Controversies over recent Supreme Court decisions concerning abortion rights, affirmative action, and student debt have provoked heated discussions focusing on the question of whether the Supreme Court interpreted or misinterpreted relevant parts of the U.S. Constitution. But frequently less effort is made to try to solve the underlying problems which helped bring about the controversies in the first place. If more heavy lifting was done to try to actually solve—or at least ameliorate—these problems, more progress in finding solutions might be made, and less bitterness in political debate might result.
For example, last year the Supreme Court overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which had said that abortion under most circumstances was a constitutionally protected right. Pro-lifers are attempting to take advantage of the decision to roll back abortion rights, while pro-choicers are fighting to preserve, protect, and expand said rights. But what is being done to actually reduce the number of abortions by any means other than by limiting abortion rights? What if more effective birth control and sex education policies were developed and implemented, thereby leading to fewer unwanted pregnancies and therefore less demand for abortion—and fewer actual abortions? What if we had more expansive, generous, and effective medical and insurance programs promoting prenatal and neonatal care for women and their babies, therefore reducing the challenges of giving birth and raising children? Possibly demand for abortion would diminish while life for mothers and babies would increase, and the controversy over abortion policies might diminish. Of course, the research, development, and implementation of programs to actually reduce unwanted pregnancies, reduce abortion, and prolong life would require time, energy, and money—in other words, more heavy lifting than simply and endlessly arguing over abstract principles. But reductions in unwanted pregnancies and abortions, as well as increases in the quality and quantity of life for all involved may be worth the cost.
Second example: The Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that college and university race-based admissions policies are unconstitutional. The 6-member conservative majority said that such policies violate the Equal Protection clause of the U. S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which says, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, said the Equal Protection clause prohibits the use of race as a factor in admissions policies because it promotes unconstitutional racial discrimination: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” Writing in dissent, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, “The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to undo the effects of a world where laws systematically subordinated Black people and created a caste system.” In other words, Chief Justice Roberts claims the 14th Amendment mandates a color-blind approach, while Associate Justice Jackson argues just the opposite.
No doubt those who share the views of Justice Jackson and her fellow supporters of race-based affirmative action will look for cases to submit to the Supreme Court in the hope that future relitigation of the issue will someday produce a reversal of today’s majority opinion. But in the meantime, those who want to improve the chances for disadvantaged minorities to win admission to elite colleges and universities can develop other means of doing so—provided they’re willing to do the heavy lifting required. For example:
- The Roberts decision has left open the opportunity for colleges and universities to consider the degree to which particular applicants have overcome specific hardships in their lives.
- New York Times conservative columnist David French has noted that elite schools can end legacy-based admissions policies which currently discriminate in favor of predominantly white (and rich) children of faculty, alumni, and generous donors; doing so would free up more places for the less privileged and wealthy of all colors.
- Major efforts could be made at the national, state, and local education to revamp public education through innovations in school finance, organization, curricula, and teaching methods to thereby improve the education of economically and racially disadvantaged students and make them more competitive in the scramble for admission to elite institutions of higher learning.
And finally, the Supreme Court’s decision on the student debt controversy doesn’t really settle it, but neither does it foreclose other opportunities to address the problem. At issue before the Supreme Court was not whether student loans should be forgiven, but whether President Biden had the power to unilaterally do so. The Supreme Court ruled that congressional approval, which Biden has not yet obtained, was required. Whether Biden can actually obtain that approval is debatable. His supporters will no doubt argue that the debt burden is too onerous for the 43 million students and former students who owe at least $400 billion dollars, and that forgiving their debts will allow them to spend more money and thereby enhance economic growth. His opponents will raise the question of whether it’s fair to transfer the debt from those who borrowed the money to those who either repaid their debts, or never borrowed any money in the first place, or never even went to college, and they’ll note that debt forgiveness will add $400 billion to our ever-growing national debt. The outcome of the debate is by no means a foregone conclusion.
But in the meantime, steps should be taken to try to reduce the costs of a college education and thereby reduce both the need for borrowing and the amounts borrowed. Currently, the ease with which money can be borrowed to meet current and growing costs provides little incentive to institutions of higher learning to control those costs. More limits on the amounts that can be borrowed may induce more colleges and universities to lower their costs and thereby make them more affordable. Current debts should be restructured to make repayment easier should Congress decide against debt forgiveness.
Whether any, all, or none of the policy suggestions discussed herein will lessen the problems they’re intended to address is unknown. What is known is that the development and implementation of each will require more time and effort and expense than is required to constantly and repeatedly debate these issues. Which is better—to continuously rehash these issues, or to actually try to address the problems generating these debates and thereby reduce the intensity and bitterness the debates pump into our political system? Those willing to do some heavy lifting may prefer the latter alternative.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville and taught politics and government at Tarleton from 1987 until 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990 to the present). He was Mayor Pro Tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He is a member of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church and the Stephenville Rotary Club and does volunteer work for the Boy Scouts of America. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment