Transcripts For CSPAN2 Philippa 20240705 : vimarsana.com

Her books include lewis and its brandeis, published in 1984, nominated a Pulitzer Prize when the nazis came to skokie in 1999. And women in the barracks, published in 2002, about Bader Ginsburgs most Important Supreme Court gender equality opinion, a frequent lecture at home and abroad. She is also the recipient of a prize for scholarly writing about the supreme presented by then chief william rehnquist. And i had the pleasure of cochairing washington history seminar a number of years ago when she stepped in to replace christian when he was on sabbatical from the Wilson Center. Today, philip will be talking about her just published book on account of sex Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the making gender equality law. Philip, welcome back. I should say to the washington history. Great to have you here. The screen all yours. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you to even though youre not here today, christian and let me echo the to pete and rachel who really make this whole thing work. And also particularly thanks to professor schirmer for stepping in and doing this, that kind of expedited basis, i know is not easy, but were really very, very grateful to you. All right. That being said let me jump right in here and tell you first why it is that. Why it is that i wrote this book and what its about and we in this country now have come almost to venerate Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And my thesis is certainly not original with is that while she was a good judge and a very good justice, she wasnt super in those job. She was an out of the ordinary. She was in head and shoulders above a lot of her predecessors. But what did make her special was the litigation that she undertook for gender equality in the 1970s. And what i try to do in the book is lay out, as it hasnt been laid out quite this way anywhere else is exactly what all of that consisted of, which i start with the cover of this book, not just because its a commercial but because i want you to see what she looked at look like back in those days. I mean, we think of her as, you know, with a big glasses and this visual color, but she was in absolutely stunning, stunning women. She was raised in in. Oh, okay. There we go. She was raised in an immigrant family in brooklyn, went to the brooklyn Public Schools and then went to cornell on a full scholarship. This is a picture of her there while she was there, she met the man who became her husband. So her name was, not what it had been initially, which was Joan Ruth Bader and became Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And the reason there was no joan in her name is when she started Elementary School in brooklyn. There were so many joans in her class that it was decided she to drop that name. So she became ruth bader. She and her husband marty ginsburg, both went to harvard law school. But when ruth went, she was of nine women in a class of almost 500, she rose to the very top of her class. And this is a picture of the staff meeting the students at the harvard review. And as you see of all of those there were only two women. Ruth, all the way over and the right. It was a very male Centric Society that she lived in when she got of harvard law and then law school because her husband was one year ahead of her in law school. He got a job in new york city, and so she switched to columbia. And so actually she got her degree from Columbia School when she did that and was ready to what people at a chapter four class, which she was again normally did, which is go to work as a clerk for a judge or justice. She discovered that basically nobody wanted women and particularly nobody wanted women. And even more particularly, nobody wanted married women with a child, which what she had by that time and. So through a circuitous route, she eventually ended up teaching at this law school. Now, this is the 1960s. Most of her students were men, but there was gradually a Critical Mass of young women, many of whom had come and they knew women movement, and they asked her if she would consider doing something that was revolutionary and that was teach a course in women in the law. She been teaching civil procedure. She didnt really know about women in the law. She well, let me look around and as she told it, Read Everything there was to read on women in the law and there was very little. So it didnt take her a great deal of time. However, what she did discover was all pretty negative going back to the 19th century, she discovered the first time the Supreme Court had spoken about the or the inequality of women was in the case of Myra Bradwell, where bradwell was married to an attorney. She became very interested in the law and she started what quickly became the nations newsletter about law and decisions that had been handed down by various courts. And at some point she decided that in addition, writing about the law, she would like to practice law. So she did what most people did, wanted to become lawyers back in those days when there are relatively few schools, she read law with her husband and then took the bar exam and sent with flying colors and then did what was the appropriate thing, which was apply to a court of illinois, which credentialed people for the bar. And she discovered the Supreme Court when we said, no, you cant become a lawyer youre a woman. We dont believe that then. Well, she thought that this was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which was passed at the end of the civil war. And this is just the relevant part of that amendment which says that states cant deny anybody the equal protection of laws. And she said, im not getting equal protection if im not being charged or credential on the same basis as men in her case they eventually went to this group of gentlemen and of course, gentlemen, is the relevant word here. Theyre white men looking very solemn. And what they told her was, no, no, of course, you cant become a lawyer and were going to decide this case on the basis of something called rational racial, non now rational, basically is a standard by which the court said is there possible way that we consider we can consider this to be rational and their answer was yeah, its very rational to keep women out of the court room because after all what do you get in the court really, get all the ugliness of human. We dont want women to be exposed to that. So the state of illinois, in its wisdom saying women cant be of the legal profession, very rational and very constitutional couple of years later we get Virginia Minor who decided she wanted to vote in the president ial election. She went to register herself and mr. Harper said who was the registrar said, of course you cannot vote. Youre a woman. And so virginia minus the same thing that Myra Bradwell done, that this was a violation of the protection of the laws. And here you had gentleman of the court who heard her case and again, where they said was, please, lets not be ridiculous. Women can vote or as Bader Ginsburg would say, many later, they said to Virginia Minor you wouldnt let children vote you. So why would you let women vote. Well thats, 19th century it may seem like. History 1948 right after the end of the Second World War and goes it had a bar in michigan from her. Now during Second World War, many of the bars in michigan as elsewhere in the United States, were run by women because men were brought faded. The men came back and of course they wanted to take over again. And the michigan Bartenders Association got this date to pass a law that a woman could not work in a bar unless she was the wife or the daughter of the owner. And what they said to the michigan legislature, why law was being considered was alcohol makes enough trouble, why it went into the mix. And so valentine goes that told no you cannot run the bar well that 1948 may seem a long time ago. Lets skip to 1961 and i assume some of the people who are watching this program can remember being. In 1961. And here we have