.
What was missing from the recent decision of the Supreme Court regarding abortion was respect for the people who would be affected by the decision the day it was made. The Philadelphia Inquirer (June 28, 2022) included an article, “Israel Eases Abortion Access” by Emily Rose. The article reflected what I had addressed in my last post that the ruling essentially denied Jewish people one of the primary aspects of their religion regarding when Jews believe when life begins.
Someone forgot to let the Supreme Court know that the world pays attention to what America does. Leaders in Israel stated that America is seen as the leader of the “free world” and that we had just set back women’s human rights by a hundred years putting women in jeopardy that does not occur in other civilized countries. Israel has created reforms to make it easier for women to have complete control over their bodies. “The reform we approved today will create a simpler process that is more respectful, advanced, and maintains women’s right to make decisions over her own body. It is a basic human right.”
What is missing in the recent decision is respect for people who differ from the conservative justices and a sensitivity to “the women on main street.”
Last evening, I listened to a podcast among three legal scholars on the recent Supreme Court decision. One of these scholars was John Yoo, regarded as a leader in the conservative legal tradition. John Yoo was one of my ethics students at EA. John sat in the first row in the center in one of our English classrooms where I taught. He was engaging and the embodiment of respect and a person who loved the intellectual world of decision making. He was brilliant even then. He went on to become a professor of law at Cal Berkeley. The three people on the podcast were equal heavyweights in the world of legal theory. They were impressive in referencing landmark cases that set precedents. It was an intellectual exercise with a few examples of how all this was related to the women on main street. There were a few references to personal examples. They did include some of the unintended consequences such as charging a woman for a “crime” of abortion when she travels to a state where abortions are permitted but are illegal in her state of residence. I enjoy that kind of informative conversation, but I doubt that the women in the street would find it interesting. It was academic.
First point. Their academic conversation is no different than Critical Race Theory which is academic in nature. You can trace legal theory the same way that racial history is traced. Yet no one would accuse these three legal scholars that their legal theory shouldn’t be taught in schools. That was not their intent. Critical Theory was an academic enterprise as well.
What is also missing is respect in our conversations regarding issues that we are passionate about. Trump set the tone for all of this uncivilized language spoken to one another along with personal attacks on those with whom he disagreed. You can have a different view and be respectful of others. I believe that this kind of abrupt decision couldn’t have happened ten years ago. The issue would have been handled the way Justice Roberts wanted to proceed a few days ago with a measured approach that wouldn’t have resulted in so much chaos after the decision was made.
Let me share an anecdote to make my point about different perspectives and respect. I received an opportunity through an EA parent to have Chris Matthews of the TV show, “Hardball” who is a liberal to come and address the EA students. I thought that would be great as he could articulate the liberal view of politics in an informed direct way. I had read his book on the relationship between President Reagan and Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neal. They fought for legislation during the day but had social conversations at the end of the day that they referred to as “cocktail time” without the drinks. It was about respect for those who hold different views than we do.
I got feedback from faculty and parents that they disapproved of his speaking at EA when the announcement of his visit was announced. Comments were made like, “He’s a bully. He is a liberal. I don’t want my child hearing want he has to say!” My standard approach was to indicate that, “He is a grown man. Come and hear what he has to say. I want the students to respond with questions first, but you can ask questions when they are done.” I must have the body language that says, “Respect my students!” Matthews treated the students with great respect.
Matthews was as lively and engaging as you would expect and gave the liberal party line in a cogent fashion. I asked the students afterwards how they would evaluate his address. They said that he was great. Some agreed with his points. Some didn’t.
I made arrangements for John Yoo to come and speak to our students a few weeks later. John knows me so no body language was necessary for him. At one point he sent me a copy of his book, Crisis and Command: The History of Executive Power for me to read.. People again thought I had lost my mind bringing in such a passionate conservative legal professor even though he was an alumnus. The comments changed: “How could you do this? He supported Bush’s terrible policies.” I made the same statement to them that I did to the other group. I knew John. He was passionate about his positions, but I could never imagine him being disrespectful to students.
He gave his point of view and treated the students as though they were members of a Republican president’s cabinet. In my conversations with students afterward. They thought he did a great job. Some agreed with him. Some didn’t.
I wanted the students to hear a respectful presentation of both positions. It was suggested that I have both people speak in the theater instead of the chapel because they would be talking about politics and not religion. I agreed. That was a mistake on my part. Hindsight is 20/20 vision. I should have had them speak in chapel because both had a different interpretation of social justice which is one pillar of ethics. Why can’t our political leaders take the same approach? Respect and ethics are the key to healing and to dissolving division without giving up your perspective. We have made compromise a dirty word. It should be nation first, partisan politics second. That is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind in the first place. They were the first political ethicists.
We can’t forget that. We learn In Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, A Team of Rivals, that Lincoln personally made sure that there were members in his cabinet that he knew would not agree with his views. It is one of the reasons that he is viewed as the greatest president. Respect and civil discourse were keys to his administration
Comments