To the Editor:The case of Klionsky and McElhaney v. Student Union exploits the legal spirit and intention of our Constitution through co-opting of the letter of law. Within this case, the prosecution argues that two Union positions reserved for racial minorities are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Klionsky's unsuccessful attempt to be included in the election for the position of racial minority senator spawned the petition. He was then told by the Union that he could not do so since he did not officially identify as a minority at Brandeis. As a result, the two petitioners claim that the positions violate the Union constitution and should therefore be abolished.

Despite outcries from many parts of the minority community as well as the Union regarding the inappropriateness of this case, the Union Judiciary brought it to trial. After reviewing the facts of the case, in my mind, the initial argument of discrimination does not match the proposed solution of eliminating the racial minority positions raised by the petitioners. I acknowledge that perhaps there is legal merit to the claim of exclusion in being denied participation in the election of the RMS. When a person feels disenfranchised and silenced, he or she has historically taken action by fighting for equal rights and representation. However, the suggested abolition of the position does not acknowledge the need for or value of the representation offered by these Union seats. A response that would alternatively match the initial claim of discrimination would be to advocate for changing the constitutional jargon dealing with the two positions to make them more inclusive. I admit that the relationship between the petition's claim and solution is irrelevant to the official legal discussion, yet it becomes significant when discussing how the majority of people that must abide by these laws do not feel that these statutes protect them. I therefore believe it is necessary, when approaching a legal suit that has potential to destroy rather than build up, for the participating bodies to honestly articulate their intent.

Thus, I would hope that such bodies ask themselves the following question before they bring their case into a public forum: Does the possible change for which we are advocating benefit the community it would affect? The disparity between the argument of discrimination and the suggested solution of the elimination of the racial minority positions in the Union leads me to believe that the petition presented does not consider this question.

Additionally, though an argument may have legal merit, sensitive issues of race and representation have historically blurred the law's monopoly of what is both moral as well as in the best interest of the people under that law's jurisdiction. Therefore, more than a legislative matter, race is sociological; race is a social construction with extremely real consequences. These consequences are experienced in a variety of everyday institutions with which we all engage, such as schools, political offices and legal bodies. The unfavorable treatment these examples too often bestow upon racial minority groups materialize in inadequate resource distribution. Yet these covert practices of institutional racism are habitually ignored since they are simply deemed part of the status quo.

In order to rectify these subtle but shamefully normative injustices, I believe our university community must address issues of race on a theoretical level in order to understand its practical implications. This strategy has a higher chance of eradicating prejudice in contrast to debating the semantics of the Union constitution, for the solution proposed does not directly rectify the initial problem. I believe that discrimination is therefore not confronted and destroyed by changing words but rather by changing minds.

Yet the process adopted in the case brought before the Union Judiciary ignores the need for these conversations. In order to bring this discussion into another needed forum, I plead that the Brandeis population does not limit the relevance of this case to the space of the Union Judiciary trial; rather, I hope that as a community we initiate needed dialogue in a sensitive manner to do justice to the complex issue of race and the experiences of institutional racism many of our fellow students encounter everyday.

-Rachie Lewis '09