the case of gwendolyn boyd, Gwendolyn Hoyt was a battered woman what we would today say is a victim optimistic violence. And at one point she arguing with her husband, took one of their children a broken baseball thats been kind of whacked him with it thinking she she hit him on the shoulder. She didnt she hit him in the head. He was rushed off to the hospital. He died and she was convicted of first degree murder, sentenced to 30 years in prison. She was convicted an all male cherry. And so she or a lawyer put the case, the Supreme Court of the United States saying this is violation of equal protection, as well as the fact that she had not gotten a jury of her peers. Well, heres the court that heard her plea sitting in the middle. We have one of the great Civil Liberties chief justice earl ward, to his his left. You get another great libertarian, felix frankfurter, all the way over to our left. You get william douglas, another one of the great civil libertarians. And what they said unanimously, all of those civil libertarians agreed, of course. Yes, it was perfectly rational to keep women off a because again, just like business of putting women in a courtroom youre going to hear all kinds of nasty things besides which women are still the bulwark of the home. They need to be home care of their husbands and their children. It would be really unfair to them to expect them to sit in a jury room. So this is what we. Bader ginsburg found when looked at the history of women and law in the united. And then in 71, she learned about case of sherry reed. Sally reed was a divorced woman in the state of idaho when she and her husband divorced. They as the parents of a teenage boy named skip, were told that she could have custody, a skip, but he had to spend weekend with his father, which he did. He didnt particularly get along with his father and his fathers new family. And one in particular weekend, skip hall family and big trip to take him home. And she said, my hands are tied. Nothing i can do. The court said your father had, in effect, custody of you on the weekends . Skip totally distressed, went down to the basement of his fathers house, took his fathers rifle and killed himself. And sally devastated a fly to become of skips estate. Not because there was anything in it in particular. He was just a teenage, but because she held her exhusband responsible for skips death. She didnt want him to have skips things gradually, the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court where Ruth Bader Ginsburg, well, her very brief that went to a federal court of United States. This is the way showing we found the idaho statute that was relevant here so that if a woman and, a man applied to be executor automatically the man is named executive. The court doesnt even to look any further. Well, Ruth Bader Ginsburg now for the first time putting something the Supreme Court of the United States realized that she had to fathoms one way the rational relation test. How to move from the rational relation to something else. And the second was how to persuade the justices still an all male court had to persuade the justices of the United States that stereotyping men and women hurt women, but also hurt men. Heres the first page of the brief that she and male will always legal director of the aclu, handed to the court. And im showing to you basically because i want to look at the hand of that brief where her name is listed right under her name are the names pauli murray and dorothy canyon. And those were two up at that point. The members of the aclu National Board of directors who had pushing and pushing and pushing for years for the aclu to get more active in the field of womens rights. Pauline. Mary, i dont know whether any of you have the documentary that produced fairly recently about pauli murray, an extraordinary woman when murray was a law student at howard rice school, she suggested that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment could used. Right. Shes back the thirties. There could be used to fight racial equality. And at that point her professors and everybody else laughed at her much later, when Thurgood Marshall was writing his brief for brown versus board of education. He relied rather heavily on what pauli murray had argued way back when. All right, so the brief goes to the Supreme Court and ginsburg puts her brief. Is this remember, her first challenge was how to get rid of the rational relation test, which he says is to the justices. They want you to decide on the of such big classification. Now, what is the Supreme Court had been doing for some decades was to say if a law distinguishes between people on the basis of race, we are going to assume that that law is unconstitional therefore be up to the government to prove not only is it constitutional, but it is in the service of a legitimate purpose. And theres no way to get there so that the government a compelling intert in that. So now all of a suddeth government has to that a law is constitutional. Well said. Thats what be done in the instance of sex as well as race race. She saying you see here, its really the same thing. Its people who have been discriminated against then she has in her briefs and im just going to quickly show you some pages of, her brief, because i think of us have a notion of reasons being one, the citation, one precedent after another, a legal treatises and tells what she did was she gave the court page after page of statistical information sociological treatises, feminist books, basically all geared to the second challenge that she had, which does show the court that two things it supposedly being good for women, like keeping them out of the court room actually hurt. But her argument be they hurt men. Well, stereotyping hurt men as well as women. So as you see page after page of such citations, heres the court that was going to hear the case. Now two of the justices of the supreme had had resigned in their successors, had yet been confirmed to the court. So its a court of only seven, its still on there, but up in the right hand corner, you Thurgood Marshall. So there was one non white person on the court, Thurgood Marshall, having appointed by lyndon johnson. And what that court was. No, were going to go so far i suspect classification thas a little bit farther than were to go right now. But were going to redefine rationalelation test and were going to say that not only must a distinction among people in a law be reasonable, it cant be arbitrary. And this got to be a real to the object of the law. And what it thisakof sally reeds case. Well, the answer was if the purpose of the law is to find the best executor then the court should look at all the people are pitioning to executor and not make an arbitrary decision. Based on the 6a1 of the people who asked be executor. So we have a slightly different test now for six discrimination cases. At that point, the american Civil Liberties union decided to begin a on womens rights that would be devoted to fighting against sex discrimination. And it asked rbg to become the director of. The project at the same time Columbia Law School as she would like to teach there because columbia we now in 1971, columbia had just discovered that, oh, there are a lot of women who want to become law professors and there are a lot of women students. Also, theres this federal government that thinks we really shouldnt be discriminating in our hiring. And so really, we want to hire women. And so she just agreed that she would half time at the womens rights project and have time at Columbia Law School. And so it was his head of the womens rights project that she would take the cases that she brought to the court over the next decade and that gradually led the court to declare that discrimination was somewhat suspect. Im not going to go over all of the cases that she brought, but i want to focus on one because it shows exactly the way she went about her business. This is even. Wiesenfeld stephen and louise in fear was a consultant. He was married to Paula Wiesenfeld, who was