A View From the Bench
I received the following note from Judge Sharolyn Woods -- a state district court judge in Texas. She took strong exception to my statement here that "anyone who charges there is an element of 'sexism' in any of this discussion -- by anyone on any side -- is just wrong."
I despise spurious claims of sexism. But in evaluating the qualifications and fitness of a nominee like Harriet Miers, it's also wrong to dismiss the obstacles she and others confronted, especially when their professionalism really did result in the rest of us having choices that once weren't available (and especially when those obstacles may, as Judge Woods argues, account for certain aspects of Ms. Miers' record). Judge Woods gave me permission to post her letter, and in the interest of fairness, it is reproduced in its entirety below:
As a woman who started law school in Texas just as Harriet Miers was graduating, I assure you that the "lack of qualifications" talk is exactly sexism. How quickly times are forgotten, and those were times to forget.
If a black nominee who attended law school in the 1960s or early 70s were to be challenged about credentials, I think even the thickest dunderhead would grasp that there were barriers placed against his success. Why is that not realized about a woman?
Those of us who are women and started law school in 1970 and before could not belong to legal fraternities, were not on law reviews, faced obstacles in class, and were recognized at my law school by the annual beauty contest where the men would vote on the most beautiful woman law student--until all that changed. In the premier constitutional law class at my school, the nationally renown professor would not call on a woman to recite because "a gentleman did not ask a woman to do something". That was the message being sent about the seriousness of a woman in a legal career--we were just there to get a husband. I could go on. I had really hoped that I did not have to revisit those times.
The "challenge" launched at Harriet Miers makes it imperative that we speak up about those times. Any woman lawyer in Texas who expects to be treated fairly today owes several women a tremendous debt. Chief Justice Carolyn King would be first on my list. Judge King is brilliant and has one of the sharpest legal minds I've ever known. When she was nominated to the 5th Circuit, there were many men who had written more law review articles and who would have been touted as the "better qualified" nominee. Thank goodness Judge King got her chance to shine.
Ms. Miers is also one of the "early" women who expanded the horizons for those of us who came behind her. Carolyn was denied the right to practice in the courtroom. Harriet made it.
And, getting to the courtroom was the goal. It was hard to get there. Hard to have credibility. I don't like to dwell; yet, perhaps those who were not there need a little context to understand Harriet's accomplishment. I was just behind Harriet. In the same time period Harriet was a second year associate, one judge ordered my arrest when I answered docket call. At another docket call, the "guys" started laughing at my announcement of "ready", but soon were slipping out of the courtroom as it became clear that I was plenty able to represent my client and win the case. She faced these same daily challenges in the highly competitive environment of big time litigation in a "downtown" law firm. I have never heard of her complaining. She just did the job.
I see an irony with commentators using Edith Jones and Pricilla Owen as examples of better nominees. They are both wonderful jurists, and I would be overjoyed at either of their nominations. The irony--their Houston law firm did not hire women lawyers when Harriet Miers became her career. Their firm is to be congratulated for realizing that women lawyers could practice law and hiring Justices Jones and Owen. In those few years that separated them, Harriet's break-through hiring was significant.
It is now used against Harriet that she did not write law review articles as she was too busy making sure that her performance as a trial lawyer was a role model, succeeding inside her firm to become managing partner was a role model, and volunteering in community and bar work in the public view was a role model. This is a new standard to apply to women judicial nominees from my experience. Personally, I'm glad Harriet was there for us in the real world. Every contact she had with clients, fellow litigators, judges, jurors, and older bar association leaders made it easier for the rest of us--including Edith, Pricilla, and me.
Many have personal knowledge of Ms. Miers abilities. If she had chosen public service by serving in the Texas judiciary, I would have been honored to have served with her; and you can take it to the bank that her opinions would have met the highest standard. The President of the United States certainly has personal knowledge of her ability.
So, yes, it's easy to say, Harriet Miers, you are not qualified--after all, all you did was make it possible for the rest of us to have a respected legal career by always being the best in everything you did. Yes, there is sexism going on.
Sharolyn Wood
127th District Court
Houston, Texas
I despise spurious claims of sexism. But in evaluating the qualifications and fitness of a nominee like Harriet Miers, it's also wrong to dismiss the obstacles she and others confronted, especially when their professionalism really did result in the rest of us having choices that once weren't available (and especially when those obstacles may, as Judge Woods argues, account for certain aspects of Ms. Miers' record). Judge Woods gave me permission to post her letter, and in the interest of fairness, it is reproduced in its entirety below:
As a woman who started law school in Texas just as Harriet Miers was graduating, I assure you that the "lack of qualifications" talk is exactly sexism. How quickly times are forgotten, and those were times to forget.
If a black nominee who attended law school in the 1960s or early 70s were to be challenged about credentials, I think even the thickest dunderhead would grasp that there were barriers placed against his success. Why is that not realized about a woman?
