Justice Has Many Different Sides

 One of the Law College's missions is to encourage students to "advance justice."

But be aware that no one ideological side has a monopoly on "justice" or  “social justice.” There are many sides of “social justice” and no one side—not progressives, not conservatives, not moderates—has a monopoly on social justice. Indeed, in many cases there are competing views of “social justice” on each side of the case. For example, when burdensome environmental regulations are imposed on the use of land, we may have a conflict between environmental “justice” on one side and protecting private property rights under the Constitution (economic “justice”) on the other. The same is true for most issues in constitutional law, whether abortion vs. the right to life or religious liberty vs. gay rights legislation.

Neither side is “right” and neither side is “wrong.” There are no ideological truths, just ideological opinions and arguments. There are also no non-debatable arguments.  Public interest lawyers are often involved on both sides, and again neither progressives nor conservatives have a monopoly on what is good policy and what is in the public interest.

Inclusive leaders in the law acknowledge this and recognize that the lawyers and parties on both sides of these cases are reasonable persons of good will. The cancel culture is anathema to inclusion and diversity.

Both conservatives and progressives should consider getting involved in public interest law and pro bono service. In other words, "social justice" means different things to different lawyers, and thus "social justice" law is for everyone.