DOCSLIB.ORG

Download File

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Divorce and the Politics of the American Social Welfare Regime, 1969-2001 Suzanne Kahn Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Columbia University 2015 © 2015 Suzanne Kahn All rights reserved ABSTRACT Divorce and the Politics of the American Social Welfare Regime, 1969-2001 Suzanne Kahn Divorce and the Politics of the American Social Welfare Regime, 1969-2001 asks how rising divorce rates shaped the laws governing the American social welfare regime after 1969, when California passed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law. Scholars have shown that in the early 20th century the American social welfare regime developed to distribute economic resources, such as Social Security, to women through their husbands. Between 1967 and 1979, however, the divorce rate in the United States doubled. This dissertation investigates how this sudden challenge to the breadwinner-homemaker family structure affected the gendered welfare regime. Divorce and the Politics of the American Social Welfare Regime examines how women organized to gain access to the economic resources they lost through divorce and how policymakers responded to their demands. It reveals important and forgotten components of the histories of welfare state development, the feminist movement of the 1970s, and marriage law. It argues that, ironically, rising divorce rates led to a series of federal laws that actually strengthened the social welfare system’s use of marriage to determine eligiblity for benefits. These new laws specifically rewarded intact marriages by providing more robust benefits to women in longer marriages. In a political world increasingly concerned with the impermenance of marriage, Congress created a legal system that signaled that marriage was about length of commitment above all else. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ii Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 1 Divorce, 1970s Style Chapter One…………………………………………………………………………… 50 Alimony Drones, Breeding Cows, and Displaced Homemakers: Women Find Their Way Through the Divorce Law Revolution Chapter Two…………………………………………………………………………… 113 Partners or Parasites?: Class, Race, Coverture, and the Definition of Credit Rights Chapter Three…………………………………………………………………………… 169 The Privileges of Marriage: Divorced Women and Health Insurance Access Chapter Four …………………………………………………………………………… 225 Marriage as Work, Marriage as Partnership: Divorced Women’s Fight for Retirement Security in the 1970s Chapter Five…………………………………………………………………………… 292 Marriage as Endurance Test: Divorced Women’s Access to Pensions in the 1980s and Beyond Chapter Six…………………………………………………………………………… 346 The Politics of Marriage: Feminists, Antifeminists, and the Struggle to Define Marriage Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 395 No-Fault Divorce in a Morality Based Welfare System Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………… 422 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I was not entirely decided about writing acknowledgements at this stage until I put together the bibliography for this dissertation, which, in itself, is a list of the many generous people who have shared their time, experiences, and kindness over the last six years. A more formal thank you seemed necessary. I have had the rare opportunity to study with the woman whose book inspired me to go to graduate school in the first place. I am lucky that Alice Kessler-Harris is an advisor who is not only inspiring but also deeply generous and caring about her student’s work and lives. Alice’s exacting standards and strong beliefs sharpened my own for the last six years. Ira Katznelson’s American Political Development seminar, along with time spent teaching for Ira and participating in his wonderful 20th Century American Politics and Society Workshop, profoundly shaped the questions I asked in this dissertation. More importantly, Ira has become my model for academic collegiality and what engaged scholarship and wide-ranging curiosity can do to foster scholarly communities. Many other professors guided this project and my graduate education. I would particularly like to thank Betsy Blackmar and Eric Foner for their support throughout graduate school. Premilla Nadasen arrived at Columbia after this project was well underway, but I am thrilled that she was here to advise its finish. From the moment I found my way into her office, I came to count on Ariela Dubler’s warm excitement about the questions I found most interesting. I have missed her in the last year. I have been lucky, however, that in her absence wonderful legal scholars have guided this project to completion. In particular, Dirk Hartog and Deborah Dinner have helped me navigate the literature of family law even though they had absolutely no ii obligation to do so. I also want to thank my undergraduate advisors—Beverly Gage and Jennifer Klein—who continue to offer their time as trusted advisors. One of the countless wonderful things about being a student of Alice Kessler-Harris (and this list includes trips to Paris!), is that you are immediately welcomed into a long line of students and network of friends. I thank the many former and current Alice students who have offered advice and friendship along the way, especially Beatrix Hoffman and Jennifer Brier who read and commented on chapters. Conversations with Sara Dubow in New Haven also played a critical role in shaping this project. And, Jennifer Mittlestadt and Patricia Seith provided helpful comments on conference papers. This project would not have been possible without generous funding from the William Nelson Cromwell Foundation, the Schlesinger Library at the Radcliffe Institute, and the American Council of Learned Societies and the Mellon Foundation, as well as research grants from the University of Southern California and Tulane University. Generous archivists and librarians at every library I visited went above and beyond to help this project. I thank them all, but in particular David Hays at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who took me out to lunch everyday for the week I worked in his archive and made the connections that allowed me to interview Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder. Ryan Reft is not an archivist, but, lucky for me, he takes thorough photographs when in the archives. After a chance meeting at the AHA, I came home to find a kind email with photographs he had taken on an archival trip of his own that he believed would be useful to my work. They were! Finally, all of the librarians at the Schlesinger Library have created an archive that is genuinely nice place to visit and an incredible community that I am privileged to be a part of. iii Many people took the time to share their own experiences and memories with me. I would like to thank all of the women who heard about my project and said, “Oh, that happened to me.” Those off-the-cuff conversations were one of my very favorite parts of this work. That said, a few people allowed me to interview them and and deserve an even bigger thank you: the women who founded Ex-Partners’ of Servicemembers for Equality and their lawyers, especially Diana Janczewki who sent me articles and papers she had kept from her time with organization; Herma Hill-Kay; Arvonne Fraser; Barbara Dudley; and Congresswoman Pat Schroder. Travelling to archives across the country was only possible because so many people opened up their homes to me, providing beds and excellent company. For this I thank the entire Stern family in New Orleans, Deborah Hertz and Martin Bunzl in San Diego, Maggie Macdonald in Boulder, Eugene Garver in Austin, Nora Toiv in Washington DC, Rebecca Livengood in Cambridge and Philadelphia, Noah Dobin-Bernstein and Gabriella Villanueva in Chicago, Toby Miroff and Stephen Iino as well as Andrew Beaty in New York, and, of course, Richard Kazis and Jill Medvedow in Brookline who gave me a home in for an entire semester and much more. Since arriving in graduate school I have had the support of incredible friends. From the beginning, Tim Shenk, Asheesh Siddique, John Kuhn, Andre Deckrow, and Jessica Lee— catches, all—have made this entire process as fun as it could be. My women and the family reading group has seen me through a number of summers with conversation and camaraderie; thank you Emily Hainze, Anna Danzinger-Halperin, and Tess Cohen. Meredith Startz helped me navigate the economics literature on divorce. Many people took time away from their own work to read and comment on pieces of this project. Maria John was the first person I sent every chapter to. She is the best cheerleader I could have asked for. For their comments over the years, I also thank: Megan Marcelin, Ezra iv Tessler, Asheesh Siddique, Emily Hainze, Tamara Mann Tweel, JT Roane, Nick Juravich, the members of the Hurst Summer Institute in Legal History, the members of the Yale Women’s Writing Group who welcomed me for a year, the members of the Princeton Graduate Colloquium in Gender and Sexuality Studies, and the members of the Columbia Dissertation Support Group. My old and excellent friend Ted Fertik stepped in and read the entire dissertation when I wanted a new pair of eyes—a huge favor I hope to repay next year. Carolyn Arena, Andre Deckrow, and Sam Steinbock all generously helped proofread the final draft. Three friends deserve special thanks for their unwavering support and for truly making a life a split between two cities not only possible, but very often fun. For generously offering their couches and beds in New York and New Haven; for their daily company, sometimes virtual; and their life and writing advice over many meals and runs, I cannot thank enough Robin Swartout, John Kuhn, and Jessica Lee. Finally, I thank my family. My sister, Hannah, kept me from getting too lonely at my computer. Writing a dissertation about divorce makes deciding to get married a little difficult; but, the presence of Richard Kazis, Jill Medvedow, and Sophie Kazis in my life has served as a constant reminder of what great gifts come along with the risks when you link your life to someone else’s.
Recommended publications
  • Legal Grounds

