Gross Inequality

Today the New York State Senate killed a measure to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. In a vote of 38-24, the state senate rejected a proposal that would have granted equality to a large population within New York and dashed the hopes of many loving couples. This bill, already passed twice by the Assembly, is dead for at least this year but is expected to brought forward again in the future.

Predictably, the main line of attack against granting same-sex marriage was religious in nature. Since no reputable medical, psychological, or economic organization has adduced any reasons why same-sex marriage should not be granted, this is perhaps the only available argument. As such, it bears scrutiny in the context of today's vote.

The opposition to the measure was led by Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a Pentacostal minister from New York City. In his opening remarks, Diaz implored legislators to "remember your values -- remember you stand for traditional values, family values, moral values." Such misplaced rhetoric is truly offensive and reveals Ruben's profound incapacity to understand the effects of his actions on the gay community. Nothing about same-sex marriage threatens family or morality. Thus, Ruben's comments are also disappointing because they continue his tragic trend of leveling baseless accusations and showing a distinct lack of compassion toward an minority seeking equal treatment. Richard Barnes, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, also commented, saying, “While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman.”

This unfortunate myopia demonstrates the duplicitous attempts of religious leaders to cast themselves as both opponents of gay marriage and as egalitarian defenders of the downtrodden. In reality, however, the church's continuing crusade against the gay community is better understood as clear and unequivocal discrimination. That the church believes it has strong reasons for its stance only offers an explanation for its position -- it does not change the fact the real effect of its actions is to derogate and subordinate gay people. The definition of discriminate is "to make an adverse distinction with regard to" or "to distinguish unfavourably from others." Declaring that one group is not entitled to the same rights as another -- or, for that matter, arguing that their lifestyle is inherently worthy of condemnation -- is clearly within this definition. For religious leaders to argue to the contrary is unambiguously and categorically false.

Rather, a more appropriate analysis would be to say that religious leaders believe that they have the right to discriminate -- a right that they claim is granted to them by their religious traditions (e.g. the Bible, the Quoran, etc.). The problem with this, of course, is that the history and Constitution of this nation overwhelmingly reject the notion that any group possesses some natural right to discriminate against another. The mandate of equality under the law is not modified or rescinded simply because the discussion turns to religion -- a fact that religious leaders themselves are quick to trumpet whenever their interests are threatened. When Congress recently passed legislation classifying violence related on sexual orientation as hate crimes, religious leaders voiced their displeasure over the mere possibility that their freedom of speech might be infringed.

Contrary to the claims of many religious leaders, the laws of the United States are not rooted in Christianity -- or, in fact, in any other particular religion. That religious dogma and civil laws sometimes possess similarities cannot be doubted, but this is more attributable to the historical evolution of moral and ethical thought rather than some inherent interdependence. The intellectual underpinnings of law such as theories of ethics, morality, and justice, often grew out of religious musings. This common origin, however, by no means gives religion a monopoly on moral or legal thought. In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court stated that "to permit [bigamy based on a religious duty] would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Such a notion was firmly rejected by the court as inconsistent with the freedom and liberties granted to people of this nation, and it is equally inappropriate to maintain that religious beliefs should become the law of the land.

One should also hesitate to apply religious laws because -- even among the religious -- there is severe disagreement about everything from the correct teachings to the proper principles. People around the world subscribe to many different systems; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are but a few of the major faiths found throughout the globe. From Animists to Zoroastrians, each has different beliefs and values which are often unique. Even within each particular sect there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. State Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, stated, “When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out." His beliefs are obviously quite different from those of many Christian fundamentalists -- even though they are based on the same compilation of writings and teachings. In fact, there are dozens of different translations of the Bible in the English language alone. Given the practice of carefully parsing the text of religious documents, even small differences in each version are likely have significant consequences. The diversity within the broad umbrella of religion is nothing short of astounding.

Yet many religious leaders maintain that the religious rules to which they adhere are the one true set of laws that should prevail. For instance, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, who traveled to Albany before the vote on same-sex marriage, admonished the State Senate “that the world belongs to the Almighty, and [the Senators] have to reckon with his rules and his law.” When one realizes that such declarations are almost always followed by religious directives (Rabbi Weiss did not just leave and the legislators decide for themselves what the laws of the "Almighty" said to do), comments of this sort are reduced to little more that religious threats -- thinly veiled attempts to coerce democratically elected leaders into opposing propositions that do not conform with religious teachings.