a High School Teacher and. As a High School Teacher, she had paid her partner for salary into the Social Security system. When the decided that they finally wanted to have family, all of that pregnant and tragically all died in childbirth, giving birth to jason paul well, stephen had always said she be the primary caretaker because he had a very flexible as far as did not know. So she was making most of the money in the family. He wanted to have the primary responsible now for raising jason paul which meant that he had to have some sort of income because he could only work part time if she was going to take care of jason paul. And so he applied for what were called social child care payments, which went to a surviving spouse. And what he was told by the Social Security system was no child care payments go only to widows not widowers, because, of course, a white man would want to stay home, take care of his kids. So you get stereotyping of men as well as stereotype raping of women. And what i did was she taking this case to the court which she argued before. The court heres the first part of the transcript of her argument. What she did was typical of all of her cases. She said to the justices, okay, re going to look at the l like remember what law law is about. The val ud in a society adapt in dealing with human beings. So i want you, the justices, to remember that were dealing with human bein here. And thats why she starts by talking about steven wiesenfeld and Paula Wiesenfeld and jason paul wiesenfeld. And whelan, the whole the court says, yeah, theres something there. It was the and only time that the court found that initially in favor of an argument against a law, it just eliminated against them the basis of discriminating against any and women on the basis of race. But they couldnt agree on what the basis was. So you get one group of justices saying this is a womens rights case, another one, mens rights, another one, childrens case. And as we said among them, they covered all of the bases. Well, she went on from there to argue other cases and as as i said, im not going to go over these in any detail i can in the q a if anybody is particularly interested. But basically, again, Social Security regulations and then a number of cases where she managed to get rid of the automatic jury exam shoes for women. But not for men, and thereby, in effect, im doing the decision that had been handed down the case of gwendolynlo floyd, just to show you what attitude was of some of the justices, at least in in arguing about in one these jury cases where a man had been convicted by an all jury, you know, a situation where women any woman could say, im a woman, therefore i dont want to sit on the jury. And ruth said, well, thas like saying theres an automatic exemption for any and you were y black. The judge rehnquist thinking es just that ha ha momt said, oh you wont settle of putting Susan B Anthony in the gaery. Then. D the court erupted in so she may have been winning some of these cases but there was still an attitude that was not quite what she would have liked it to be. By the time she gave up her litigating career, which was in 1980 when president jimmy carter appointed her to the d. C. Circuit of appeals. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had become the to person in gender discrimination cases. And not only did take all of the cases that are listed here, she wrote endlessly for law reviews and for more popular outlets because she felt that educating population was part of the struggle, that she was part of. Well, she stayed on the d. C. Circuit of appeals until 93, when president bill clinton appointed her to the Supreme Court of the United States. Then, as she said frequently, she was number two. She was at number one because Sandra Oconnor had preceded her on the Supreme Court in 1996. The court heard a case that from this august institution and those of you who were based in Washington Area may recognize this. This is your Virginia Military academy, a state sponsored school which had never in your 250 year history, never a woman, and saw no reason do so now a case brought and again on the basis of equal clause and the case was brought to the Supreme Court of the united there, she wrote the Court Decision that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and in her decision for the court and, it was 7 to 1 decision and Justice Scalia dissented it and interestingly enough, justice one of the one of the other justices recused himself because he had said whis it, vmi in the opinion that r. B. She wrote what she did . She laid down a new doctrine which was that a gender discrimination case comes to the Supreme Court. They will look at the relevant law with skeptical scrutiny and will wait to see whether the government can come up with an exceedingly persuasive justification for the law. So she didnt quite get the court to go all the way to such that classification. But the court was no longer deciding on the basis of rational relation it had moved. You see to substantial since object and now skeptical scrutiny and exceedingly persuasive justification. So what she had done in decade of litigation if she had managed to change the basis for decisions and she had managed convince the justices of the United States that stereotyping and putting men and in different silos actually was not only not a good idea, but a violation of the united age constitution. And as step at this point and look forward to your comments and questions. Thank you. Before i introduce our discussant, let me remind you that you can start in the queue if you have questions. The raise hand allows you to pose your question directly to our panel and to the broader audience. If you use the q a function, you write question in and i get to read it. So we prefer that you the question yourself, but its your choice. But you can start getting in the queue now all our discussant this afternoon is elizabeth tandi schirmer and associate professor of history at Loyola University in chicago, where she teaches courses on labor, politics and capitalism. She has written about those topics in various op eds in academic and scholarly books, which include sun belt capitalism, published in 2013, edited such as Barry Goldwater and the transformation of american politics 2013 as well. The right and labor, a 2012 volume are coedited i did with Nelson Lichtenstein and recently her with Harvard University press is. Imprint indentured, which came out in 2021 in which was the subject of a washington history seminar here zoom. Shes currently finishing a book on the Public Private character of american higher education, tentatively the business of education. And she is no stranger to the washington history seminar, having served as a discussant a number of times. And we are delighted that able to join us this afternoon on. Very short notice so highly. Welcome back. The zoom world yours. Thank you. And first and foremost, always thanks to the people behind, the seminar, not just eric but also rachel wheatley, who does that behind the scenes work that this seminar possible including enabling me at the very last minute to substitute commentator. I do know, in fact, seeing in the audience that theres many people whose whose expertise aligns even better, this wonderful book im delighted to take part in the seminar as an author, audience member and commentator there. But in this case, to have a chance to on phillips strong new and very timely book on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So for me it was a great opportunity as. A historian coming out of subfields of u. S. Labor capitalism policy, where i endeavor bring intersectional now justice, my research and analysis and in cases to book. What is it about the laws and policies that have left women particularly women of color with more debt, but also was an important opportunity. As someone who teaches topics and this eminently readable book is also an important resource, especially, i would add in recent years when ive had students their rbg paraphernalia to