) any rumors that she might still be dabbling in witchcraft, O'Donnell proudly proclaims, "I'm not a witch," as the ad's first statement. Have no fear, Delaware voters, O'Donnell swears she didn't join a coven.
            The advertisement, which evokes the simplicity of a Delaware-gone-by (perhaps one from the 1690's?) shows a demure O'Donnell standing in front of a background that is almost reminiscent of Halloween fog as a mellifluous, optimistic piano provides the soundtrack. (See SNL's parody here). O'Donnell chooses to end the advertisement on a positive note, repeating the earlier-spoken phrase, "I'm you." Does this mean I can cast spells too, Christine? 
          The advertisement is only another trudging step towards infamy in O'Donnell's ill-fated senatorial campaign, one that has been marred by outlandish claims and ignorance that recalls Sarah Palin since its beginning. O'Donnell has, no doubt, become an internet sensation since the election - clips of her on Politically Incorrect have circulated YouTube and her behavior and quotes have stirred a slew of parodies. 
           What strikes me, however, is that a candidate like O'Donnell has actually been given a level of legitimacy in the political sphere. Sure, she is trailing behind her opponent, Chris Coons, by anywhere from an estimated 10-19% in voter polls, but this still means that a substantial percentage of voters support her. 
            Now, I'm not saying that voters don't have the right to express their opinions, and obviously I am not saying that all of O'Donnell's views shouldn't be taken seriously. But the fact that O'Donnell, who has made a career out of bizarre, unfounded and sometimes comical statements ever since her stint on Politically Incorrect, has actually made it this far in the political race can only further undermine and parody America's political system. Am I saying that candidates should be barred from running if they have the occasional political gaffe or used to sacrifice goats on altars? Of course not. I'm just asking American voters to start taking elections seriously. And be wary of Christine O'Donnell, or she might put a spell on you.

Looking Forward: Interpreting the Constitution and LGBT Rights

America is a young country. She was born into a world that was already ordered – distinctly categorized and striated like the geometric arrangement of stars and stripes that would soon grace her flag. She grew up with the watchful, often covetous gazes of her estranged family, the European superpowers, whose vigilance was matched only by their unflinching desire for conquest. And, as she grew, she adapted. She shed her neophyte skin – transforming from a nascent, fledgling nation into a formidable global force. Yet, unlike her European cousins, America’s growth and metamorphosis was condensed, not attenuated by centuries of preexisting social foundations and underpinnings. It is hard to believe that, only 50 years ago, a little less than one-fourth of America’s age, the Supreme Court was hearing arguments about the legality of segregation in our nation’s school system in Brown v. Board of Education. Because such relatively radical social changes have occurred in such a condensed period of time, the system of American government has had to adapt, reconciling its founding document, the Constitution, with shifting social mores through a series of amendments and Supreme Court decisions.

During this process, a crucial debate has arisen regarding the role of the Judiciary Branch in interpreting and adapting the Constitution in the face of social attitudes and majority public opinion.  Social attitudes and public opinion naturally favor the majority, as, of course, the founding edicts upon which America is based have always underscored the importance of democracy and the populace’s views. But deferring to majority rule is not without its consequences, especially for the minority.  The groups have consistently changed – from African-Americans to women to Hispanics to Asians to the disabled to LGBT individuals – but a minority group has always been the subject of discrimination and domination at the hands of the majority, and, just as America is quick to diversify its litany of oppressed minority groups like a stock portfolio, she is also quick to forget this oppression, letting it slowly fade like a sunburn from a hot summer day. What, then, is the role of the courts in this predicament? To defer to the whims of the majority, even if the legislature passes laws that fundamentally oppose and undermine the rights of the minority? Or to become, as some would call, “activist judges,” who interpret and apply the Constitution to mandate new precedents to address the contemporary social and political landscape? To complicate matters further, one must also consider the best strategy that minority groups should use to achieve equality and fair treatment by the majority. Should they use the legal system to attain their goals, even if legal precedents are subject to overturn and appeal? Or, should they use the legislature, lobbying and biding their time until the majority changes its mind, if it ever does, and they can pass laws that will defend and enumerate their rights?