    Legal Grounds

    Reproductive and sexual rights, which are guaranteed in international and regional human rights treaties, mean nothing if they are not recognized and enforced by national-level courts. Legal Grounds: Sexual and Reproductive Rights in African Commonwealth Courts Legal Grounds provides much-needed information about decisions and gender-relevant jurisprudence of national courts throughout African Commonwealth countries. It offers a crucial starting point for women’s rights advocates who are seeking to further develop their litigation and grassroots strategies. Reproductive and Sexual Rights in African Commonwealth Courts A JOINT PUBLICATION OF: CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 120 WALL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005 TEL 917 637 3600 FAX 917 637 3666 [email protected] WWW.REPRODUCTIVERIGHTS.ORG THE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS USES THE LAW TO ADVANCE REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT THAT ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE OBLIGATED TO PROTECT, RESPECT, AND FULFILL. INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON REPRODUCTIVE AND SEXUAL HEALTH LAW FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 84 QUEEN’S PARK TORONTO, ONTARIO M5S 2C5 CANADA TEL 416 978 1751 FAX 416 978 7899 [email protected] WWW.LAW-LIB.UTORONTO.CA/DIANA LEGAL GROUNDS REPRODUCTIVE AND SEXUAL RIGHTS IN AFRICAN COMMONWEALTH COURTS FEBRUARY 2005 CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 120 WALL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005 TEL 917 637 3600 FAX 917 637 3666 [email protected] WWW.REPRODUCTIVERIGHTS.ORG INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON REPRODUCTIVE AND SEXUAL HEALTH LAW FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 84 QUEEN’S PARK TORONTO, ONTARIO M5S 2C5, CANADA TEL 416 978 1751 FAX 416 978 7899 [email protected] WWW.LAW-LIB.UTORONTO.CA/DIANA/ Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in African Commonwealth Countries page 1 © 2005 Center for Reproductive Rights and the International Programme on Repro- ductive and Sexual Health Law at the University of Toronto.
  • 50 Years of Oregon Senior and Disability Policy and Advocacy: an Historical Chronology 1969-2019

