Op-Ed Rehnquist title irrelevant

Author: Ryan Tauriainen

There has been a lot of talk of protests and outrage over the new William H. Rehnquist professorship. I think many opinions are being thrown out there on uneducated foundations. I am against many of Rehnquist's opinions, mostly because I am gay and a democrat. However, I do not think that this warrants the refusal of this money.

First and foremost, votes in the Supreme Court do not equate with votes in the Senate. When a justice is not part of the majority, it is not to say he or she is morally opposed to the matter at hand. It means that he or she does not find protection within his or her interpretation of the constitution. I find a big difference in this. Rehnquist and the other conservative justices practice a kind of constitutional philosophy that many liberals do not understand. Conservatives do not believe in activist judges; they are less willing to re-interpret parts of the constitution out of their original meanings. Instead, these justices would rather rely on the legislative process to define the constitution through amendments if necessary. For example, the Supreme Court did not just re-interpret the constitution to allow women the right to vote - the Senate proposed the 19th Amendment which was ratified by the states. This left no argument whatsoever. This is the kind of judicial philosophy Rehnquist carried. A vote "against" in the senate is much more of a political statement than a dissent in the Supreme Court. One is saying "this must remain illegal" while the other is saying "the constitution does not provide that this must be legal." It is ironic to think that Rehnquist was trying to be political when he was so outspoken on his position against political justices.

It should also be noted that Chief Justice Rehnquist did not write the Bower's opinion nor did he write a dissent for the Lawrence opinion, only Justices Scalia and Thomas wrote dissents in the latter case. In Thomas' dissent he says that the law which the Court struck down was "uncommonly silly" (a phrase from Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut), but that he voted to uphold it as he could find "no general right of privacy" or relevant liberty in the Constitution. He goes on to add that if he were a member of the Texas Legislature he would vote to repeal the law.

Lastly, and most important in my decision to not be against this naming, is the fact that after this year it simply will not matter. No students ever realize what professors are sponsored by some special professorship named after whichever person. How many students against this even know which professor gets the title? How many people know that Professor Dry, a professor in political science, is in fact the Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science? And who, if anyone, calls our science facility the John M. McCardell Jr. Bicentennial Hall? This naming process, to me, is arbitrary to the fact that the college receives millions in endowment over it.

Frankly, I just don't see the big deal. Instead of arguing against this professorship, why not recommend the naming of another? One that is named after a proponent for gay rights and is awarded to queer faculty or instates a professor in the Womens and Genders Studies department that would add gay and lesbian studies to our college. We can turn this into us being equally awarded, rather than equally suffering.

That is what I think, perhaps you disagree. I am not a self-loathing homosexual, I just see things from both sides.