My mother used to tell me that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. It was her way of expressing the principle–much honored in the breach, I have since noticed–that the ends do not justify the means.
My mother used to tell me that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. It was her way of expressing the principle–much honored in the breach, I have since noticed–that the ends do not justify the means.
Constitutional lawyers may talk about "due process" and the rule of law, but what we really are talking about is following the rules and "doing it the right way." No matter how laudable the goal, if we break the rules to achieve it, we have done more harm than good.
Recently, the Indianapolis Star took the ICLU to task in an editorial decrying a lawsuit we have filed challenging the family cap provisions of the new welfare reform law. The basic thrust was that reform is needed (no dispute there!); that this provision will be effective (preliminary studies are conflicting, but maybe); and that we should therefore not challenge the method chosen to achieve the goal. A classic "ends justify the means" argument.
The same issue of the Star had a story in which Horizon House officials complained that the ICLU’s representation of some of their homeless clients had caused the city administration to throw further roadblocks in the path of their desired relocation. As readers of this column may recall, the City blocked Horizon House’s original move, despite the fact that it had no legal authority to do so–zoning was proper and regional center approval unnecessary under the terms of the ordinance. But the City decided that the rights of buyer and seller should take a back seat to its social goals. This is a frontal assault on property rights: how do landowners make investment decisions when government can ignore its own rules, and arbitrarily decide that some uses are not "appropriate"? Shall we give some city planner the right to decide that there are too many shoe stores on Main Street? Or do we demand that government officials follow their own rules?
The same issue has been raised recently by IPS parents, who have pointed out that IPS is not following its own procedures in assigning students to magnet programs. Administrators have cited a desire for racial balance. That is a goal we applaud–but not a goal to be achieved by setting up one set of rules for one group and other rules for others.
People of good will can agree that certain goals are desireable, yet disagree about the constitutionality of the methods of achieving those goals. The propriety of process is for the courts to decide. What is important is that someone is watching the means government chooses to achieve its ends.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do things–even good things.