But why is this a problem? Much of religion, after all, is concerned with commonly held values such as love, kindness, honesty, and reciprocity. Viewed in that light, it might seem beneficial to allow religion to shape our laws. Serious complications arise, however, because human beings are -- as recognized by most religions themselves -- imperfect. Human beings (a category that includes religious leaders) are susceptible to mistake, coercion, bigotry and a long list of other vices. Much of our history has been spent overcoming these shortfalls, a task that is nowhere near finished. Because the people who write, read, teach, and lead in religious circles are human, they are subject to the same fallibility as all other people.

Unfortunately, many people have a tendency to confuse the allegedly pure teachings of religion with the very human aspect -- granting some religious leaders broad powers that they are neither worthy nor capable of wielding. This situation has been seen throughout history, and has led to countless atrocities being committed in the name of the noblest purposes; an embarrassingly short summary includes the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, persecution of scientists, slavery, male chauvinism, the Salem witch trails, genocide, and opposition to interracial marriage.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that recognized the right to marriage, even the trial judge who convicted the Lovings stated that, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Furthermore, many argued that interracial unions were "evil" and "unnatural." This line of thinking has been born again today in the debate over same-sex marriage. More recently, the Pope claimed that condoms would actually exacerbate the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa -- a shockingly irresponsible move that quite literally puts thousands of lives at risk and promotes the spread of a devastating disease.

None of this is to say that religion is inherently bad -- it most certainly is not. A humble, honest, and reverential search for spiritual or divine meaning can certainly enrich the life of the seeker (and perhaps the lives of others) in myriad ways. Yet while religion certainly has many valuable aspects, ignoring its shortcomings and denying that commonplace religious doctrine can be wrong or misinterpreted can also be extremely harmful. We should bear in mind the dangers of refusing to think about religion. Tradition and custom are powerful forces in society, and they have helped us to maintain many practices which are beneficial. They have also, however, been the historical vehicle through which to oppress minorities. Our Founding Fathers built a country consecrated to liberty, not religion, and we would do well to observe the safeguards that they put in place -- measures meant to guard against the unfair concentration of power and to prevent the formation of a monarchy, autocracy, or theocracy.

The Rule of Law

Today Governor David Paterson criticized the decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 hijackers in Manhattan federal court. The decision, which was announced on Friday by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, has ignited a fierce debate that questions the appropriate role of the law in in the struggle against terrorism -- and in American society itself.

Conservatives and Republican politicians have derided the move as a political maneuver that threatens national security and increases the possibility that the accused terrorists will go free. Most Democrats and supporters drawn from the ranks of organizations such as the ACLU have praised the decision as a triumph for the rule of law and American justice. The families of victims of the 9/11 tragedy have expressed conflicting opinions, with some welcoming and others disparaging the plan to try the detainees in New York. Despite the contentious debate, all of the vociferous parties in this debate agree on many central issues; no one has expressed serious doubts about the culpability of the detainees, nor has anyone suggested that they should not be made to answer for their crimes. Both sides also acknowledge that the alternative (trying the detainees in military commissions) affords the accused individuals fewer rights and procedural protections.

Interestingly, the controversy surrounding AG Holder's decision does not seem to stem from concerns about security or the threat of terrorist attack. While some conservatives have suggested that civilian trials will increase the threat to the nation, a recent poll showed that, though most Americans did opt for trials by military commissions, a majority felt that the detainees should still be brought to the United States. Statements like those of Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), which allege that bringing the accused terrorists to Manhattan raises the risk of further attacks, thus seem to be off-target with respect to the concerns of the American public. Moreover, there is little evidence to support such claims. While this trial has certainly caught the attention of the media, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) has pointed out that numerous terrorism suspects have already been successfully prosecuted in civilian courts -- many under the Bush Administration.

The debate actually appears to grow out of a fundamental disagreement over the very propriety of determining the detainees' guilt in American courts. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has claimed that the "choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists" and that the government is "giv[ing] the terrorists a better choice than [it's] giving the public," but the justification for these statements is not exactly clear. As Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has argued, “Any suggestion that [Manhattan's] prosecutors and law enforcement personnel are not up to the task of safely holding and successfully prosecuting terrorists on American soil is insulting and untrue.” It seems safe to say that many Americans would agree -- that the prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is more than capable of delivering justice for the victims, their families, and the nation as a whole. Why, then, are many so resistant to the decision to try the detainees in American courts?

