Constitutional interpretation and its effects on gender and sexuality discrimination were the focus of the Annual Women Studies Symposium held Friday at Russell House. A mix of about 40 students and faculty attended the symposium, entitled “Challenges to Gender and Sexuality Discrimination Inside and Outside the Courts.”
Guest speakers included Chai Feldblum, Professor of Law at Georgetown University; and Reva Siegel, Professor of Law at Yale Law School.
The discussion centered on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bans discrimination “on the basis of sex.” By explaining various interpretations of the Constitution, the speakers showed how societal and legal decisions can be unconsciously discriminatory because of preconceived notions about sex and gender. At the same time, Feldblum and Siegel emphasized the power of social movements to make changes in the minds of legislators and the power of legislation to gradually change social patterns.
“What might seem to us a logical application of a legal clause turns out to be bound to current political climate in ways that have a historical story behind them,” said Elise Springer, Professor of Philosophy. “’On the basis of sex’ actually has a long history of interpretations.”
Springer discussed the fact that a lesbian woman may not always get insurance for her partner while men would more easily be able to get benefits for a female lover.
“Conceptually I think it is all about gender, but strategically you need the identity politics movement,” Feldblum said.
She has worked with gay, disabled and transgender groups to draft bills that will get their issues heard.
She discussed the feminist movement of the 1970s, when women went on strike demanding equal education rights, reproductive rights and 24 hour childcare. That strike shifted social consciousness and highlighted that women, by being labeled primarily as caregivers, had unequal opportunities in the workplace. A major concern was that women would be discriminated against because employers would worry about losing more money by employing a woman than a man.
Though the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause already prohibited employers from discriminating against women, an employer could have simply decided that he or she would refuse medical leave to both male and female employees. Congress felt that workers who are parents would thus be penalized unfairly and discriminated against in a different form.
Both speakers discussed how realities such as child rearing shape the decisions people make and end up recreating realities that are not equal.
“We need to change the conversation, provide different choices,” Feldblum said.
Jennifer Tucker, chair of the Women Studies Speakers Committee and organizer of the event, commented on the relevance of the symposium to students.
“The speakers showed us the interconnectedness between the knowledge in academia and social change,” she said. “They showed how institutions can broaden social rights.”
“That’s what I want to be doing with my life and it’s powerful to see connections between law and social movements,” said Talya Zemach-Bersin ’07, one of about 10 students who stayed after the talk to continue discussion with professors. “We imagine law as so removed, but it’s not just words and paper.”
Other students were inspired by the speakers’ hard work, and self-proclaimed anti-establishment politics.
“For some people scholarship is supposed to be detached,” Siegel said. “It can be interesting and normatively engaged. But I think it matters what your life’s work is and I am willing to give up social rewards for a chance to change something I care about.”