Professor argues need for new Constitution

By ROLLIN HU For The News-Letter

Professor Howard Schweber of the University of Wisconsin-Madison came to Hopkins to lead a discussion called “Has the U.S. Constitution Failed (and Do We Need a New One?)”.

On Constitution Day, Sept. 17, Schweber engaged students and faculty by arguing that the Constitution has failed and that there needs to be a new one. The University’s own Professor Emeritus Joel Grossman gave an opposing response.

Following an introduction by Beverly Wendland, dean of the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Schweber began his talk by describing the three basic requirements the United States Constitution needs to be a success.

He first said that the Constitution has to allow for people to govern themselves.

“It is an instrument of self-rule,” Schweber said.

Secondly, the Constitution must be able to channel conflict in a manner that allows decisions to be made despite dissenting opinions.

“The Constitution defines the system for the debate and the exchange of arguments to channel conflict to keep it from being utterly destructive,” Schweber said. Thirdly, a successful constitution has to create a vocabulary for defining the government’s framework. In addressing the third issue of creating a vocabulary for legitimation, Schweber points to the Constitution’s failure to provide language to create comprehensive political rules.

“The terms become the language we use to define whether what the government has done is legitimate. It’s a language that we share,” Schweber said. “The ability for the Senate to create its own rules has become awfully gameable. The system was begging to be abused, it just took a really long time for people to get around and actually do it.”

Schweber argued that the U.S. Constitution has failed all of these characterizations. Schweber shared examples of how the Constitution has failed as an instrument for self-rule. For example, primary elections are controlled by political parties who use the election to give preference to certain candidates so that he or she might be nominated for the general election.

Schweber used an analogy about ice cream flavors to portray this failure.

“If I set the agenda that you may only have chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream and those are your only choices, that’s not really what we mean by free choice to explore the buffet of the possibilities of ice cream flavor,” Schweber said.

Schweber also mentioned the gridlock in Washington, D.C.

“I’ll speak to point out that obviously our politics are viciously repetitive,” he said. “Many of the issues can be ascribed to polarization and the tendency for party extremes.”

Schweber concludes that the Constitution has ultimately failed the people, and the U.S. needs a new one.

“[The Constitution] is a horrible failure as a political document,” Schweber said. “To establish any kind of effect on self-rule and democracy and channeling conflict in a way that preserves the Democratic Party and ensures the stability of the institutions in face of deep divisions and providing a useful vocabulary for dialogue about the fundamental questions of what the Constitutional authority should be in our system... It’s time to change it, we need a new one.”

Professor Emeritus Joel Grossman followed Schweber’s speech with a response that questioned the practicality of rewriting a new constitution. He notes that there are significant faults in our current political system, but that does not mean that the Constitution must be rewritten.

“So I do think we are in very rough waters,” Schweber said. “But I don’t think the ship is sinking.” Grossman also points out the potential dangers of beginning a second Constitutional Convention.

“I do think a second Constitutional Convention might be too much of a burden for the system to bear,” Schweber said. “A new Constitutional Convention... is more likely to destabilize the system than perfect it.”

He makes this argument by saying that there are multiple sources of our political issues.

“The main set of factors that cause this dysfunction are not constitutional,” he said. “They are political and cultural and structural in our society.”

Students and faculty shared positive responses about the event.

Jared Mayer, a sophomore, noted how thought-provoking the speeches were.

“I thought it was incredibly informative,” he said, “Professor Schweber’s talk prompted us all to really reconsider our preconceived or deeply held assumptions about what the Constitution ought to be doing, and I think that is really fantastic for all of us here.”

Associate Dean of Student Life for Student Engagement Tiffany Sanchez, an organizer of the event, commented on the talk.

“I think it’s important for students to be aware of their context within history and connected to great scholars like this,” Sanchez said. I think the talk tonight was really great so I think exposing students to this kind of knowledge is amazing.