Perhaps the animus of the opposition is best captured in the words of Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH). Senator Gregg has called the detainees "evil people," arguing that "they represent a cause which wants to destroy this nation. [. . .] There's no reason we should have them in the criminal justice system." This sentiment is in fact quite shocking when one considers the rich history and pedigree of the American legal system. Our Constitution promotes the rule of law by guaranteeing essential rights that protect people from wanton discrimination, persecution, and tyranny. The document itself was born from the struggles of an oppressed and disenfranchised group who found the courage and fortitude to build a government that would breathe life into moral ideals such as liberty and freedom, creating a nation that was "of the people, by the people, for the people." The rule of law, however, is meaningless if not applied equally.

The United States has learned -- and continues to learn -- from painful civil rights struggles that liberty and equality cannot be separated. From the persecution of Native Americans to the institution of slavery to the fight for gay rights, our nation is faced with grim reminders and difficult challenges that highlight the importance of equality under the law. This principle is so entrenched in our history, in our identity, and in our jurisprudence that it cannot and should not be suspended even for the most detestable of human beings. The military commissions begun by the Bush Administration ignore many of the rules that most Americans hold inviolate -- protections that have grown out of centuries of thoughtful legal evolution. They are not to be dismissed lightly (if at all), and it is exceedingly dangerous to allow them to be rescinded by the government simply because the accused is especially despised.

The principles and protections afforded by American courts are envied and emulated around the world because they confer upon the accused the dignity and respect that are inseparable from the human condition. The American legal system embraces the concept (in principle if not always in practice) that every individual is entitled to just treatment. The persons responsible for the 9/11 attacks are indeed reprehensible individuals, but that does not mean that they should be placed in a special category or denied equal justice under the law. The ideals enshrined in the Constitution are not intended only as protections for the accused, but for society as well. After all, using hate as a justification to abandon the commitment to the pursuit of justice leaves only revenge as a remedy -- a course that simply moves us closer to our adversaries.

Fallen Heroes

My sincerest condolences go out to the friends and families of the soldiers from Fort Hood. It is my solemn hope that they will soon find both answers and closure. May the victims of this terrible tragedy rest in peace.

Photo Source: http://www.nytimes.com

Reading, Writing, Religion?

Today the Orange County Register carried an update to an ongoing legal battle over comments concerning religion that were made by a public school teacher. Apparently Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the UC-Irvine School of Law and a famous constitutional scholar, will be joining the defense team for James Corbett, the teacher who recently lost his case on summary judgment. At issue is a comment that Corbett made concerning creationism, namely that it was "religious, superstitious nonsense." Both Corbett and Chad Farnan, the student who brought the suit, have appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The case invokes many of the standard arguments that one would expect to see in an issue of this type -- alleged infringement of the establishment clause, offense to the freedom of religion, and transcendance of the permissible bounds of free speech. Predictably, the plaintiff has asserted that Corbett's condemnation of creationism violates the right of students to be free from government hostility toward religion. The basic assumption of the plaintiff is, as Farnan's mother puts it, that "any student should be able to sit in the classroom without having their beliefs attacked." This, of course, is true. No student should ever feel unjustly persecuted for beliefs that he or she holds, and it is well established that the Constitution offers significant protections in this area. What is not clear from the case (or in general) is where one should draw the line between derogating and merely challenging beliefs.

The distinction is important. Our constitutional rights are vital to the preservation of a free society, yet without challenging students to think critically about the world and their own ideology education is little more than a waste of time and resources. A proper balance must be found between these two concerns. On one hand, too much deference to religious beliefs effectively violates the rights of others to free expression and catastrophically inhibits the ability of society to meaningfully engage in constructive discourse. Conversely, too little emphasis on preserving the right of individuals to be free from persecution predicated on their beliefs undermines the notions of liberty and equality -- the foundations of our democratic society. It is very unlikely that this tension can be easily resolved, and it is no wonder that legislatures, courts, and individuals continue to struggle with this question.


