Since 2018, a campaign group, ‘For Women Scotland’ (FWS), began a legal battle against the Scottish government “arguing that sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.” The contention of the Scottish government, on the other hand, was that transgender people who had been issued gender recognition certificate (GRC) should enjoy the same right as well. The suit proceeded to the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court for a proper interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act which is applicable within the British jurisdiction. Thus, in a historic judgement delivered recently, the highest court laid the controversy to rest by averring that the meaning of a woman as contained in the Equality Act pertains to those who are female biologically.
Without equivocation, the justices unanimously ruled that the legal interpretation of a woman is based on sex at birth. Though the ruling conceded that the word “biological” does not come into view in the Equality Act’s definition of man and woman, it however noted that “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.” Indeed, this is a classic example of how strong institutions put societies in check against the latest wave of perversion and presumptuousness, chiefly led by a section of the West.
In another vein, the ongoing brawl in the United States between President Donald Trump’s administration and the Harvard University is another demonstration of how strong institutions should not kowtow to the pomp of power. Trump bared his fangs and extended a crackdown on what he termed antisemitism evidenced in pro-Palestine protests in 60 schools around the country, including some Ivy-league universities. He ordered them to roll back programmes that boost diversity, equity, and inclusiveness, with immediate impacts on admissions and staff recruitment. He also demanded a reduction of the autonomy of faculties and the powers of campus administrators.
The demands came with big threats. Federal funding would be pulled back from any school that fails to comply. He had hit hard on Princeton, Cornell, and Northwestern universities by a mix of suspension of their funds and threat of outright cash freeze. Already, the Columbia University had deferred to some of President Trump’s orders to escape a cut back of her over $5 billion grants. But in Harvard, under the presidency of Dr. Alan Garber and Penny Pritzker, the Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation, Trump met an institution whose managers have the guts to challenge executive dictatorship.
Thus, in response to the letter to Harvard dated April 11, the institution through its attorneys, on April 14, reminded the US government of its efforts in fighting antisemitism and discrimination of all sorts and insisted that “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.” The letter indicated the willingness of the institution to dialogue and noted that it would “not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle” as “Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.” As would be expected, this was followed by the freezing of $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard by the federal authorities. The highhandedness made the over 200 representatives of American universities to accuse Trump of political interference.
Consequently, Harvard filed a suit in the US District Court in Massachusetts to stop the funding freeze. The three premises of the lawsuit include: “academic freedom, federal funding and campus oversight.” An excerpt from the lawsuit reads thus: “The Government has not—and cannot—identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.” So far, CNN had predicted that the matter may likely end in favour of Harvard “If the case were to end up at the Supreme Court, it would be heard by a bench that includes four Harvard alumni: liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, both conservatives.” The audacity and test of wills are underpinned by the belief in the law court to serve justice.
A similar scenario that brought the relevance of strong institutions in checkmating abuse of powers was the overwhelming rejection of the imposition of Martial Law in South Korea by its former president, Yoon Suk-yeol, in early December 2024. As a matter of fact, the country’s constitution requires the president to declare a martial law only during “war, armed conflict, or similar national emergency.” But in this circumstance, none of the specified conditions was witnessed. The arbitrariness gave Yoon away as a power drunk leader who was out to gag democracy, rule of law, and the fundamental rights of the citizens. Hence, there was a broad-based support to deal decisively with the ugly incident and preserve the sanctity of the rule of law.
The masses were on the streets. The civil society was vociferous in its condemnation. The police carried out fair and impartial investigations. And after indicting the president for “directing the military and police to obstruct the assembly from voting to overturn his decree; attempting to take over the National Election Committee; and arresting political leaders, current and former judges, journalists, and members of civil society”, the National Assembly overwhelming voted for Yoon’s impeachment. Months after, the Constitutional Court also upheld the impeachment.
The lesson from the foregoing is that the institutions: the law courts, the universities, and the parliament were very clear about their constitutional mandates and strived to protect them. The citizens were not docile but played their parts within the ambits of the law. The bigger takeaway is that institutions do not just become strong; they are strengthened by people who understand that societal survival begins with personal responsibility.