but also stay after class to ask me questions about the supreme use of the shadow docket to let the texas abortion law stand and then hearings on the dobbs decision. And ill take a moment here to credit strom for explaining so eloquently in her book why Ford Foundation Money Limited what the womens rights could actually pursue. Ginsburg work on the abortion cases. But did it did take up very important pregnancy cases and wish i had this book last year and ill bring it to my students intent on law school about after thanksgiving break. First and foremost, strom has done hard work of showing the power and the importance of that of the work ginsburg did in the 1970s, decades before she would become a mainstream feminist and legal icon and, whats so vital about that argument . Strom shown is the work it takes get a case to and to make it compelling far better than the recent biopic which she mentioned. And even that ocean biopic. But the two part documentary that she mentioned, one of the most vivid talking heads from that documentary was one of the male commentators describing the work that ginsburg did in the seventies as knitting together her jurisprudence about sex discrimination and that metaphor that she reportedly used as well. But far more powerful quote that strom used ginsburg ever since that quote real change, enduring change happens one step at a time. Quote and ginsburgs open admission that she looked to thurgood use of Building Blocks to get the court to declare eventual fully separate but equal uncrossed to channel what strongs chapters powerfully show in this critical full decade in was jurisprudence. These steps or Building Blocks might seem small Like Air Force couple ruled eligible for after the woman in marriage had left the service. But those inches mattered and there would be a case that seemed to push the cause of gender equality a step back like the 1974 it before, and gold gilded cases that established the male employee, the paradigm worker strong like ginsburg never lost sight that peoples lives were also part of the cases listed in rulings. Amicus briefs and footnotes so strums attention to ironwood air force captain struck. Given the choice of leaving the service or terminating her pregnancy before the roe decision or the widower. Stephen, why . Feld simply asking the access to child care resources a widow would have had under Social Security act, and they meant something both to as a person, not just a lawyer, just as much as the outcomes did to real people facing the gender discrimination that ginsburg stressed throughout her career harmed both men and women but another truly refreshing of streams new book is she stresses that ginsburg was the only person, never even the only woman lawyer advocate advancing the cause of womens rights or fighting sex discrimination. And thats important for the dangers of the personality cult that developed in the last years of ginsburg life. Responsible for my students tshirts and narrowing our to ginsburg, the Supreme Court leaving out the work she did as a professor and lawyer with both her students, other including men and women and and creating a personality cult that actually seems at odds with how ginsburg carried herself in the world. Ive heard Dahlia Lithwick describe her new book lady justice as telling the story of all, quote, baby ginsburgs fighting to save democracy now seems both an affront to the kind mentorship stream shows ginsburg, providing an infantilizing legal icons like sally yates, Stacey Abrams and anita hill. But that narrowing also erases the history of the many fronts in the many struggles for gender equality, let alone equity and inclusion. So what happens when the public, the press and academy focus on one person . We collectively an understanding of the many people actions involved for lasting change. So in sterns book includes legal icons Dorothy Kenyon and Pauli Murrays pressure and argument for the aclu to actually start out the womens rights project that ginsburg joined, as well as the many other attorneys affiliated with the aclu or starting at other organizations like the southern law center. And it also includes the ordinary people brave enough to stand up and demand their rights in courts like divorced mother sally reed, who lost her son to suicide. And it was as strong emphasizes as the people willing to protest in other, including in the streets that establish the context to inspire ginsburg and set stage for the womens rights projects and organizations case cases to even be heard before the court, let alone make those incremental legal steps forward and sometimes backwards. Yet the narrative that strand us of ginsburg and other lawyers this decade also raises important questions for all of us not just strum to consider when a covid 19 pandemic revealed, the stark inequalities that have persisted and even worsened since the 1970s, which now retrospect seem to have ushered in decades of political stagnation, as well as worsening inequality. Is there something to learn about the steps made or, as ginsburg them the half and confusing rights achieved that can help us understand why since the early 1990s, women have been more to go to and graduate college as well as be the sole breadwinner or equal contributor to household income. Yet women still earn pennies on the and it cannot be stressed enough. Women of color earn even less than white women and they were drinking it the first to leave the workforce and ones to struggle to find their way back in. And considering the challenges especially women of color face does streams gripping account of the legal fights before the Supreme Court actually show us the limits of courts power . Strong it shows that ginsburgs time in sweden inspired her jurisprudence, especially the context of parental leave for mothers and fathers and providing childcare. Early experience in sweden in, the u. S. There was limited childcare during the war, too, and a dedicated push at the federal level for care in the 1970s. But the best ginsburg could do and it was important, was successfully fight for widower Stephen Wiesenfeld to be eligible for the limited support in the 1935 Social Security act. It would have taken an act of congress to establish that support for everyone. And of course, it childcare as well as elder care provisions, never got through a deeply divided congress. In the biden administrations first two years, even though they were priorities in the build back better agenda. But another helpful aspect of streams to understand the persistence of inequality. How much ginsburg was focused on ensuring 1935 Social Security acts many were open to men and women equally that offers a helpful reminder that the law that that law Social Security act and other signature new deal achievements like the federal and wagner acts had together supported the idea of a family wage for a male head of household long before the 1970s the floor and could double the cases. And as so many historians and, eventually social scientists have emphasized, the white male worker was the focus. So in understanding the purposes of widening inequality, can we think of the built in limitations of achieving equality . And actually by trying to open up the benefits of a Social Security safety to more people when even in 1930s it was designed to only be for some and then not enough, just a supplement to what employers offered. And that highlights how basis of this countrys entire safety net. What other treat as basic Citizenship Rights has remained tied to full time work in specific of the formal labor market, hence making the time off for care of either children or elderly. A real challenge. How important employment was. Underscores why ginsburg and other lawyers were so focused on discriminate on the job, not just Government Support programs. But here ginsburg victories and defeats in the 1970s raises the questions of the strategy civil rights organizations pursued after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Scholars the rights era no longer just emphasizing illiteracy as