Balancing the public interest in the free exchange of ideas against the right of individuals to be free from governmental oppression is difficult, but a genuine balance must be found. Forbidding a teacher from advancing a negative view of creationism is dangerous, because it seems to provide too much deference to religious rights. Why, for instance, should Corbett be prohibited from describing creationism as "superstitious" when (as a history teacher) he is perfectly free to characterize the beliefs of ancient civilizations in the same manner? It is certainly doubtful that such indignant objections would be raised were Corbett to express skepticism that the world was created by the Titans of Greek mythology. Creationism is not distinguished by the presence of convincing proof -- indeed it cannot be proven. The only apparent distinction is that creationism is a Judeo-Christian account of the origin of the world rather than a Norse, Celtic, Egyptian, or Aztec explanation. Why does belief in that particular idea trigger constitutional protection?

While it is vital that constitutional rights be vindicated, it is also important to remember that, in a democratic society, personal religious tenets do not take precedence over our shared political and philosophical ideals. Most religious figures will argue that religion coexists with these values because the fundamental concepts are the same. This is not a completely truthful response, however. Religion does tolerate concepts that are compatible with its dogma, but this is the not the same as saying that democratic values and religious values are the same. After all, it cannot honestly be said that the equality in religion and equality in society are the same. For example, in both Christianity and Islam women occupy distinctly different and unequal doctrinal places -- possessing different rights, responsibilities, and privileges. Without passing judgment on those determinations in the religious sphere, it is not difficult to say that such an overt disparity in everyday United States culture would be considered intolerable.


Obviously there are boundaries that, when crossed, indicate unfair treatment of those with a specific set of beliefs. Other alleged statements by Corbett, such as "Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool," would certainly seem to fall into this category. This statement goes beyond expressing doubt or inviting students to critically examine an idea; it is unnecessarily acerbic and strongly condemns a system that is likely to be intimately tied to valued beliefs and experiences. It is difficult to see, however, how describing creationism as religious superstition or even nonsensical rises to this level of offense. If conservatives and religious fundamentalists are permitted to cast aspersions on the theory of evolution, why cannot the opposition respond in kind?


Another example is provided by the very group representing Farnan in his suit. The Advocates for Faith and Freedom also argue strenuously against granting equal rights to gay men and women. This position is based on the religious beliefs of the group regarding gender and sexuality, and it is consonant with their particular, strictly tailored, narrow definition of equality. This group is contesting the validity of according a fundamental right to an entire group of people. Similar organizations even contest measures that protect gay men and women against violence and murder on the groups that it might hinder religious speech. Were it not so hypocritical, the fact that Advocates resents such a passive challenge would be downright comical.


Though Farnan's mother stated that her son "had to leave a class that could have helped him get into college," it is unclear what necessitated such drastic action. Corbett's comment (at least the one concerning creationism, which is the current focus of litigation) is not nearly so offensive as to amount to religious persecution. Rather, it is the frank -- though perhaps blunt -- appraisal of a religious theory that is supported by no substantive proof. Discrimination of any sort is unacceptable, but an oversensitivity to legitimate challenges to a system of belief destroys free expression and renders any education meaningless.

Victimized (Twice)

The Chicago Tribune and the ABA Journal carried a disturbing story from Illinois today. Kathy Cleaves-Milan and her 9 year old daughter were apparently evicted from their apartment by Aimco, the company that owns and operates her Elmhurst housing complex. According to a company spokesperson, the reasons for their eviction were the violation of a "zero-tolerance" policy toward criminal activity in the housing community and questions about Cleaves-Milan's ability to make her rent payments.

There is much more to this story, however. The "criminal activity" that spawned the eviction was in fact a domestic violence incident in which Cleaves-Milan's armed husband threatened to kill her. She sought and obtained an order of protection against him, but this action was unexpectedly turned against her when Aimco used it as a basis for her eviction -- even going so far as to include a copy of the protection order "stapled to the eviction notice that terminated her lease." The concern about her inability to pay rent also stemmed from this incident. The company questioned whether Cleaves-Milan had sufficient income without the assistance of her husband, a capacity she asserts she could easily prove. The article goes on to note that, unlike in other states that have legislation protecting victims of domestic abuse, such deplorable business practice is permissible in Illinois until a new amendment to the Human Rights Act takes effect in 2010. With help from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and Reed Smith, Cleaves-Milan has filed suit over the eviction claiming sex discrimination.

It is not difficult to see why the actions by Aimco are cause for alarm. The intent of the policy -- to keep residents safe by quickly weeding out problem tenants -- is not itself problematic; rather, it is the inexplicable application of the policy in this case that raises serious issues. Cleaves-Milan herself committed no violation and the situation was completely beyond her control. Moreover, the order of protection had already obviated the need to enforce the policy as the offending party could not return to the premises.