                These questions currently affect the debate concerning equal rights for LGBT citizens, who have essentially been relegated to a position of second-class citizenry in America. Their plight foregrounds these pivotal issues, framing them in a pertinent social and cultural discourse. No doubt, the views on LGBT issues, such as gay marriage, have become consistently more liberal over the last decade. (Gallup) Yet, these shifting social opinions have not stopped the passing of discriminatory measures nationwide, such as California’s own Prop 8. Laws such as these are fundamentally a natural and obvious extension of the democratic process – they are decided by the popular vote in a process central to America’s democratic system. Yet, their effects contradict these democratic ideals. By discriminating against a particular group, in this case LGBT citizens, voters are essentially undermining the very document that allows them to draft, vote for, and pass these laws. Thus, one must rely on America’s judicial system to curtail these transgressions against the Constitution. Indeed, judges must act, as they always have, as the protectors of the Constitution, preventing laws that compromise its tenets regardless of the majority opinion. They must also, however, interpret the Constitution in a contemporary context in order to adapt to the social and political concerns of a new era. Yet, this is not to say that this task is left to the judiciary system alone. Rather, while judges must protect the ideals of the Constitution, even against the whims of the majority, those who wish to secure their rights as minorities must do so through the legislative process. If LGBT citizens, and, indeed, all those in the minority, hope to make substantial legal progress, they must shift their focus towards comprehensive legislative solutions rather than relying on judges to accomplish this in their stead.

                 Since the conception of the Constitution, there has been vigorous discourse as to its proper interpretation and application. The debate is largely centered on how much leeway is permitted when interpreting this hallowed document. There are those who argue that the Constitution must be interpreted from an “originalist” standpoint, one that focuses on the intent of the Framers. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III encapsulates the brunt of this argument:

 “Where the language of the Constitution is specific, it must be obeyed. Where there is a demonstrable consensus among the framers and ratifiers as to a principle stated or implied by the Constitution, it should be followed as well. Where there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning or reach of a constitutional provision, it should be interpreted and applied in a manner so as to at least not contradict the text of the Constitution itself” (Meese, 17)

In theory, this argument seems simple and straightforward – adhere as closely as possible to the exact words of the Constitution and try, as best as one can, to follow the intent of the writers of the Constitution. In practice, however, this theory becomes much more convoluted. How can one possibly know how the Framers of the Constitution would have responded to contemporary social and political issues? As Justice William Brennan states, “It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the Framers on application of principle to specific, contemporary questions” (Brennan, 25). Brennan is exactly right. The Framers are, unfortunately, no longer with us. They cannot clarify for us their intention for the Constitution’s applicability to these complex, often divisive issues, such as abortion and gay rights. As Jeffrey Toobin writes in his expose, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, the originalist perspective has been an enduring one on the court and one that many conservative justices often espouse. In the Roe v. Wade case, for example, the dissenting justices used this line of argumentation to frame their opinion.

“No one argued that the authors of the Constitution intended for their words to prohibit states from regulating a woman’s reproductive choices; to Bork and Scalia, that ended the debate over whether the Supreme Court should protect a woman’s right to choose. If the framers did not believe that the Constitution protected a woman’s right to an abortion, then the Supreme Court should never recognize any such right either” (Toobin 18).

 This view is startlingly myopic. Yes, the authors of the Constitution did not intend “for their words to prohibit states from regulating a woman’s reproductive choices,” but how could they have? How could the Framers have predicted that any such issue would ever arise? The Constitution is an incredibly enduring and ingenious document, one that has guided our country for generations, but the Framers were not clairvoyant. They could not have foreseen that an issue such as this would emerge, and that is precisely why the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting and applying the words of the Constitution to these contemporary issues. As Toobin writes, Justice Harry Blackmun interpreted the Constitution and applied it to this modern issue; he did not simply dismiss this debate in its entirety based on a stringent and limiting viewpoint as the dissent did.

“Harry Blackmun had acknowledged that the words of the Constitution did not compel his decision. ‘The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy,’ Blackmun had written, but the Court had over time ‘recognized that a right of personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy does exist under the Constitution…this right of privacy…is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Toobin, 18-19).

Blackmun recognized the evolutionary nature of the Constitution, a view that many of his fellow justices share. Justice Brennan, outlined this perspective brilliantly. He argued that the Constitution is a living, breathing document – one that adapts to the ever-changing social and cultural climate. When describing the Constitution, Brennan stated,

“We current justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as 20^th-century Americans... The ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time? For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs. What the constitutional fundamentals meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be their measure to the vision of our time. Similarly, what those fundamentals mean for us, our descendants will learn, cannot be their measure to the vision of their time” (Brennan, 27)

Judges, therefore, are tasked with adapting the Constitution to 20^th-century needs, and should not adhere to the anachronistic viewpoint of the originalist framework.