found in the black Panther Party and snick. But actually the fights in the courts actually enforce the law. However, labor and legal historians noted an important shift in pursuing collective rights in the to individual rights in the sixties even though there were important limits on who would benefit from the 1935 wagner and Social Security acts. They nevertheless put an emphasis on the collective good, the collective rights. Yet the 64 Civil Rights Act focused on the discrimination and individual face it and business interests detest the potential power of the federal government to meddle in decisions of hiring and firing. Yet, as an attorney later noted, executive soon found it a lot cheaper to handle an individual case of discrimination than raise their entire workforces wages by 1, something a union would be empowered to bargain and actually enforce. I thought a lot about that question of enforcement when strom quoted justice brennan, who noted general rhetoric, one of the most aggressively antisunni firms in the postwar period, had, quote, a history of practices that were served to undercut the Employment Opportunities for women. Its a powerful reminder of how much power remained in the hands employers who could find cheap to comply with the law when the ordinary men and women ginsburg represented struggled to afford the requisite to enforce it, even the seventies. Cost especially a barrier to plaintiffs of color. Hence the need for the southern poverty law center, the postcivil rights era. And i bring that up because strom emphasizes ginsburgs to get sex or gender to treated as a suspect category like race. And that was a challenge there no differences between the races but biologically women not men, could become pregnant. Something strom highlights very helpful in the book, but there seems missed opportunities for ginsburg to take to have taken what we might call an intersectional approach. Yes, Kimberly Crenshaw introduced the phrase in 1989 to describe the intersection of race, class and gender. And of course, there are many more categories that we use now. But ginsburg took inspiration from Dorothy Kenyon and polymerases path. Pathbreaking article, jane crow strum emphasizes ginsburg is searching for the right cases to bring to the court, sometimes being derailed what she got. But in her search to show how sex discrimination impacted men was she unknowingly unintentionally letting her gaze, i bring up the search for the right cases made. Me think of polly murray, a black who would use him pronouns in correspondence. She was not the right case to get the to try and fight to enroll. And you once sees law school in the late 1930s, she was not the right case to be the face of a bus boycott like rosa parks or to get credit until years later for the legal thinking behind. Marshalls argument and brown. What could have happened . One of the perfect cases had been to protect an africanamerican womans right to decide what to do with her pregnancy listed, or if it had been a latino widower seeking the Child Support he needed. Could that have helped . Both show how the intersections between race, sex and class made them all suspect categories while simultaneously shifting perceptions on who was guaranteed bodily autonomy and the basic employment that other countries treat as basic Citizenship Rights. The first Social Security cards all have a place for workers signature. So all in employment. But since then, back Social Security, its most wellknown provision, remain the public pension benefits. In fact, its in the press, Social Security. And one things about the pensions and those were raised within lifetime to 70 and a half. Thats when you have to start taking your benefits and Financial Adviser tells you to wait as long as possible. One of the reasons those pensions included in the Social Security act was to get Older Workers at the labor market, which both reflects the male of household whose wages could keep his wife and children out of labor force, especially after child labor was made illegal, but also to limit the competition for a part of the way that new dealers of a labor market where with the education provisions originally in new deal for college meant that workers, mostly men, would only competing for jobs between the ages of 25 and 65. The point was to make provisions for people to be able to retire and open up opportunities for the next generation. I raise that point because i behind my enthusiasm for trump to hire. Like the importance of the legal work ginsburg did in the seventies, especially since it raises so questions for scholars of policy and capitalism to consider. And they are arguably absolutely more important than the votes on the court as a justice. But other legal experts have noted that ginsburg biography ends with her decision not to retire. She is one of the oldest justices. She was not, to me, one of the oldest justice democrats had a super majority in congress in obamas first year. But she had a very important vote. She had an important place in court. She, like many of us, could not predicted that Mitch Mcconnell would refuse to even hold a hearing to consider Merrick Garland examination. However, by the 2000, when George W Bush nominated the very Young John Roberts to succeed rehnquist, it was no longer true that quote, elevation to the nations highest court normally comes with a capstone of attorneys career, not the beginning. Thats how explained why a young ginsburg faced nine old men at the bench. And, of course, after borks failed nomination, we could not never see these nominations as anything but political. Ginsburg could not have known she would die, of course. Like her opera buddy scalia before an election. But i wonder how secure on paper and in practice the confusing rights, as she call them, that she helped secure in the seventies are now both because of the current composition of the court, but also continued efforts to undermine the many news protections anchored to employment in the formal labor market, not the gig economy that so many citizens of color, immigrants, especially women, find in. 50 years from now, could someone argue ginsburg decision not to retire helped unravel the work that she and other attorneys had done in the seventies . And i ask that because it is a of the question my students asked me after class while wearing their rbg tshirts and the next time they do, ill point them to strongs. That points to the many people, not just a singular person that it took to take women from no rights, to have rights to confusing rights in the seventies. Thank you. Thank you so much, elie philippa, would you like to respond to that before we open it up for questions . Well, just a couple of quick things and thank you so, professor shaw, but i mean, thank you. That is actually just right on point and wonderful. Just i think it was absolutely right of you to emphasize the societal situation in which all of this happened and the rpg insistence on giving credit to other women and bringing other women into the mix because she certainly didnt she said she couldnt do it alone. But also, i think the way you talk about the limits deployed, that thats so very important. And it is one of the things that she understood, which is why she was tireless in joining boards of other organizations, writing them, is that if you read Nina Totenbergs recent book about dinners with me with one of the things that. Totenberg mentions is that chico hall gave rpg back in the seventies when ruth was talking about the equal protection clause, protecting women and as well as ratio minorities and. Ruth spent an hour. According to totenberg. Ruth spent an hour on the phone with her explaining that whole. Well, that was typical not only because she would talk anybody who was really interested, but because she understood just talking to a journalist and a journalist would then be able to influence the public, perhaps. And that was quite as a context in which court would take place without an informed public. Youre not going to push the court to where it wants