Yet perhaps the most disconcerting element of this case is the perverse message that the company's actions send to victims of crimes. First, by indiscriminately evicting tenants without regard to whether they were the victim or the perpetrator, the company eliminates the tenants' incentive to notify the authorities when they are in danger or when a crime has been committed. As Sandra Park of the ACLU Women's Rights Project noted, "It forces women into a situation where they have to choose between reaching out for safety or staying in their homes."

This policy also severely limits the resources available to victims of domestic violence at precisely the point when they need the most assistance. Victims of crimes need access to proper legal channels, support to enable them to seek help, and often therapy and other services to help them to recover from the trauma of the experience. These resources are especially important in cases of domestic violence, where the offender is usually a person the victim had known and trusted. The policy enforced by Aimco achieves the opposite result; it severely limits the options available to victims and may force them to make decisions that are not in their best interest but which are unavoidable under the circumstances. That danger is especially apparent in this case, as Cleaves-Milan and her daughter were forced to take "temporary refuge" at her husband's former home after their eviction.

Finally, in what can only be described as despicable, Aimco sent Cleaves-Milan a bill for $3,800 that it claimed she owed due to the "early termination of her lease." When the Chicago Tribune inquired about this fee, the company decided to drop it. How kind.

And the Award Goes to . . .

Elected officials and pundits from all corners of the political landscape sounded off on the surprise selection of President Obama as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) the traditionally prestigious and respected announcement has been met with somewhat childish partisan bickering. Traditionally liberal news outlets trumpeted strikingly different headlines than conservative programs, and both Republicans and Democrats immediately set upon one another in what has become a rather embarrassing display.

On the liberal side, the DNC is perhaps most deserving of criticism for its shocking assertion that "the Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists" by criticizing the award. While it is true that many conservatives have reacted in remarkably distasteful ways, this allegation is simply over the top. It is interesting to note that such hyperbole is subject to the same criticism often levelled by the DNC itself against the Bush Administration. Specifically, it echoes the tired (and often misleading) mantra of "you're either for us or against us" to which many Democrats objected as an example of "fear-mongering." Dissent from the dominant view has a long and rather proud tradition in American politics, and it is unfair to conflate the interests of terrorists and the Republican party purely on the basis of their reaction to the selection of a Nobel Prize winner. Furthermore, it is inappropriate and ingenuous to employ the same tactics utilized by Republicans, which the DNC previously found so objectionable.

For conservatives, the most deplorable response has undoubtedly come from Rush Limbaugh. Interestingly, Limbaugh's comments had almost no bearing on the issue of selection itself. Rather, Limbaugh's remarks devolved into almost fanatical ravings about topics that were only tangentially related to the issue at hand. Even this was eclipsed, however, by his offensive portrait of the appropriate fundamental character of the United States. Limbaugh describes the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize as an attempt to "emasculate the United States," saying "they [presumably the world] love a weakened, neutered U.S." Limbaugh's final (and oft quoted) determination is that it is a "greater embarrassment" than losing the Olympics to have one's President awarded the Prize.

The most salient point is perhaps Limbaugh's use of the word "emasculate." Typically, one reads this as "to deprive of strength or vigor; weaken," but his further emphasis on the attempt to "neuter" the U.S. implies that he means instead the rather literal interpretation of "castration." In this sense, the word is more often read as 'depriving one of one's masculinity.' Of course, this interpretation is immediately alarming because it seems to imply (1) that the United States should embrace only traditionally 'masculine' concepts and (2) that peace is not one of them. This reading is supported by the general gist of Limbaugh's rantings, which in essence complain of a diminution of the prestige or worth of the United States when it is prevented from pursuing a military objective.

Although it is perhaps too much to wish that Limbaugh would seriously consider the meaning and ramifications of his words before speaking them, it is imperative that American people take the time ponder the ideology that his remarks reinforce. For instance, why is it enervating or offensive for the United States to be viewed as a nation that values peace? Must an association with peace rather than war be viewed as an indication of weakness? Certainly it is an American tradition to fight for important principles such as freedom, individual rights, and equality -- but is this done for the purpose of the actual fighting or with an eye to the better state of affairs that (we hope) will exist after the day has been won?

