trust is equated with wise governance,rnand ignorance is masked by the universalrncircus into which this kind of poHtics degenerates.rnLani Guinier places herself in thisrngrand tradition, and at the same time, byrnrepublishing an article that calls certainrnaspects of this legacy into question, confusesrnus as to her purposes. On June 4,rn1993, upon the withdrawal of her namernfor consideration for the position of AssistantrnAttorney General for Civil Rights,rnshe said, “I have always believed in onernperson, one vote,” and denied havingrnwritten anything inconsistent withrnthat principle. But in her essay “Groups,rnRepresentation, and Race-ConsciousrnDistricting,” we read that “the heavy reliancernon one-person, one-vote jurisprudencernto develop a theory of democracyrnfails both as a theory and as an adequaterndoctrinal protection of either individualrnor group rights.” This in the course ofrnlaying the groundwork for her argumentrnthat a “one vote-one value” systemrnshould be adopted in order to “achievernpolitical equality and political fairness.”rnGuinier’s goal in this context, she says, isrnto make voting “a positive-sum experiencernin which all voters actively participaternin selecting their representative.”rnOne of the ways she suggests we gornabout this “reform” is by adopting a “cumulativernvoting” system, letting all votersrnon local and state levels distribute arnnumber of votes among various alternativesrnas they see fit. By forming coalitionsrnand clustering votes, then, groupsrnwith strong enough and specific interestsrnin a particular political outcome wouldrnbe able to have at least a partial say in determiningrnpolicy and laws. Lani Guinierrnseeks “equal opportunity to influencernlegislative outcomes regardless of race.”rnThese arguments are based upon arnconviction that different ethnic groupsrnin the United States have a definite sensernof cohesiveness and that, for minorities,rnthis sense of belonging becomes frustratingrnwhen, at the polls, they constantlyrnfind themselves being outvoted. Representationrn”within territorial districts isrnimplicitly about representation of grouprninterests, not just individual access.rnHowever, the future of such group representationrn—like the future of the grouprnitself—^lies less inside geographic boundariesrnand more within the cultural andrnpolitical community forged by grouprnconsciousness and group identity. Empowermentrnfor a group as well as for anrnindividual comes from an active assertionrnof self-defined interests. A group isrnrepresented where it has the opportunityrnto speak out and not just to be spokenrnfor.”rnThese are legitimate concerns. Mostrnsignificant of all, the sociological foundationrnfor these concerns is a far morernaccurate depiction of American life as itrnis lived and experienced than the democraticrnglobaloney abstractions that thernheirs of Father Abraham and the LogotheternWoodrow would have us accept asrnfaith. Guinier’s concerns bring out, andrnbring out well, one side of the racial dividernthat is balkanizing America into littlernBosnias. For her efforts to suggestrnsome ways in which a sense of comityrnwithin the body politic can be reached,rnand people allowed a voice, Lani Guinierrnshould have been commended, notrnlynched, in the pages of the Wall Streetrn]ournal. Her nomination forced thernproblem of race in the United States tornthe front of public debate for a brief moment;rnand that moment, coming as itrndid in the wake of the L.A. riots and therncanonization of “motorist” Rodney King,rnwas more than America could take.rnThere should be no mistaking the directionrnin which Lani Guinier in JanetrnReno’s Justice Department would haverntaken America. For Guinier is not only arnstatist, but a statist with a moral mission.rnHer work is difficult to evaluaternprecisely because it advocates sensiblernprocedures to allow for a greater degreernof political participation and inclusion,rnwhile imposing the mechanism for establishingrnthis on an already malfunctioningrnsystem. For if anyone has a systemrnthat is designed to rake in thernboodle for them, it is the current holdersrnof official victim status in these UnitedrnStates.rnAll of which makes Lani Guinier’srnfundamental complaint more confusing,rnsince it has been largely to satisfy personsrnlike herself, namely Puritans in the pursuitrnof collective virtue, that we haverncome to this epoch in our national life.rnLIBERAL ARTSrnFAnil AND I’AIR HOUSINGrnLandlords in Provo, Utah, who rent apartments only to Brigham Young Universityrnstudents are discriminating against non-Mormons in violation of the federal FairrnI lousing Act, ACLU lawyers charged in a lawsuit filed last summer in Salt Lake City’srnU.S. District Court. By confomiing with BYU’s off-campus housing policy, whichrnstrictly segregates male and female tenants, the landlords are also discriminating onrnthe ba,sis of gender and family status, the complaint charged.rnMark Wilson, age 20, and Anne Walker, age 18, filed the suit against 12rndefendants, reported the Salt Lake Tribune. Both Wilson and Walker were recentlyrndenied housing because they are not BYU students; both charge that, since 99 percentrnof BYl.? students are Vlormon, their exclusion is effectively religious discrimination.rnNOVEMBER 1994/37rnrnrn