go, however brilliant your litigate may be. So she really did. She really did get it. One. Just one last word. She did try to take a couple of cases that involve black women and make the most striking was of a young woman, young black woman in the south who was sterilized against her wealth. What she was having a partial sterilization only years later when she tried to have children discover that she had been fully sterilized and was try to take that case to the Supreme Court. But the statute of limitations and the law that had made that possible had expired. And just couldnt happen. I dont know to what extent would be fair to say that ruth was less aware of the struggles of women in those years. I think she was well aware of them, if only because she had the mentorship of pauli murray. But again, none of that to take from any of your wonderful time, i will just throw in one last thing just referred to it, because i dont know, were confusing the audience because both you and i are using the word fix and gender almost interchangeably. And so this being one of my favorite anecdotes and initially when rb she brought cases she would talk about sex discrimination and her briefs were being typed by a secretary at the Columbia Law School. One day the secretary said to her, you know, you use the word six all the time and youre arguing all these men when. You say six. Theyre not thinking of what youre thinking. So why dont you use a different word . Why dont you gender. And thats why from then on, she was arguing against gender discrimination like sex discrimination. Eric, i think were ready for. All right. Thank you. We have a few people with hands up. Please feel free to join them, folks. Jill, norgren is first in the queue. Jill, if would unmute yourself. You may pose your question. Yes. Thank you. Thanks to both. Both women for terrific presentations. I wanted to ask flip strum about strategy and tie ning. If we go back to that old classic simple justice about the winning of africanamerican rights, theres discussion of sort of competing agendas among rights and organizations. Im to what degree . Ginsburg had any problems in terms of controlling her agenda, separate from the institutional issues posed by forge. Decision not only to fund certain kinds of cases. Thanks so thank you. Thank you for that question and. Jill norgren you may is not only a former Wilson Center fellow, but an author of fabulous books on womens history, including wonderful biography of baylor leftward. On the agenda question. Absolutely. She had a problem with it. I mean, first of all, as we both said, there were lots of other women. And at this point who were stepping up and litigating and the they brought cases. What cases they chose to bring the basis for cases. By and large, i couldnt control that. It was one of the reasons that she collapsed rated to the max with who was bringing cases in attempt to push in the direction in which she wanted to go. She had a very clear vision of what the step should be, where to train for. And she wanted keep going in that direction. But of course, as you know, the only of the six cases that she argued before the Supreme Court that she was was in a case called b, chevron, which a widower in florida who applied for a Tax Exemption that was available to widows and saying simply this is sex discriminate at the time he brought the case, he went to the aclu, florida, with the case and what the young lawyer were taking over the legal directorship of the aclu of florida didnt know was while aclu all over the country are free to bring whatever cases they want if those cases are going to go to the Supreme Court, they are supposed to be when supposed to check in first with national aclu. And the young man didnt know that. And so he appealed the case to the Supreme Court and it was accepted before. Rtg knew anything about it when found out. She was appalled because she understood she had read actually been bringing the justices along to the point where they were perhaps ready, say, if women arent treated equally, thats unfair. But now, here was a man coming along and saying and ive been treated unfairly by. The state of florida, were saying no, what were doing here is were helping women because history women havent earned as much. Men have. So if all of a sudden, they find themselves widowed. They need a little extra help from the state, whereas men do an rpg on this. Still. No, no, no, no no. Here, ive been saying no, youve got to treat people equally. And here we are being told now treat them unequally because. Its good for women. Just the same. It was good for women to be kept. That was the warriors offices or charities. And so she took the case because. At that point, the aclu felt it had no option but to go ahead with the case to have the best possible person argue it before the court. Thats she lost. It in part because william douglas, who wrote the opinion for the court, was the son of a mother who would widowed two young and family had become almost abjectly. And he understood the plight of widows and wrote a decision for the court in effect saying yes to treat women differently in this situation so that was more than a an indication of how little control over the agenda she had. Thank sunny michel. Your hand is up. Please unmute. Join the conversation a high clip of sounds a fantastic book. I cant wait to read it. And thanks very much, jules sherman, for her very interesting comments. I have a couple of questions. One is this clip. I didnt write it down, but i think you said something to the effect at the beginning of your talk that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasnt that extraordinary and. It doesnt it sounds like, in fact, given the obstacles she faced, she quite extraordinary. So i have a couple of questions about that. What to what extent you think she relied on her training her law School Training to what extent. Did she have to deviate from it . Did she do that conscious or did she just kind of set do what i have to do . And and, you know, so in other words, what is the relationship between the way she approached cases and what her training was . And by the same token, what kinds of obstacles im sure shed, say she did face . What kind of obstacles did she have to face teaching law women in the law at columbia. How much support did she get . I mean, hired her deliberately to do that. How much support did she get for her colleagues from her colleagues there . And then a second question has to do with you talked about relationship to her, her try to build, build gradually and bring people along and to find allies where she could. Obviously, when she was on the court, she couldnt you really relate that easily to the Womens Movement or to other allies or to congress for that matter. But in the time when she was at the aclu to how did she think about the womens role . Did she think, given that she became something of a gradualist . Did she think that the Womens Movement and of course, its not its not monolithic. Does she think that certain parts of the womens were maybe moving, moving too fast or being too radical or how does she think about that . Thank you. There are a number of questions there. Yeah, a number of questions. Thank you. So you just for anybody who doesnt know. I know you followed me as of the vision of us studies at, the Wilson Center. And i just wanted to. The great scholars of womens history. And your first is. Well, the big question about. I never said she wasnt extraordinary. I said i didnt. She was extraordinary as a justice, which is something different. And what i meant by that and i hope that did misspeak here, was that while she had a good, solid career, a judge in justice. It wasnt head and shoulders above everybody else that that alone would have gotten her the kind education that she towards the end life and relying on law school, the law School Training. Sure she did. But she also relied, as professor schirmer mentioned, on some of the litigators who went before, particularly Thurgood Marshall and the way went step by