One would assume that a peaceful world in which all are free to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of their own happiness would be considered preferable to a world in which people must constantly struggle and die for the same. Limbaugh does not seem to share this assumption, which, of course, is his right. But if the people of the United States of America do not believe it, if the fight itself has become more important than what we are fighting for, then it seems that we must seriously reevalute the importance we attach to values that we claim to hold dear: fraternity, family, liberty, and equality. Peace is essential to the enjoyment of these values, for they are dependent on freedom from fear and coercion. It is difficult to see, then, how the selection of the President as the recipient of an international prize praising efforts to achieve peace somehow demeans the United States.

Finally, this post would be remiss if it failed to recognize those individuals who have admirably demonstrated the qualities of true statesmen. Most notable are Governor Tim Pawlenty and Senator John McCain. Though they likely do not agree with the committee's choice and were far from defending his selection, each showed laudable discipline in giving respectful congratulations to the President. They, at least, recognized that the Nobel Peach Prize -- regardless of one's political leanings -- is a great honor for the country as a whole.


Photo Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/09/nobel-peace-prize-winners-barack-obama

In Their Defense

Ever a controversial figure, Justice Scalia recently suggested that he wishes some talented attorneys had chosen other careers. Though his comments were probably intended only to praise the intelligence of the lawyers who argue before the Court and to highlight the complex challenges facing our society, the issue indirectly raised by his remarks is interesting to contemplate. Are legal disputes worthy of such attention by the erudite?

It is no secret that lawyers are easy scapegoats for many of society's ills. Several recent studies (e.g. this one conducted for the ABA in 2002) demonstrate that public perception of lawyers is consistently less than flattering. Surprisingly, people also generally express satisfaction with their legal representation and the abstract perception of a "career in the law" remains positive. It is not hard to see how these seeming paradoxes might arise. Though a litigant may be downright friendly with their own attorney, this relationship is likely offset by negative feelings toward opposing counsel. Throw in emotional reactions to the conflict, frustration with the many unavoidable hurdles in legal proceedings, and the often sensationalist media coverage of controversies, and it may be fair to say that, when it comes to overall popularity, the deck is stacked against legal practitioners.

Still, lawyers are absolutely essential to our society. In a nation and a cultural that prizes the rule of law, adepts in legal principles and methodology are indispensable in virtually every facet of sociocultural life. Financial transactions, government programs, non-profit organizations, and international treaties are all examples of the myriad arenas in which lawyers provide valuable services. Lawyers help to fight crime and safeguard the innocent. They help to protect the environment and maximize corporate profits. Many of our elected leaders are lawyers, and countless more weigh in on the creation of laws that help to order and regulate our daily lives. Lawyers interact with both the best and worst elements of society, and perform essential jobs that range from the most attractive to the most trying. In truth, the dislike of lawyers may arise in part from that fact that they are so essential, but hardly needs saying that this is not an appropriate justification.

Possibly because of its importance in our society, the study and practice of law is one of the most closely regulated (in fact, self-regulated) disciplines in existence. Though countless jokes refer to the greed and immorality in the legal profession, the reality is that lawyers must abide by extremely strict ethical guidelines. While these rules may sometimes be seen as flexible or unclear, this is not because lawyers ignore or the law or have a penchant for committing transgressions; rather, it is a consequence of routinely engaging exceptionally difficult 'gray areas' where a single right answer may not exist. Of course, it cannot be denied that some lawyers do fall below these ethical standards. Some lawyers do embrace greedy or immoral desires, and it is easy to see how a familiarity with the law may grant an enhanced ability to commit misdeeds. It is unfair and unwarranted, however, to extend this this 'bad apples' philosophy to all legal practitioners. The "public defender from Podunk," for example, would likely have devoted obscene amounts of time for a small amount of money to the resolution of an issue that meant nothing to her -- but everything to her indigent client. Such dedication is much more the norm in legal circles, and it deserves nothing less than glowing admiration.

A common maxim holds that "everyone hates lawyers until they need one." In our modern society and culture, lawyers are need quite frequently and serve in various important ways. The study and practice of law is a noble pursuit that is vital to the survival of a society that seeks to live together harmoniously and solve conflicts in an equitable fashion. Lawyers also engage some of the most important issues of our time, and they are often the vehicle through which important debates are conducted and resolved. Thus, while Justice Scalia makes a valid point that our complex world is certainly in need of brilliant minds and innovative thinkers to tackle a variety of diverse problems, we should all be content -- and grateful -- that may of them chose to study law.