Amy Coney Barret at Northrop

Why I believe it was appropriate for the University to invite Justice Barrett to speak on campus and necessary for students to protest her lecture

BY MADELEINE PRESCOTT

The impending descent of Amy Coney Barret upon our campus was foretold by countless posters and flyers saying “Keep Amy Coney Barrett off Campus.” On October 16th, metal barricades and vans of police and security officers announced her forthcoming arrival. Before I continue, a disclaimer: despite my best efforts, I did not obtain a ticket to the 2023 Stein Lecture, and therefore cannot report on the actual event itself. I can tell you why, however, I believe that Amy Coney Barret deserved to be met with protests and why I also wanted to attend her lecture.

In the past, the Law School’s Stein Lecture has brought a number of Supreme Court justices to campus including Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2014, Antonin Scalia in 2015, Sonia Sotomayor in 2016, John G. Roberts Jr. in 2018, and Elena Kagan in 2019. It is not unprecedented for the university to invite a Supreme Court justice to give a lecture, including conservative justices such as Antonin Scalia, who used his lecture to endorse a strict, literal interpretation of the constitution (“Scalia Defends Originalism”).

I do not see the university inviting Justice Barrett as an endorsement of her views or her actions on the Supreme Court, but as simple recognition of her position as a Supreme Court justice of considerable influence. Regardless of whether or not her appointment as a Supreme Court justice brought you to tears, as it did me, her experiences as a Supreme Court justice are instructive. One can both despair at the recent decisions of the Court and be interested in the legal philosophies of its justices.

Beyond Amy Coney Barrett’s invitation to campus, it is also not unprecedented for justices and judges to be met with protests on college campuses. This spring, The New York Times reported on the heckling of Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan by the students of Yale Law School. Like Justice Barrett, Judge Duncan is a Trump- appointed judge with a decidedly conservative judicial history. Antonin Scalia, too, was occasionally met with protests on his university circuits. Justice Barrett, whose appointment to the Supreme Court was particularly disheartening, should not be exempt from this precedent. Barrett was appointed to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, an adamant supporter of women’s rights; she was the third Supreme Court justice appointed by Trump, who was able to appoint the most judges to the Supreme Court since Ronald Reagan (Gramlich); and she is a relatively young justice of only 51 years who may now serve a lifetime appointment. In her term, Amy Coney Barret has contributed to decisions that are of critical importance and special interest to college students. In particular, on June 29, 2023, the Court ruled on the case, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, against race-conscious admissions. That same day, the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost issued an email to UMN students assuring students that the university will remain committed to inclusion in admissions and had been preparing for the possibility of the ruling for several months. In doing so, the university acknowledged the concern the ruling caused students and that it could potentially challenge the university’s methods of promoting diverse admissions. Also of note to students, the Supreme Court rejected President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan in June. In the next couple of years, the Court is also expected to rule on the validity of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

I wrote this in the shadow of Johnston Hall, listening to the speeches and chants of the ACB Protest. It was well organized with banners, signs, and marshals prepared to de-escalate potential conflicts. Attendees and speakers expressed their support for abortion rights, Dreamers, affirmative action, and their own right to protest. It is only just that Amy Coney Barrett be met with constitutionally protected protest as it is her job to uphold and interpret the Constitution. I do not, however, condemn the decision to invite Barrett as a guest lecturer. The several hours she spends on campus are of no significance compared to the twenty odd years we can expect to have her on our Supreme Court. Her presence can hopefully be instructive both for those who attended her lecture and for those who organized and protested against it.