step in, bringing in cases. He also relied on Justice Brandeis and his insistence on bringing a sociological into his arguments before the Supreme Court. And she said basically that those were the two people who had most influenced her as put her litigation in. And the question is getting support from the Columbia Law School. I dont know what support she did or did not get for her colleagues. Certainly the law school itself support, her in the way it would any other white school professor, but more that in the way it agreed for her to be working part time for the womens rights project, but also in agreeing that she could use her course on women in the law. Her seminar on women in law. And as unpaid labor, if you will, for some of her cases. So that those students in her course who to work on her cases her were more than welcome to do so. And many of them became first rate litigators for gender equality themselves. In part that what she gave them intersection was an internship. I didnt find her relationship to the Womens Movement. An interesting question. She was and this may sound like a strange word she used in the context of rggi. She was basically conservative. She believed in the law, which is that conservative, is far as i know, she was never out on the streets in marches, anything of that kind. Not that she denied the validity but it just wasnt something that she wanted to do. And she certainly said various occasions that there were different ways about fighting for womens. And so i dont think she was scornful of either aspects of the Womens Movement, but neither was she necessarily involved in all of thank you. We have a number of questions in the q a and i will pose an early question from david sobel son and this is a little question perhaps. Did ruth Bader Ginsburgs advocacy make the equal rights amendment unnecessary . Oh, good heavens, no no. No and she was a very big supporter of the equal rights amendment merit. No no, if we had equal rights amendment, i cant say that would have done something for dobbs decision. But certainly what is it . Things that she said, professor schirmer mentioned the case that she brought frontier versus richardson, in which air force officer realized she wasnt getting the same benefits for her family that a man in her in his situation would have gotten. And once the decided in her favor that case, she said well, i thought it would just be a five year round after that so for legal equality. Well, it wasnt. And what said frequently was, well we needed the era. So certainly, as i say, she a fervent supporter of it. Thank you. Another small question, Elizabeth Ecker asks. We still have not paying women for unpaid labor. Women have more, but still do. Most of the unpaid labor. How could we solve this . And yes, this goes beyond scope of the book. I understand. But i think the book has opened up a number of very large issues. Thats perfectly true. And i wish i could give you an answer. Simple answer to that one, but i certainly can that. What do we do about unpaid . I guess the most we can do is talk about it endlessly and try to. Try to think the way many people already have about trying to quantify what unpaid labor is worth. I dont im not sure thats the right way to go about it. But i think what need basically a societal discussions about these things. But you as you say that is beyond the purview of law as such. Elizabeth, you had what i was thinking, too, is i mean, its such a complex question because goes to the question of enforcement and how is it that this could actually be and done. And thats a its a different aspect of it. But also think it goes to changing what is actually recognized labor, what is actually recognizes. And that to me it does come so foundationally back to that. No matter how much the labor market changed and industries have changed, this country, were still kind of rooted in this manufacturing mentality coming of the 1930s that mr. Duggal too, especially when i teach, asked my students what union is, the first thing they talk about is West Virginia miners when theyve all been Chicago School students and they have one of the most powerful unions not actually recognizing the many different labor around them. And maybe thats changing, but i think its a key aspect of it too, is and this is where i think the the power of philip. The point you made about when shes in sweden and seeing a recognition of parenting as work, Something Worthy of being supported, that seems a step forward, and especially now that were dealing with in this new era, the possibility of doing likelihood. Youre going to be doing elder care, of recognizing care as something that needs to recognized as work and supported for the good of society. And i think this is the challenge of how much were rooted in laws fought out in the 1930s that still are not freeing us to see the world that were living in now. So, son, you michel in the q a has added to this conversation and says, we should also think about the kinds of work that replace unpaid labor that is Domestic Work and care work, which is undervalued, unread related, etc. , etc. And then she closes with subject another seminar with a question mark. And i think is indeed the case. But would i be wrong in thinking that in terms of broader question that was posed by . Elizabeth ecker about unpaid labor. Im the gender division of labor in the home, that this is a realm, at least at this point in time, that is touched by law and that the approach that took addressed certain kinds of issues, but not other kinds of issues like this. And this gets back to the earlier question about social movements and ginsburgs role to social movements, but in this case, the role that social movements would that are different than the challenge through the Court Courthouse route. Would i be wrong in thinking that. Yeah, well, absolutely and youre right. I mean, what i was looking at the book obviously, is just one part of the whole story, which is that the court stuff. But as i said earlier, what happens in court reflects whats going on and a desire to but action societal movements and so discussions conversations in the society active perhaps some kind of large scale movement youre not going to get major changes in society and certainly remember there very well questions that we deal with today that. Ginsburg couldnt possibly have dealt with back in the 1970s. Again, what we do in terms of understanding our society and whats needed is incremental or evolutionary. There are things that we just didnt think of in the seventies that that, you know we think of now. So, yeah, lets all get out there and street story and writing about it and move gears here so. Joe luttrell asks a different kind question and asks you to compare or contrast the Supreme Court careers of Lewis Brandeis and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Oh, thats interesting. Okay. I would say that they both had a enormous impact on law. She more in the way law practiced because you may remember that. And i to this briefly that he emphasized sociological facts as the basis for and the basis for Court Decisions. And that was really, really when he did that at the very beginning of of the 20th century. What did was not so much change the kind of thinking procedurally went into court cases but what did was was confined to one very particular area of law and trying to change the thinking having to do with that area. But i would say im glad you chose brandeis and ginsburg and i think one would have to add Thurgood Marshall certainly as people whose preCourt Careers were infinitely more important than their Court Careers however important their Court Careers might have been. And i one could make the argument that brandeis, whose career was about really some great significance. However, they certainly i cant of anybody else off the top of my head. Maybe somebody else can. They strike me as the three whose free Court Careers are the things that really made their place in history. I was struck both in the book and in your slide that you showed early