Split Decision

There is a convenient rhetorical means by which politicians and, yes, editorial

writers often manage to embrace opposite sides of an issue simultaneously. The

device involves liberal use of the bracketing phrases, “On the one hand … ” followed

closely by “On the other hand … .” We are put in mind of that method of evasion by the

U.S. Supreme Court’s pair of rulings Monday on differing aspects of the

affirmative-action controversy, both involving the University of Michigan.

Race may be considered a factor in determining a candidate’s admission to

the university’s law school, said the court, but racial quotas may not be used in

setting admission standards for the school’s undergraduate programs. Huh? It’s a good

thing the court comprises only nine members, not 12, or we’d likely be forced — quite

literally — to deal with that other notorious equivocating phrase: “Six of one,

half-a-dozen of the other.”

Granted, there are distinctions to be made between the policy that was

approved and the one that was struck down — and not necessarily hair-splitting ones. But

the court still will be perceived as vacillating on both the philosophical and the

constitutional issues involved. And the split decision does almost nothing to clarify the

issue for future legal challenges. The precedents are clearly so mixed that the question

will probably return to the court at some point for further adjudication.

What makes the ambiguity of the two decisions all the more unsettling is that

the underlying issue of affirmative action — in education and, for that matter, in the rest

of society — is one on which conscientious people can and do disagree. The

controversy escapes the usual narrow “liberal/conservative” dichotomy.

The silver lining (here comes our own equivocation) is that the twin rulings

probably accurately reflect the degree of doubt in the minds of the well-intentioned,

and the continued existence of an unresolved gray area might well encourage disputants

to conduct fruitful negotiations rather than automatically resort to litigation.

Which is to say, we take our comforts where we find them. On the other hand …

Keeter?

We do not endorse candidates for local office and we do not intend to start

here, but we can’t help but take note of the fact that former

Commercial Appeal political reporter Terry Keeter is now advertising a forthcoming race for the Memphis

City Council. Lest his future opponents start taking umbrage, let us take note that

neither we nor Keeter know just yet what seat he might be seeking; so we aren’t playing

favorites by dropping his name.

We do find his ambitions gratifying, however, for a couple of reasons: First,

having both covered local political affairs and groused about them for a number of

years, he might even know what he’s talking about here and there. (Depending on

the race he chooses, that could even make him unique.) The other and more

basic reason, though, is that Keeter, an emphysema victim, has only just recovered

from what seems to have been a serious bout with the Reaper. For many months, this

— how to say it? — less-than-bashful personality could not even speak. Now

that he’s found his voice again, we rejoice in any occasion that encourages him to

express himself. We warn you, however; this fellow is what you would call a

curmudgeon. Maybe you should hide your ears.