Toward Reconciliation

Five weeks ago Prof. William Stuntz of the Harvard Law School wrote an influential article (David Brooks of the NYT called it one of the ten most important articles of 2004), “Faculty Clubs and Church Pews,” that made a plausible, and appealing, case for an alliance between academic intellectuals and evangelical Christians (both of which Stuntz is). Now he has a sequel that is even more impressive. (Hat Tip to Instapundit)

Read the whole thing, since I’m going to discuss here only one of his intriguing observations:

When the culture is sharply divided on some kind of behavior, the side that wins the law’s endorsement tends to lose ground, culturally and politically.

Stuntz supports this striking point with a discussion of Roe v. Wade, and with supporting evidence from the anti-slavery movement (pro-slavery forces won the battles over the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott decision but literally lost the war), and Prohibition.

It’s a very good point, and worth pondering. As part of that pondering, I’d like to extend Stuntz’s argument to an example that he does not address and that may be thought to qualify or even contradict him, the Brown decision. I would argue, however, that Brown is the exception that proves Stuntz’s rule.

It’s the exception because the Court was a bit ahead of popular opinion but the decision was nevertheless quickly and widely accepted (even in parts of the South, until the backlash set in). It proved the rule, however, when its central message — that discrimination based on race is wrong — was misinterpreted and misapplied to require race-based policies to ensure what would now be called “diversity,” i.e., busing, which produced a backlash that undid much of the good of Brown and from which we still haven’t recovered. Racial preferences in admissions and employment for the most part simply reprise the busing debate.

Although it is too soon to say for sure, there is some evidence already that the Supremes’ Grutter decision, allowing narrowly circumscribed (at least in theory) race prefereces in admissions, may also prove Stuntz’s point, as Michigan seems likely to pass an anti-preferences constitutional amendment modeled on similar ones in Calif. and Washington.

Say What? (8)

  1. actus January 4, 2005 at 5:08 pm | | Reply

    ‘Stuntz supports this striking point with a discussion of Roe v. Wade, and with supporting evidence from the anti-slavery movement (pro-slavery forces won the battles over the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott decision but literally lost the war), and Prohibition.’

    But then the law turned against them, did this bring forth a cultural and political turn towards slavery?

  2. The Precinct Chair January 4, 2005 at 10:05 pm | | Reply

    I could point out that Brown was part of an ongoing, evolving trend in the law over the preceeding three decades or so. Given that legislated segregation in education was being chipped away incrementally by the federal courts, there was not the backlash that you got with a Roe v. Wade or a gay marriage decision.

  3. Thomas J. Jackson January 5, 2005 at 2:20 am | | Reply

    Sorry Stntz has written a piece of tripe that is incredible in its magnitude. Available at Tech Central it advocates among other things that punishments do not deter crime; that conservatives and liberals will find common cause over abortion (yes exactly how does one vacuum out a baby’s brains?). The slavery issue is at best a misreading of history. Stuntz by the way is a Havard law prof. so if you ever wondered why lawyers are so strange heres the chance to see who shapes their little greedy minds.

  4. actus January 5, 2005 at 10:54 am | | Reply

    ‘Stuntz by the way is a Havard law prof. so if you ever wondered why lawyers are so strange heres the chance to see who shapes their little greedy minds.’

    very few lawyers get taught by harvard profs.

  5. Laura January 5, 2005 at 10:59 pm | | Reply

    “But then the law turned against them, did this bring forth a cultural and political turn towards slavery?”

    I wondered about this too. The KKK came about right after the civil war, didn’t it, and its popularity and effectiveness coincided with black people’s gains in civil rights? Seems kind of thin. I think in the case of slavery the law had to catch up with “hearts and minds” like we keep hearing in the abortion debate.

  6. actus January 5, 2005 at 11:27 pm | | Reply

    ‘The KKK came about right after the civil war, didn’t it, and its popularity and effectiveness coincided with black people’s gains in civil rights? Seems kind of thin’

    Ya, specially since its really a weak continuation of the ante-bellum regime, rather than a revival or growth of interest in slavery.

  7. TJ Jackson January 9, 2005 at 9:33 pm | | Reply

    Actus:

    “Very few lawyers get taught by Hacard professors.”

    True, just the partners at most Washington and NY firms like Sullivan & Cromwell. It only takes a few to give the rest a bad name, and they do it so well.

Leave a Reply to TJ Jackson Click here to cancel reply.