on of the material its part of her brief that ginsburg presented to the court and there was much law but there was like brandeis much not and there was a not insubstantial section from de beauvoir and the second sex too she really expected justices to read this and it wondering. No i dont think she expected there to head off to the library, hit all of the titles that she she listed. But think what she did. I think shes very successful this was she made them aware of the great number works that she could rely, the great number of that, if they chose them. What she wanted them to see and i just simply showed you the pages from the brief that list, all of those works. She used the arguing is for many of those works and the information and the statistics, etc. , for many of those works in, the body of her briefs, then. Thank you. Weve got two hands up and im going call on john martin first. But nelson, dont go away. So well get to you as soon as johns question is posed and addressed. John, welcome. Thank you very much. The liberal the wonderful book. Im so proud, be sitting next to you on seventh floor over the years and seeing the way that this book is put together as a journalist is a call myself a recovering journalist that you mentioned ten. Nina totenberg i wondered from your point of view, should journalists spend time trying to understand the law by talking to the principles in . It a lot of what Journalism Schools teach, and i try to for ten years at columbia, you cant get too to somebody because its just not right. I if the need example that to be incorrect. Yeah well i really mean to stick in a commercial for ninas book and and certainly i think what she says in book about her relationship with rbg raises ethical questions that troubling but certainly on the larger question of should journalists know more about law. Absolutely. And not just people who cover the Supreme Court or whatever that i think if journalists are interested more the law and the impact of work that they would be able to write somewhat more insight fully about what it is thats going on in society. Thank. Nelson lichtenstein calling in from the west coast. Nelson welcome. Go. Well the west coast is very for where cases lead time is his is turned off but were not hearing him. Nelson. Maybe he can put his question in the chat if very good idea ellie. Microphone problem. Never mind. Probably all right. Well i will be looking for your question in the in the q a nelson if you cant get that too to work this question be a little bit off of the topic. The book on gender equality but rubin patino asks about her decisions with regard to native american and tribal sovereignty, and he asks if you would elaborate on her what he calls american. Her notorious opinion in the native american sovereignty case. Is that part of the legacy that that may be too far afield from from your topic . But i invite you to consider it if you wish. Thank you. But i would have to go back to the decision and read before commenting. Okay, very good. I am wondering and this too might be a bit beyond what you focus on in the book, but you gave me a very. Spot on answer with regard to ginsburg ginsburgs relationship to movements and feminist organizing in. 1970s that that she was aware of this but she was not a participant in some of the more activist dimensions. So my question is, was there a critique by some of these movements that she was not a part of fully engaged in all the approaches that she took. I imagine there certainly was the way the court handled of these issues. But im wondering if ginsburg herself, as a attorney with the aclu on these cases, if there was a feminist critique of the way the law was being used . Well, there was certainly in one respect, and i this briefly in the book that in emphasis saying to the justices, the fact that women had to be treated equally and to teach them that what she did not do is look the instances where in order to be treated equally, have to be treated differently. And specifically and i it is a very great example of that is having time and space in a workplace for nursing mothers to be able nurse their children. You know, certainly that treating women differently. But is it necessary if one is going to treat them equally . And she was criticized for that. And yet she felt very strongly that whether or not she agreed that and she certainly did, i just a side here she set up a little Child Care Center in the aclu just for the people in the womens rights project so that they could bring their kids in particularly nursing babies to work with them. So she was well aware of that necessity. But what said frequently was that she had to give the justice the equivalent of a second grade education and that they knew nothing whatsoever about. That or how that status was hurt by the law or how fact of stereotyping men and women were hurting both. And therefore she with her eyes completely on the prize said ive got to keep showing them that women to be treated equally. Later on, perhaps we can talk about. Yes. To what extent does equality mean . Treating people differently. But this is what ive got to do now, and this is what im going to continue doing. Thank you. Glenda matthew is and is up unmute. Join the conversation. Glennon, can you hear me now . Yes. Great. I want to get back to the issue of women in care work. I have long felt too often its seen as individual matter of negotiating with a partner and. I think this is a great example of how collective action is needed. We need stronger unions. We need to organize more sectors of, the workforce, and we to make sure that women are in leadership positions in order for to negotiate. If people i have tech the tech industry, the working there are completely inhumane and if you have incredibly workdays nobody has energy for for care work and given think its such a good point. Elder care is going to take time. We need to have created that allow time for care work for its just going to be incredibly burdensome. Unfortunately, mostly on women. Kelly, do you want to comment . No, i mean, i, i completely agree with that. And actually, nelson put through his thing in the chat asking about ginsburg on unions. The ones that i know is that she cited with the liberal minority the last years of her life, like, for example, writing against the genesis. And so she did not that but theres one actually right before janice people got overshadow by the janice decision and i believe she might have actually read it but i didnt i wasnt prepared to take that. But i think is it she did but i think it is really those is going to just mentioned is it thats where the justice on the can only do so much and the lawyers representing including in the seventies can only do so much and much and it seems to me that was very powerful. Philippa in the book that you wrote about recognizing the bravery of, the people willing to come forward and actually and try and get their rights. Did you did that thats what comes to you. And also that youre going to need to go into the streets as well. Its a matter of. Thank you. Nelson also writes that he is and others are just off a big picket line out at the university of california. So there is a labor action going on. We are a sonia michelle, so this will be the last observation i share. She notes there is an important organization, Domestic Workers alliance, which is doing good work. But the issue is even more complicated because a lot of this is being performed by migrants or immigrants. Many of whom are undocumented because there is no visa dedicated to migrants who intend to do this kind of work, unlike, say, those who want to work in hospitality. I unfortunately have to draw this session to a close. I want to thank and ellie a great deal for this session. The book, i should point out, is eminently readable. It is work of legal, of a sort, but brings alive the end of visuals that ginsburg represents makes their stories quite vivid and addresses the larger legal strategies and precedents that ginsburg works very hard to establish. So its a very