home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
061493
/
06149915.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
90 lines
<text id=93TT1884>
<title>
June 14, 1993: Tailor-made to be Used Against Her
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
Jun. 14, 1993 The Pill That Changes Everything
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
THE WHITE HOUSE, Page 24
Tailor-made to be Used Against Her
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By ANDREA SACHS
</p>
<p> The issue that Lani Guinier attacks in her writings--the
tyranny of the majority, as James Madison described it--is
neither obscure nor an unworthy target. But it's small wonder
that few people are familiar with her scholarship. Turgid and
ambiguous, Guinier's writing is not the stuff of bedtime reading.
A case in point is her 48,948-word article in the Michigan Law
Review of March 1991, titled "The Triumph of Tokenism," which
Clinton singled out last week in explaining why he was withdrawing
her nomination. "Many of her analyses I agree with," he said,
but he dismissed her proposals as "antidemocratic, very difficult
to defend."
</p>
<p> Guinier stands by her position that Clinton, like her other
critics, just didn't get it. "I think that the President and
many others have misinterpreted my writings, which were written
in an academic context, which are very nuanced, which are very
ponderous," she said. On the latter points, no one will argue
with her. Guinier's work is mainly directed toward a small audience
of law professors who specialize in the Voting Rights Act, the
1965 federal statute that protects racial minorities from electoral
discrimination.
</p>
<p> In her Michigan Law Review piece, Guinier assails current interpretations
of the Voting Rights Act and proposes changes. Essentially she
contends that what blacks and Hispanics have achieved under
the act is tokenism. Although they are being elected in greater
numbers, she says, they remain isolated by legislative racism.
A "hostile permanent majority" in some places has been unwilling
to give minorities in legislatures a fair share of power.
</p>
<p> Her proposed solutions are complicated, at least compared with
conventional electoral rules. One remedy is "cumulative voting,"
in which every voter would be given as many votes as there are
seats available. For example, if there were five city-council
members, each voter would have five votes. That measure, says
Guinier, would allow black voters to cast all their ballots
for a black candidate, consolidating their power. Dozens of
communities, mainly in Alabama, have already used such schemes.
A more drastic remedy would be a "minority veto," which would
allow judges to give black legislators the power to veto a measure
by the majority in situations where proposals by minority legislators
have been consistently thwarted.
</p>
<p> Among academics who study voting rights, Guinier's writing is
generally held in high regard. "She's the best legal scholar
working in voting rights today," says Professor Kathryn Abrams
of Cornell law school. "In a scholarly sense, I don't consider
her outside the mainstream." That assessment is more strenuously
debated in wider legal circles. Says Stuart Taylor Jr. of Legal
Times, who has studied Guinier's writings: "She's more radical
than her supporters would have you believe. Her proposals seem
to be premised on a bleak vision of America as a land of `subjugated
minorities' and a racist white majority."
</p>
<p> Radical or not, Guinier's writing is tailor-made to be selectively
used against her. Conservative groups and other critics circulated
copies of her writings to news organizations, highlighting portions
that were purported to take far-out positions. In her appearance
on Nightline, Guinier argued that the quoted passages were out
of context. She insisted that she was giving "a description
of other people's views" in the Michigan article when she contended
that "authentic leaders are those elected by black voters,"
thereby suggesting that black politicians elected by white majorities
are not legitimate. Even in context, it is unclear whether she
was endorsing that view or merely citing it. In any event, the
reader who mattered most did not agree with her assertions.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>