            If they do so, they tread the precarious line of allowing the majority to oppress and discriminate against the minority. Just as the Framers could not have predicted the issue of abortion, they could also not have predicted the current issue of gay rights in America. However, LGBT rights seem to be one of the central, and most divisive, issues in America during the 21^st century. Because of this, many cases involving LGBT rights have come before courts in the past decades, forcing judges to try and interpret and apply the Constitution to these issues. Two such issues have recently been decided in court, the unconstitutionality of both Prop 8 and the . Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. 

Both of these issues were fundamentally infringing upon a minority’s intrinsic Constitutional rights, rights that are afforded to all citizens in the United States of America. Those that enabled and passed these laws, therefore, are enabling this discrimination, and are subject to the checks and balances of the Judiciary Branch. Simply because the majority wishes to limit the rights of a minority group does not mean that they should be allowed to - the Constitution protects all of its citizens equally, and is not subject to the whims of the majority electorate. As James Madison states, “where the greatest danger lies…[is] in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.” (Madison) The task of the judiciary system, therefore, is to limit this majority when they overstep their bounds and rob others of their Constitutional rights, even through the proper legislative channels. These judges are not ‘activist judges,’ overstepping their bounds and writing new laws. Rather, they are simply undoing the damage that the majority electorate and Executive Branch have caused. It was the Legislative and Executive Branches that overstepped their bounds by putting these laws into place, and judges are only doing their job – protecting the Constitution, by striking down these discriminatory and unjust measures.

            What then, is the role of the minority in this political climate? As a gay person myself, I often feel as though my rights are being decided for me in a political process in which I have no say. Political bodies draft propositions and laws that affect me, and, if the majority dictates, they are passed. This marginalization is not insurmountable, however. Indeed, the social and political climate of America is changing, and legislative solutions that will secure these fundamental rights for LGBT citizens may not be so far off. By arguing about these rights in an open, political forum, there is a risk of undermining them, effacing their sacred, inherent value, but it has been done before. When the 19^th Amendment was passed, granting women the right to vote, the political world was astir, and women’s suffrage was not at a loss for opponents. Because this right was achieved through legislative means, however, it has more permanence than a court decision granting women the right to vote would have, as precedents always run the risk of being overturned. If the right to choose, for example, had been ratified as an amendment, there would be no chance that its opponents could overturn it. Since it was decided in the Supreme Court, however, it is still at risk. This is why LGBT citizens must also turn to legislative solutions in order to achieve their goals. They cannot idly wait for others to do it for them; those that seek to limit their rights certainly are not. 

            America has matured. She has grown, making leaps and bounds towards the goals she once set for herself. But now she is listless, torpidly watching as her fellow nations pass her in leaps and bounds. If she wants to persevere, to flourish in the contemporary global climate, she must regain the virtues of democracy that she so fervently protected in her youth. Democracy favors the majority. But, democracy also implies certain fundamental rights beyond the power of the majority electorate to control. These rights must be protected by the judiciary - the judiciary must extend the Constitution to account for the contemporary social and cultural climate, and the minority, in turn must rely on legislative solutions to protect themselves from the whims of the majority. 

Works Cited

The Great Debate: Interpreting Our Written Constitution (Brennan, Reese)

Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York, 

             NY: Random House. 2008. 

Op-Eds

Here are some links to some interesting Op-Ed pieces I have recently read:


Department of Childish Errors

The Mississippi Pardons (Absolutely ludicrous story of two women serving life sentences for an $11 robbery)

A Matter of Size (An interesting take on being overweight)

The Promise of Legalization (the marijuana debate)

Mental Illness and Immigration

         “Sir, I not – cannot go home. If I die, I die America”  Xiu Ping Jiang, a Chinese immigrant, uttered these words at her first deportation hearing in Pompano Beach, Florida, after a judge threatened to deport her to her native country, from which she fled in 1995.  Jiang, who suffers from an undisclosed, severe mental illness, has endured the rigors of the American immigration system, which has seen vast changes in the past nine years. After a year and a half, Jiang was eventually released on bail to the care of her sister, yet her ordeal was far from over. Her prolonged detainment had only exacerbated her mental illness, making her even more unfit to stand trial and defend herself against a legal system that has systematically ignored her condition. Jiang was eventually granted asylum by a Florida judge, perhaps  due to the press coverage and public outrage regarding the case.

