Although I am an ardent (& sometimes strident) feminist, I don’t accept the notion nor usually argue that someone’s gender should be the primary determinant for appointing someone to a job. Any job. Exhibit A: Palin, Sarah.
However, my reading of the Supreme Court Justices’ reactions in the case involving the strip search of a 13-year old girl has me rethinking that caution. The case in question is Redding v Safford Unified School District #1
Fingerlakeswanderer wrote about the case a few weeks ago in her blog post When is it Proper to Strip-Search a 13-year old? (UPDATED)
Flw ended her post,
“You know, words of fury seem pointless. I'm hoping that a majority of Supreme Court Justices will see this for what it was: a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights.”
To flw, as to me, this blatant violation and intrustion seemed obvious. To Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it seems obvious. But, to the other Supreme Court Justices, the violation is not so clear.
Today’s Washington Post summarized the Justices different reactions -
Justices’ Takes on Strip Search Vary by Robert Barnes.
Justice David H. Souter said, "My thought process is, I would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search, if we can't find anything short of that, than to have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry."
[Justice] Breyer seemed to wonder if what took place -- Redding was ordered to shed her clothes in front of two female officials in the school nurse's office and shift her underwear from side to side, exposing her breasts and pelvic area -- was a strip search.
He remembered disrobing for gym class and … that students did hide contraband in their underwear.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy affirmed his deep concerns about illicit drugs. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed at times on the edge of exasperation with her all-male colleagues.
Only Ginsburg [according to Barnes] seemed to understand the humiliation of the experience and express sympathy for both Ms. Redding and another girl who was caught with over the counter (OTC) drugs.
WAPO’s website also has a brief AP video summarizing the attorney arguments.
I find this case and the Justices’ reactions disturbing on many levels.
I understand the need of school officials to keep children safe in school. Ironically, I’ve just finished reading Dave Cullen’s Columbine, so those events are fresh in my mind. I do not know the best way to keep kids out of danger.
But, it seems that our judicial system has given way to an “end justifies the means” balancing act (another false equivalency) – “what is reasonable search given the ends we wish to achieve (i.e., keeping drugs out of school, keeping weapons out of school)” instead of “what are inalienable or fundamental rights” that should be protected at all costs.
My first reaction to the article was, “wow, don’t any of these guys have children? How would they feel if this was done to their daughter?” Having a tween daughter myself, I can imagine how humiliating, and yes, psychologically damaging, it could be for school authorities to accuse her based on no evidence, refuse to believe her statement, and then force her to expose herself.
Obviously, with the possible exception of Ginsburg, they don’t remember being a 13-year-old girl going through puberty and the self-consciousness and body image issues common among that group. I also assumed that they must not have kids. Turns out, among them, the Justices have had 26 children (1 deceased). Only Souter is listed as childless in their biographies.
Perhaps just appointing a woman to the Supreme Court would not be the answer. See: Sarah Palin throws daughter under the bus (many OS posts). However, one hopes that having a woman (or man) with a strong sense of individual rights and idea of what it means to be a woman (or girl) growing up today couldn’t hurt.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Nikki Stern
emma peel
nolalibrarian
AtHomePilgrim
Tom Cordle
Verbal Remedy AKA Denise
Salon.com
Comments
We need people who put America first, men and women, and not their own self-interests.
This case is fucking messed up. Thats gross abuse of power, period. I wonder if the male justices would feel different if it had been THEIR daughter or granddaughter?
Deborah - I can't say that I agree with you completely. I agree that those three "leaders" that you mention haven't exactly set the world on fire. But, women still are woefully underrepresented in Congress, and I think that Wasserman-Shulz and M. Landrieu are two of our better Congress(wo)men and I would much rather see more like them than Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, and their ilk.
Lady & Ariana - yes, this is one messed up deal. I'm afraid that our highest court doesn't see it as such.
With respect to the strip-search case, let me just say this. I'm male, and don't have a daughter, or any kids for that matter. Yet I was also very disturbed by the facts of this case and the lack of sensitivity the male justices showed. Had I been a justice on this case, my reaction would have been similar to Ginsburg's. My point is that someone's gender, or ethnicity, or whether or not they have kids, isn't necessarily going to be a predictor of how they react to a particular issue. Women aren't necessarily going to be more empathetic.
Remember, prior to universal women's suffrage in 1920, many argued that having women vote would help to "civilize" society by focusing on issues like health care, children, etc., and providing a counterbalance to the more militaristic bent of the male electorate. This belief was predicated, however, on the theory that women would vote as a bloc -- a theory that turned out to be wrong. Once they got the vote, women split on all of the issues of the day, just as men and other groups did. They turned out, to the shock of many, to be individual people with their own minds. It's important to look at potential justices the same way.
I agree that nominating a woman won't necessarily mean a more empathic justice. However, I do think that there needs to be some counter-balance to the primarily white male point of view that dominates the Court (I won't even go into Thomas, b/c he is an enigma wrapped in whatever, and doesn't offer much in way of understanding). I do also believe that having more women on the Court or in the corridors of power normalizes the female experience rather than marginalizes it. While not all women experience life the same way or have the same political convictions, there are certain life experiences that are unique to women that men, no matter how much their intellectual opinions differ.
But their behaviour on the bench during this particular case has been appalling.
I have to laugh, because one of the guys in my class calls nursing a macho culture- and he's not wrong. Women do macho different (perfection and control vs out and out dominance displays) but they still do it.
I am of the view that it is not the gender of the judge that makes the difference, rather the politics of the one who appointed the judge-- that person has the whole country to select from-- and with that pool of potential candidates, it is not difficult to select judges that will advocate your policy-- for as long as they live.
