Blog Archive » 2007 » May

Sam wouldn't know how it feels. Neither would John, Nino, or Tony. Clarence should know from related experiences — but Clarence seems to be in denial about a lot of issues.

I know how it feels. "It" is sex discrimination at work. It was a long time ago, and I didn't do anything about it — but like many women I've encountered over the years, at some point we all know what sex discrimination in the workplace feels like. It's awful, and demoralizing, and downright scary — especially for younger workers who may not want to rock the boat for fear of jeopardizing their jobs or careers.

Five men are now the definitive majority on the Supreme Court — Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas (who once was head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). They have just issued a ruling affecting the rights of the millions of female workers who are the backbone of so much of this nation's economy — the 46% of the national workforce that still earns only 76% of what men earn on average.

Writing for the all-male majority in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, Justice Samuel Alito (who replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor last year) declared a strict constructionist interpretation of the 180-day timetable for filing a sex discrimination claim on the grounds of unfair pay under Title VII, the federal law that has protected women's rights at work for decades. Justice Alito's opinion says that a woman must file her discrimination claim no more than 180 days from the original discriminatory act, e.g., when the boss first decides to pay her less than male co-workers. Prior to this ruling, many other courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had ruled that pay discrimination claims could arise with each paycheck, not just with the original salary decision.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the sole woman on the Supreme Court, took the unusual step of reading her dissenting opinion from the bench. Justice Ginsburg spoke on behalf of real life for women at work, pointing out that in many cases, women do not even know about pay discrimination until long after the original decision. To force women to know, and then to act publicly by filing a lawsuit, within 180 days of the first instance of a discriminatory pay decision severely limits their opportunities to discover, confront and correct the problem through internal negotiations first, which would normally be the appropriate course of action.

In that long time ago, when I had my private bout with sex discrimination at work (this was many years ago with another employer), I spent months agonizing over what to do about it. Friends urged me to file a grievance, to sue, to make a statement. I've never hesitated to make statements when it came to the rights of others. But when it was my turn, I felt paralyzed, afraid that making too much of the situation would make it worse.

The good news is that the situation did work out — but a year or two later, certainly not within 180 days of the first discriminatory act. I eventually got the job I should have had from the start — the one the man was given first at a much higher salary. I still didn't get equal pay, but having the job was a more important victory for me.

But had the Alito opinion been the prevailing law back then, perhaps I would have felt forced to bring the lawsuit within 180 days. I might have even won my case, but I suspect the course of my professional life would have been very different. The Alito opinion can do great harm by forcing women to sue prematurely, before they have fully explored other options. The Alito opinion can also do grave injustice by forcing women to act prematurely or forever foreclose their right to recover wages lost through discriminatory pay schemes.

When Justice Alito replaced Justice O'Connor last year, warning bells began to sound on the potential for retreat from the hard-won civil rights of the prior generation. The bells are ringing even louder this morning.

See
Title VII

National Women's Law Center

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sunday, May 27, was the 100th birthday of a true American icon, someone Time magazine called one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th Century. Rachel Carson was an environmental activist long before the "green movement" became popular. Her most famous book, Silent Spring, warned of the effects of the uncontrolled use of lethal pesticides on all of nature. Along with her earlier work The Sea Around Us, Silent Spring remains a classic, and will influence many future generations. Sadly, rather than honoring her prescience in raising warnings about environmental destruction, critics have blocked efforts to honor her on the occasion of the centennial of her birth with the argument that she was wrong about DDT and other pesticides. I'm no scientist, so I will have to leave it to others to comment on that issue. But it seems like an ironic tribute to her still-powerful voice that no less than a U.S. Senator has opposed what might otherwise have been a deserving remembrance on her 100th birthday.

Oddly, I suppose, I was thinking about Rachel Carson this weekend as I read about the ongoing flap over Rosie O'Donnell's departure from "The View." I suspect that if there were a test, millions of people would instantly identify Rosie, and most would be stumped by Rachel — and not just because Rachel Carson has been dead for nearly 40 years. Pop culture favors easy treats over hard thoughts. Given the choice between reading a tribute to Rachel's work or watching Rosie's videoblog one more time…. well, let's just say that this might not be a fair contest.

100 years from now, however, whose life's work will be remembered, debated, deconstructed and reconceptualized? Perhaps Rachel Carson didn't get it right on all points, but in the sum total of her life's work, surely her contributions to civilization's improvement are worthy of honor and recognition. Environmental stewardship is a deadly serious issue, not a whim-of-the-moment topic on a talk show. Maybe that's why I didn't hear much about Rachel's centennial over the weekend, but Rosie was all the rage (ok, along with that Miss Universe pageant, which will be a topic for another blog!).

Let's give Rachel her due — she deserves vastly more press than Rosie!

By the way, Rachel Carson was also a graduate of a women's college, the Pennsylvania College for Women — now Chatham University!

Rachel Carson's biography on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website.

The Rachel Carson Homestead

A Response to Senator Coburn's Remarks on Carson

Today we remember all of the men and women who gave their lives in defense of this nation. More than 3400 American troops have died in the Iraq War, more than 100 just this month. We remember them, and the tens of thousands of wounded military personnel, and their families.