Yet, her struggle illustrates an immigration system marred by ignorance, neglect and utter disregard for the legal considerations of the mentally ill. By not providing counsel to the mentally ill facing deportation, by not providing clear criteria and tests for competency, and by not maintaining due process in cases involving the mentally ill, the American legal system has caused the already convoluted web of immigration law to become even more entangled by contradictory case law and statutes – thus underscoring the immense need for a consistent, comprehensive legal framework that addresses the multifaceted issues surrounding the immigration and deportation of the mentally ill. 

         Using the precedent set in Dusky v. United States, the criminal standard for adjudicative competence could be used in deportation cases. This does not necessitate that all criminal due process rights be extended to those facing deportation, as, although the Supreme Court recognized deportation’s substantial effect on an individual in Bridges v. Wixon, deportation trials are nevertheless vastly different from criminal trials, and should be treated as such. Yet, in the realm of competency, a clear standard of mental fitness should be implemented in deportation cases in order to not only protect the due process of an individual, but also to facilitate the efficiency of the justice system.

Once an individual is determined to be incompetent or mentally ill, should they have the right to treatment? In Bowring v. Godwin the 4^th District Court of the United States determined that, under the 8^th Amendment, prisoners had explicit rights to treatment for mental conditions while imprisoned. Many United States officials and agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau would cite the overwhelming costs that providing treatment to all detainees that are potentially facing deportation. However, as can be seen in the iconic case of Ms. Jiang, the cost of not medicating a detainee – thus not only impeding the legal process but also endangering his or her life – is far more costly than any financial burden the state may incur.

            Resolving the issues currently plaguing the treatment of the mentally ill in immigration cases is undeniably a daunting task. However, its importance in forming a fair approach to mental illness in deportation proceedings is undeniable. Simply because a mentally ill individual is faced with deportation is not reason enough to deny them the rights of due process, competency hearings, and counsel that have been granted to United States citizens grappling with mental illness. Perhaps, with legal reform in the areas of counsel, competency, and treatment, cases such as that of Ms. Jiang can be avoided.

Don't Ask, Don't Remind Me

Members of the Royal Navy Marching at the Manchester Pride Parade

            Last Thursday, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips deemed that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is unconstitutional as it violates the 1^st and 5^th Amendment rights of gay and lesbian servicemembers. Since the act became law in 1993 under the Clinton administration, over 13,000 members of various branches of the military have been discharged. As demand for soldiers grew during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the average number of annually discharged soldiers fell considerably, although the policy is still purported to have cost the United States 363 million dollars since its inception. Judge Phillip’s ruling comes in the heat of a long-standing debate between the opponents and proponents of DADT, a debate that has reached a head in recent months.

            Contrastingly, Great Britain celebrated the 10-year anniversary of the bill that allowed gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly in the military last July, a move that has been reported to have increased unit cohesion and morale, rather than degrade it. Other countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military include Israel, France, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, which ended the ban on openly gay military members in 1974. Yes, 1974. An estimated 12,000 soldiers, 10% of The Netherlands’ military forces, are gay.

            What I don’t understand is why, even though so many other countries, and indeed, our military allies, have allowed gays to serve openly in the military for so long (relatively speaking), the United States has been so reluctant to do the same. Granted, the United States is much more socially conservative than most of the other industrialized nations in the world, but with so much evidence countering DADT’s effectiveness, and, indeed, point, its hard to believe that social prejudice is still precluding the bill’s overturn. Commodore R. W. Gates of the Royal Australian Navy stated that, following the allowance of gays to serve openly in the military in Australia in the 1990s, there was little, if any, change to the infrastructure or morale of the military: “There was no great peak...where people walked out, and there was no great dip in recruiting. It really was a non-event.” If America, too, could make the overturn of DADT a non-event, perhaps it would limit the deleterious effects that people like John McCain so fervently insist will ensue if DADT is overturned. 


Update: On another note, check out Diversity Matters' blog about coming out. 

Identity and the Public Intellectual

The public intellectual is changing. Notions of what a public intellectual is, who a public intellectual should be, and why a public intellectual should exist have radically changed since public intellectuals began coming down from their ivory towers and entering the blogosphere, or, as I like to call it, the “plastic dungeon.” But, as Stephen Mack posits in “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals?” – “our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is…Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.” As the realm of public intellectuals becomes increasingly diversified, Andrew Sullivan has crafted a distinctive niche for himself. Besides being openly gay which is, unfortunately, an already rare quality for those in the public sphere, he is openly Catholic and conservative, which are, unfortunately or fortunately, rare qualities for those in the gay sphere.