Others have written about this issue - and I think it is behind the "empathy" comment that got Obama in so much trouble - but the fact is that most of the SCOTUS is composed of academics and lawyers who have never worked with actual, individual clients. They have been in the ivory tower for so long, and surrounded by such like minds they have no idea how the real world works. Scalia and Kennedy are prime examples of this - just check out their resumes.
Loved GW's WTF clause...ought to be the Prime Directive at SCOTUS.
That may be one of the most excellent and salient points yet. I wholeheartedly agree.
However, had the student been a boy, it might not have been as clear why he had the pills. The hallmark here was the response completely out of proportion to the obvious facts of the case.
Had the facts been less clear, the school's reaction might be less obviously excessive.
"school authorities", "humiliating", "psychologically damaging", "accuse her based on no evidence", "refuse to believe her statement", and then force her to expose herself", I am perplexed. I really do think your chicken little approach to this is a serious and gross exaggeration of the "damage" done to a persons psyche'. Besides, we turned the corner and passed the point of no return on personal freedoms a long time ago in America. You probably support stricter gun laws too. Go figure?
The fact is that we live in a new world....welcome to the 21st century. As long as we have no values and no morally based, relativist teaching in our schools and no, zero, zip, nada premium placed on citizenship and patriotism, the "school authorities”, aka teachers, are forced to play the role of referee and prevent bloodletting.
I just wonder, if that girl had drugs, or worse, a gun or knife or an explosive, (don't laugh, Columbine happened) would we be commending these custodians of our children’s well being for their sharp and decisive action that prevented a disaster and saved lives.
To all of you knee jerk reactionaries that just look for reasons to hate life, lighten up, the Supreme Court looked at a broad perspective and reached a wise and specific decision.
I'm just dropping in for a few minutes now, but wanted to make a couple of points in response -
- re: the Constitutionality of the search - I think that is what is at the heart of this - what constitutes "unreasonable search and seizure"
To all the justices besides Ginsburg, it seemed that the strip search was not unreasonable. To me, and to many others, it seemed excessive and an abuse of authority.
I also don't think my concern is Chicken-Little-ish. It creeps me out. Also, we spend countless hours telling our children that they have control of their bodies, no one is allowed to touch them or force them to do anything they aren't comfortable with, etc. and then, based only on a thin accusation, these "school officials" dismantle that notion.
For the record, the Columbine killers walked into school with duffle-bags full of bombs & guns hidden under dusters/trench coats. To me, searching a kid's bag, locker or asking them to take off a jacket is not unreasonable. Forcing a kid to expose himself or herself to search for small items inside his/her underwear is. If someone doesn't get the difference, I do question their sense of both empathy and perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_McLane_Wardlaw
i would settle for fewer authoritarians, but that is not how we staff the court. you don't get to boot justices for catering to bureaucrats. i think your observation about goal oriented process review is right on target: a strong interpretation of individual freedoms and rights always makes it harder to accomplish peacekeeping goals. the more willing justices are to adopt this "ends justifies the means" approach, the more justifications they find for more ends.
hint philos777... the justices haven't reached a decision in this case as of today. the fact that she had no contraband doesn't seem to enter your thought process: it's enough that some adult thought so.
to reiterate, we need fewer people like philos777 on the court. we should obviously find this child and torture her until she tells us where she hid that ibuprofen 10 years ago.
So you're saying that because you can reasonably assume what's going on (regardless of whether or not you are correct), *that* is a good reason to have two sets of laws-- one that is permissive for females (they might have cramps) versus one that is punitive for boys (who's motives we all know are suspect and probably criminal).
You advocate this and you want a FEMALE on the Supreme Court? Whatever happened to PRESUMED INNOCENCE? Whatever happened to ibuprofen being an over-the-counter drug available nearly anywhere that sells practically anything-- where is the NEED to strip-search the young person in the first place?
And while we're talking about presumptions-- we can easily presume she's Miss innocent with cramps but he's Mr Junior Delinquent because he has..... (wait for it).... a HEADACHE !?!?!!?
Hmmmmm..
I'm holding out for Judge Judy.
Just as Clarence Thomas has forgotten the fact that he is black and could not possibly have risen to the position of Supreme Court Justice without the benefit of programs designed to require the inclusion of qualified people of color.
Let's all hope that "empathy" finds a way to be manifested in the thinking of the next Supreme Cour Justice, regardless of her/his race, creed, color, sex, physical capacity, national origin, or sexual orientation..........
Not me, I don't believe in banning guns. Though I do believe in gun control. It is important to hit what you're aiming at.
Gitmo on the other hand, is another matter.
You're basically arguing that any sign of broken rules is an excuse for excessive treatment. Should the police start strip-searching speeders? After all, they might be carrying illegal weapons.
None of us know the girl in this case. We can only make assumptions about her and about a boy.
I tend to assume that people in authority make sensible decisions. That if there may be extenuating circumstances that make a decision seem better than it appears. Certainly, the media is more than capable of distorting an issue.
For me, the girl's gender helps me feel like I understand the situation completely. I understand why she might respond evasively or blush when questioned by a male principal -- and why that should not have been taken as signs of guilt.
It's harder for me to construct circumstances where a boy would respond in an evasive manner without the principal having some justification for suspicion of some more serious offense.
Further, a policy that prohibits OTC pain-killers for all students discriminates against girls. Many, if not most, girls get cramps. Most girls want their menstruation to be private. By contrast, most people, including sensitive teens, have no qualms about announcing to the world that they have a headache.