Public Notice Detail

Associate Justice Paul H. Anderson
Article Published By Minnesota Women Lawyers
Duluth, MN
February 11, 2004

From time to time, it is beneficial to reflect upon changes in the legal profession and in particular to the judiciary to see how far we have come in assuring that there is equal opportunity for women. Change has come about because we are increasingly aware that a judiciary overwhelmingly made up of white men is likely to be suspect by those who do not fit that profile. While progress in appointing women to judgeships has in some instances been slow, progress has been steady. We owe much to pioneers like Susanne Sedgwick, Diana Murphy, Esther Tomljanovich, Rosalie Wahl, and their compatriots who have led the way. The court system has been greatly enriched by their presence. We who have benefited from their leadership must remember what they have done and note that their history teaches us that there is always hope for positive change.

Now to the question at hand—do women in the judiciary make a difference? A former colleague liked to say, “a wise old man and a wise old woman will come to the same conclusion.” Another colleague, Esther Tomljanovich, disagrees with this statement. Esther's response is that if this statement is correct, “a lot of us wasted our time trying to assure the appointment of women to the bench.” I agree with Esther. A wise woman on the bench is capable of and can influence and may even change the opinion of a wise man and vice versa. Moreover, even if a wise man and a wise woman ultimately reach the same conclusion, they often get the same result using a different approach, and this diversity is important.

What are some of the changes that have been brought about by having women in the judiciary? First of all, the very presence of women—or for that matter, any person who is part of a minority—makes or permits the majority to think of issues and problem-solve differently. These differences are often subtle, but profound, in their impact. Sexist attitudes and comments are no longer tolerated. Greater sensitivity may be shown to the employee or juror, male or female, who has childcare needs or concerns about important events in a child's life. In some districts, it has even been observed that Monday mornings in chambers are as likely to involve an exchange of baby pictures as an exchange of golf scores or pictures of game from the previous weekend's hunt.

When there are women on the bench and in the courtroom, the court system benefits from a wider perspective and a heightened awareness of certain issues. Clearly there has been a change in the judiciary's attitude toward domestic abuse and child abuse. These cases are now given higher priority and are uniformly treated with greater sensitivity. We all have a better appreciation of what constitutes “substantial bodily harm” to a child or battered spouse. The judiciary now has the vision and the willingness to undertake programs such as the Children's Initiative because there are more voices at the table to articulate the need for such programs.

The presence of women judges has also sent a clear message that across the board all employment positions in the judicial system are available to women. The work environment now has a greater capacity to understand and appreciate the unique qualifications, perspectives, and contributions women bring to all these positions.

Sometimes attitudinal changes have a lighthearted aspect to them. Here I can lend a personal perspective. When I was Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, my colleagues frequently referred to Judge Doris Huspeni as the “mother of the court.” During a conversation I had with Doris, I told her that she was a very good judge and that she should not sell herself short by accepting this title too readily. Doris's response was “Paul, it is obvious that you have never been a mother.”

What a great response this was. In addition to curtailing my act of excessive political correctness, Doris gently let me know that her life experiences were different from mine and that her experiences brought a valuable perspective to the court. As a woman and mother, she had seen life from a different angle than I had, an angle that provided valuable insights for a judicial process seeking to render fair and just decisions. In those few words, Doris made it clear that having women in the judiciary does make a difference.

Finally, as women achieve greater prominence and occupy positions of power, it is well to remember that power and authority bring with them the same temptations for abuse that existed when most positions were occupied by men. Women, as well as men, can fall prey to these temptations. It is critical that we always reflect upon what it is like to be on the outside looking in, what it is like to not just be ignored, but to be invisible.

With power and authority come the opportunity to make decisions that affect other persons' lives. Inevitably, some decisions will be good, others not so good. Both can and will engender criticism. Some criticism may be the result of gender stereotypes, but most will not be. Those who seek and accept the new mantle of leadership afforded to them need to strive to avoid perpetuating the shortcomings of a system they and others fought so hard to change. Failure to lead without this objective in mind will leave unanswered Esther Tomljanovich's question about why she and other women worked so hard to seek change.