Below is an excerpt from the poem "For the Fallen" written by English Poet Laurence Binyan in 1914 in the early days of World War I, "The War to End All Wars"…

…

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

…

If Queen Elizabeth's recent visit left some Tory descendants wondering what life on this side of the pond would have been like if things went the other way on that bridge between Lexington and Concord, look no further than the legislative theme park that is the D.C. lawmaking process. Jamestown has nothing on this throwback to colonial times.

Not only do the citizens of the District of Columbia have no voting representative in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body — the United States Senate (nor in the House of Representatives, where D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton does an admirable job but has no vote) — even worse, members of that august parliament can block legislation duly considered and passed by the elected local members of the D.C. Council and signed by the elected mayor. This is all a result of the ironically-named Home Rule Charter, enacted in 1973 to give D.C. residents some control over their own local laws. But the Home Rule Charter still grants Congress nanny powers over local D.C. legislation — no matter how urgent, no matter how local, no matter how much support a measure may have, Congress gets to review and approve, or veto, all local legislation.

This paternalistic echo of colonial days surfaced again during the last two weeks in the cruelest way. D.C. legislation intended to address the dismal educational situation for children in the city was held-up by three senators for these reasons: a desire to relocate a juvenile detention facility, an alleged end-run by a local politician playing Hill politics, and — the winner of "best reason to interfere in local democracy" — the desire of a senator to require local taxicabs to use meters instead of the zone system.

Now, many of us might have different points of view about the merits of the school reform legislation, or the relocation of the Oak Hill facility, or the sense of the School Board president that more time is needed to think about restructuring the schools, or, for goodness sakes, the merits of meters over zones (let there be no debate on that, meters win every time!). But for federal lawmakers from Michigan (Senator Carl Levin who is concerned about taxi meters) or Louisiana (Senator Mary Landrieu whose intervention was at least related to the school reform measure) or even Maryland (Senator Ben Cardin who wants Oak Hill relocated) to hold up approval of D.C. legislation on points of personal privilege is a grave distortion of democracy.

The senators eventually released the school reform bill and Congress passed the legislation yesterday, but President Bush still must sign it, and the whole episode is a painful reminder of the disenfranchisement of the citizens of the District.

Taxation without representation turned the Boston Harbor into a giant teapot two centuries ago. Perhaps it's time to toss some barrels of Earl Grey into the reflecting pool in front of the U.S. Capitol. All of the colonies were liberated, save one: the city that is the home of the capital of the Free World remains trapped in the museum of colonial politics. It's time to liberate the District of Columbia's legislative process from the micromanagement of Congressional interference with truly local affairs. Even more, two centuries into this constitutional democracy, it's time to grant full enfranchisement to the citizens of the District of Columbia through voting representation in Congress.

And, somebody, please give Senator Levin a zone map so he knows where he is!

D.C. Schools, D.C. Voting Rights, "D.C. School Reform"

My friend Mt. Holyoke College President Joanne V. Creighton wrote a great op-ed piece entitled "Why We Need Women's Colleges" in yesterday's Boston Globe on the value of women's colleges. You can read it by clicking here. President Creighton eloquently expresses the reasons why nearly 60 colleges and universities (including Trinity!) persist in our primary mission focus on the education and advancement of women.

When I turned to the online comments that now accompany so many newspaper articles on the Internet, I found numerous negative postings. Some are simply downright sexist ("women….should stay home and serve their husbands, on the dinner table and in bed…"), and some are outright hostile ("women's colleges…are huge havens for left-wing nut jobs groups…"). Some of the comments reveal the chronic old stereotype of women's colleges as shelters against the "real world" ("…having woman-only colleges is as silly as having your kid wear a helmet every single day while walking…"). As I read the more misogynist comments, I found myself wishing that the bloggers had been here at Trinity last Sunday when our powerful women from the College of Arts and Sciences in the Class of 2007 proudly claimed their diplomas.

Fortunately, many of the other comments came from women who attended women's colleges and could attest to the value of their experience while also debunking the myths that too many people still have about these institutions ("…going to a women's college does not mean never associating with men," and "the small and intimate atmosphere of a women's college is so much more satisfying….you get one-on-one time with your professors who learn your name after 1 class, who want to help you and watch you succeed…). True!

This August, we will celebrate the 110th anniversary of Trinity's founding. The powerful vision of the Sisters of Notre Dame continues to improve the lives of thousands of women, and yes, many men as well in our graduate and professional programs. Our mission is an animating force for equality in education and justice for the students we serve, and the communities they will serve with the power of Trinity's education in their lives.

The discussion prompted by President Creighton's article reminds all of us in the women's college world that we must continue to be strong public advocates for our mission in a world where millions of women, millions of women and men of color, millions of children continue to lack equal educational opportunities. Far from being bastions of elite privilege removed from the "real world" — a long-refuted stereotype — today's women's colleges like Trinity lead the way in making a higher education accessible to individuals who were once excluded. The value these institutions bring to our society is clear in the remarkable achievements of our graduates.