De facto segregation approved by court of fools

EDITORIAL BOARD Christine Byrd
 Editor in Chief

Michael Litschi
 Managing Editor

Jonah Lalas
 Viewpoint Editor

Barbara Ortutay
 News Editor

Amy Golod
 Staff Representative

Timothy Kudo
 Staff Representative

Brian O’Camb
 Staff Representative

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

According to the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is the
ultimate legal authority when it comes to interpreting our
constitutional rights. Consequently, people have traditionally
turned to it in hopes of expanding civil rights for groups that
face widespread discrimination.

But where should we turn when the Supreme Court is the one
carrying out civil rights violations?

Instead of moving this country forward into the 21st century,
the Supreme Court is pushing back social conditions more than 40
years. In decisions issued as recently as last week, the Rehnquist
Court has made it more difficult for people to fight against
discrimination and unfair treatment. Rights we have grown up with
and are accustomed to are now vanishing from the law books.

Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in Alexander v. Sandoval
““ a case in which a woman argued that Alabama’s
English-only driver’s exam was discriminatory ““ that
individuals cannot sue agencies for indirect discrimination. In
other words, unless the agency intentionally discriminates against
them, people cannot gain compensation through legal action.

This decision is narrow-minded at best. Discrimination is by no
means limited to the purposeful racist, sexist, heterosexist and
classist treatment of one individual by another. Discrimination is
often institutionalized and indirect. In this decision, the Supreme
Court allows for de facto discrimination ““ it acknowledges
discrimination exists, but adopts the attitude that nothing can be
done about it.

Members of the UCLA community who believe this slashing of civil
rights will not affect them are wrong. The Sandoval decision may
impact students’ ability to deal with inequality at the
University of California.

Women ““ those on sports teams at UCLA who don’t
receive as much funding as men’s sports teams and those
underrepresented professors who earn less than their male
counterparts ““ have been disempowered. The court
doesn’t believe the inequality they face is
“intentional.”

Cases alleging that the SAT I is racially and socioeconomically
biased have also been debilitated by the Sandoval decision. And as
the number of underrepresented minority students continues to drop
at UCLA, efforts to bring back affirmative action are weakened by
this case. It doesn’t matter that the UC is not reflective of
the public it serves, because according to the court, it’s
unintentional. This kind of reasoning will pose a significant
threat to affirmative action when the Court considers it next
year.

The Sandoval decision will probably keep low-income and minority
communities from suing to prevent the development of prisons,
landfills and other undesirable projects in their neighborhoods
““ something that more affluent neighborhoods with more
political clout can prevent.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community will also
be adversely affected by this decision. Unfortunately, civil rights
for the LGBT community have been largely overlooked, especially at
the federal level. In fact, there was no provision in the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 protecting individuals from discrimination based
on sexual orientation. With cutbacks in existing rights, it seems
the achievement of civil rights in the LGBT community is growing
increasingly unrealistic.

Last year, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court
ruled that as a private organization, the Boy Scouts have the right
to exclude gays. And we think the United States no longer practices
segregation?

Even though the federal government may be lagging in terms of
LGBT rights, states such as California and New Jersey have statutes
that protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
But even this can now be overlooked by agencies, given that the
Supreme Court determines the “law of the land.”

It’s emotionally draining for anyone to consider the
far-reaching impact that the Court’s decision will have.

But it doesn’t end here. The court recently made abuse by
the police and discrimination against the disabled a lot
easier.

Last week, the court ruled in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista that
police officers are allowed to search and arrest motorists after
stopping them for minor traffic offenses. Though this decision was
geared toward helping curb crime, the real truth is that many
officers can get away with conducting unnecessary searches, arrests
and racial profiling ““ a direct attack on our Fourth
Amendment rights.

Disabled citizens are now more vulnerable to workplace
discrimination than ever thanks to the court’s decision
earlier this year in Alabama v. Garrett. In this case, the Supreme
Court stated that the federal government is not constitutionally
entitled to force states to comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990.

It’s appalling. The highest court in the country is
perpetuating inequality instead of working to stop it.

But with a Congress and a president just as conservative and
regressive, nothing stands in the way of the Supreme Court’s
continuing attacks on civil rights in this country ““ this is
truly frightening.

The rights we, as college students, have taken for granted our
entire lives are now disappearing before our eyes. And the
progressive actions we’ve been calling for are becoming more
and more distant.