I say fortunately because it is these two broadly defined factions, those who are religious and those who are conservative, that the most fervent opponents of homosexuals (be it objecting to equal rights for gays and lesbians or condemning homosexuality based on religious or moral beliefs) often espouse themselves. But, I say unfortunately because it is regrettable that there has been so little reconciliation between the gay movement and conservative politics. As conservative politics have become more and more religiously based in America, social issues, like gay marriage, have become increasingly divisive; those who would identify themselves as liberal or conservative in terms of fiscal and international issues may not always have corresponding liberal or conservative social views. This contrast is what makes the British-born Sullivan so unique as a public intellectual, as he has managed to not only reconcile his homosexuality with his Catholic identity, but also his conservative politics. (He addresses this contrast in one of his latest books )

Harvard-educated Sullivan got his start as an intern at The New Republic, where he would later become an associate editor and eventually acting editor. Sullivan often faced controversy during his turn as acting editor of The New Republic, mostly because his conservative viewpoints clashed with the magazine’s traditionally liberal slant.  Sullivan favors gay marriage, but clashes with many other liberal viewpoints, and, in his words, “the gay establishment,” on topics such as hate crime laws, which he opposes based on their “chilling effect on free speech” and their “undermining of the notion of equality under the law,” his opposition of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and his support of the War on Terror (a viewpoint that has since radically changed)

Sullivan doesn’t apologize for these contrasting views, nor should he have to. As Stephen Mack states,  “…if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy – and they do – it’s simply to keep the pot boiling.”  On the contrary, he is, in many ways, an exemplar of a public intellectual’s ability to separate their religious and political perspectives. Granted, his sexual orientation may have distanced him from his Catholic identity, but he still maintains the importance of religion in his life. During an interview on Real Time with Bill Maher, not only did Sullivan identify himself as a "religious secularist", but he also criticized Maher about his viewpoints of religion and religious people: "To dismiss all religious people based on the actions of the most literalist dumb ones, I think is bigotry." Sullivan avoids viewing all political and social issues through what Stephen Mack calls,   “the prism of theology,” and as a public intellectual, makes his work universally accessible, regardless of religion. As Stephen Mack states, it is important for anyone, and especially public intellectuals due to their sphere of influence, “to ground [public arguments] – as much as possible – in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all.” Sullivan, excluding the occasional impassioned rant, has managed to ground his arguments, even concerning religiously charged issues, such as gay marriage, in cogent reasoning and analysis. As Richard Bernstein writes in his New York Times review of Sullivan’s book, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, “…Mr. Sullivan presents a model of civil discourse. His voice is a voice of reason, tranquility and analytical precision on a subject that commonly degenerates into a raucous shouting match between competing moralisms. He has a knack for enabling nonhomosexuals to put themselves inside his consciousness, just as he manages to occupy the minds of those who disagree with him.”

            This “tranquility” and “analytical precision” make Sullivan’s arguments stand out among the “raucous shouting match[es]”that so often pervade current political and social discourse, especially with the increased popularity of blogs, like Sullivan’s, which have arguably much less accountability than print publications, and news and opinion programs that show little regard for decorum, such as The O’Reilly Factor. This sentiment is echoed by Peter Steinfels of the New York Times in his analysis of a speech made by Sullivan about his sexual and catholic identities at the University of Notre Dame “But what remains indisputable is that in a society where moral disputes quickly degenerate into polarizing denunciations -- for example, Act Up brands as murderers those who disagree with its view of homosexuality, and Operation Rescue does the same to those who disagree with its view of abortion -- Mr. Sullivan demonstrated that respectful reasoning could still be powerful”

          Sullivan’s ability, therefore, to carve an identity for himself not only as a conservative, Catholic gay man, but also one that approaches his religious identity and role as a public intellectual with a secular wariness, makes him unique in the public intellectual sphere. Perhaps it is the complex contradictions of his identity that allow him to accomplish this – gay and Catholic, gay and republican – but, regardless of the factors, Andrew Sullivan has managed to skillfully tread the precarious line of religion and political and social commentary, acting as, ironically enough, an example of a religious individual that has not allowed his religion to unduly influence his work as a public intellectual. 




Update: Check out Diversity Matters' take on Andrew Sullivan here!

Welcome