Those of us who are women and started law school in 1970 and before could not belong to legal fraternities, were not on law reviews, faced obstacles in class, and were recognized at my law school by the annual beauty contest where the men would vote on the most beautiful woman law student--until all that changed. In the premier constitutional law class at my school, the nationally renown professor would not call on a woman to recite because "a gentleman did not ask a woman to do something". That was the message being sent about the seriousness of a woman in a legal career--we were just there to get a husband. I could go on. I had really hoped that I did not have to revisit those times.
The "challenge" launched at Harriet Miers makes it imperative that we speak up about those times. Any woman lawyer in Texas who expects to be treated fairly today owes several women a tremendous debt. Chief Justice Carolyn King would be first on my list. Judge King is brilliant and has one of the sharpest legal minds I've ever known. When she was nominated to the 5th Circuit, there were many men who had written more law review articles and who would have been touted as the "better qualified" nominee. Thank goodness Judge King got her chance to shine.
Ms. Miers is also one of the "early" women who expanded the horizons for those of us who came behind her. Carolyn was denied the right to practice in the courtroom. Harriet made it.
And, getting to the courtroom was the goal. It was hard to get there. Hard to have credibility. I don't like to dwell; yet, perhaps those who were not there need a little context to understand Harriet's accomplishment. I was just behind Harriet. In the same time period Harriet was a second year associate, one judge ordered my arrest when I answered docket call. At another docket call, the "guys" started laughing at my announcement of "ready", but soon were slipping out of the courtroom as it became clear that I was plenty able to represent my client and win the case. She faced these same daily challenges in the highly competitive environment of big time litigation in a "downtown" law firm. I have never heard of her complaining. She just did the job.
I see an irony with commentators using Edith Jones and Pricilla Owen as examples of better nominees. They are both wonderful jurists, and I would be overjoyed at either of their nominations. The irony--their Houston law firm did not hire women lawyers when Harriet Miers became her career. Their firm is to be congratulated for realizing that women lawyers could practice law and hiring Justices Jones and Owen. In those few years that separated them, Harriet's break-through hiring was significant.
It is now used against Harriet that she did not write law review articles as she was too busy making sure that her performance as a trial lawyer was a role model, succeeding inside her firm to become managing partner was a role model, and volunteering in community and bar work in the public view was a role model. This is a new standard to apply to women judicial nominees from my experience. Personally, I'm glad Harriet was there for us in the real world. Every contact she had with clients, fellow litigators, judges, jurors, and older bar association leaders made it easier for the rest of us--including Edith, Pricilla, and me.
Many have personal knowledge of Ms. Miers abilities. If she had chosen public service by serving in the Texas judiciary, I would have been honored to have served with her; and you can take it to the bank that her opinions would have met the highest standard. The President of the United States certainly has personal knowledge of her ability.
So, yes, it's easy to say, Harriet Miers, you are not qualified--after all, all you did was make it possible for the rest of us to have a respected legal career by always being the best in everything you did. Yes, there is sexism going on.
Sharolyn Wood
127th District Court
Houston, Texas
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:29 PM
5 Comments:
Carol--
Thanks for the historical perspective. I had to eat some of my words as a result.
When I attended law school, I was attending one of the first schools to reach a 50-50 mix in the mid-80s. We were so excited to "change the profession". I've been disappointed often at the seeming failure to do so. But I am, indeed, working on a 'mommy track' and part of that is possible because of women who preceded me and had to choose--motherhood or career. Because of them, I can choose "both".
Carol,
As one who entered the profession in the mid-80's, I am sorry to say I saw, even at that late date, some of the issues the Judge mentioned. In fact, in one job interview I was asked whether I was planning on having children. I had three possible answers to chose from 1)answer no (a lie, which I would not give), 2)answer yes (which would have lost me the job), 3) argue the illegal nature of his question (which would also have lost me the job for challenging the interviewer in such a manner). I answered #3 and almost immediately was escorted to the door.
In the job I finally landed, I was told on the first day: "We have never worked with a woman attorney before, and we are not quite sure what to do" (these were lawyers of Ms. Miers' generation BTW)
All the "credentialists" out there may not realize it but they fail to see the world for what it was while Ms. Miers was blazing the way for us. Justice Thomas hardly had the classic resume they demand either, for many of the same reasons as Ms. Miers.
It is amazing how quickly people forget what it was like. Or, perhaps better stated: It is amazing that things have moved so far ahead so quickly that people can forget what it was like.
The comments from the Judge are interesting but completely irrelevant in her sexism argument. Conservatives object to Miers not because she's a woman, but because she's not qualified --period. Owens and Brown, both woman, both judges who have served with distinction are perfectly acceptable because they're qualified.
Harriet seems to be more suitable as time goes by, and the men seem more upset, maybe just start hearings and await the result.
Harriet seems more and more a pioneer, let her travel on and let us see what happens, let the hearings start, and then the Senate can vote.
Post a Comment
<< Home