    50 Years of Oregon Senior and Disability Policy and Advocacy: an Historical Chronology 1969-2019

    50 Years of Oregon Senior and Disability Policy and Advocacy: An Historical Chronology 1969-2019 By Dr. James (Jim) Davis Oregon State Council for Retired Citizens United Seniors of Oregon December 2020 0 Table of Contents Introduction Page 3 Yearly Chronology of Senior and Disability Policy and Advocacy 5 1969 5 1970 5 1971 6 1972 7 1973 8 1974 10 1975 11 1976 12 1977 13 1978 15 1979 17 1980 19 1981 22 1982 26 1983 28 1984 30 1985 32 1986 35 1987 36 1988 38 1989 41 1990 45 1991 47 1992 50 1993 53 1994 54 1995 55 1996 58 1997 60 1998 62 1999 65 2000 67 2001 68 2002 75 2003 76 2004 79 2005 80 2006 84 2007 85 2008 89 1 2009 91 2010 93 2011 95 2012 98 2013 99 2014 102 2015 105 2016 107 2017 109 2018 114 2019 118 Conclusion 124 2 50 Years of Oregon Senior and Disability Policy and Advocacy: An Historical Chronology 1969-2019 Introduction It is my pleasure to release the second edition of the 50 Years of Oregon Senior and Disability Policy and Advocacy: An Historical Chronology 1969-2019, a labor of love project that chronicles year-by-year the major highlights and activities in Oregon’s senior and disability policy development and advocacy since 1969, from an advocacy perspective. In particular, it highlights the development and maintenance of our nationally-renown community-based long term services and supports system, as well as the very strong grassroots, coalition-based advocacy efforts in the senior and disability communities in Oregon.
  • The True Story of 'Mrs. America' | History | Smithsonian Magazine 4/16/20, 9�07 PM the True Story of ‘Mrs

    The True Story of 'Mrs. America' | History | Smithsonian Magazine 4/16/20, 907 PM the True Story of ‘Mrs

    The True Story of 'Mrs. America' | History | Smithsonian Magazine 4/16/20, 907 PM The True Story of ‘Mrs. Americaʼ In the new miniseries, feminist history, dramatic storytelling and an all-star-cast bring the Equal Rights Amendment back into the spotlight Cate Blanchett plays conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly (Sabrina Lantos / FX) By Jeanne Dorin McDowell smithsonianmag.com April 15, 2020 It is 1973, and conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly and feminist icon Betty https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-mrs-america-180974675/ Page 1 of 11 The True Story of 'Mrs. America' | History | Smithsonian Magazine 4/16/20, 907 PM Friedan trade verbal barbs in a contentious debate over the Equal Rights Amendment at Illinois State University. Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique and “the mother of the modern womenʼs movement,” argues that a constitutional amendment guaranteeing men and women equal treatment under the law would put a stop to discriminatory legislation that left divorced women without alimony or child support. On the other side, Schlafly, an Illinois mother of six who has marshalled an army of conservative housewives into an unlikely political force to fight the ERA, declares American women “the luckiest class of people on earth.” Then Schlafly goes for the jugular. “You simply cannot legislate universal sympathy for the middle-aged woman,” she purrs, knowing that Friedan had been through a bitter divorce. “You, Mrs. Friedan, are the unhappiest women I have ever met.” “You are a traitor to your sex, an Aunt Tom,” fumes Friedan, taking the bait. “And you are a witch. God, Iʼd like to burn you at the stake!” Friedanʼs now-infamous rejoinder is resurrected in this fiery exchange in “Mrs.
  • The Triple System of Family Law

    The Triple System of Family Law

    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2013 The Triple System of Family Law June Carbone University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Naomi Cahn George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation June Carbone and Naomi Cahn, The Triple System of Family Law, 2013 MICH. ST. L. REV. 1185 (2013), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/203. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRIPLE SYSTEM OF FAMILY LAW June Carbone & Naomi Cahn* 2013 MICH. ST. L. REv. 1185 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRO DUCTIO N ........................................................................................ 1185 I. T HE SYSTEM S.................................................................................... 1192 A . C lass .......................................................................................... 1 192 B. Family Demographics: The Elite and the Marginalized ........... 1194 C. Family Demographics: The Middle .......................................... 1199 II. THE SYSTEMS AND THE LAW: THE NEW MARITAL SCRIPT [OR INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE TRIPLE SY STEM S] .........................................................................................
  • Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation, and Hustler Magazine V

    Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation, and Hustler Magazine V

    VOLUME 103 JANUARY 1990 NUMBER 3 HARVARD LAW REVIEW THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE: OUTRAGEOUS OPINION, DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION, AND HUSTLER MAGAZINE V. FALWELL Robert C. Post TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. HUSTLER MAGAZINE V. FALWELL ........................................... 6o5 A. The Background of the Case ............................................. 6o6 B. The Supreme Court Opinion ............................................. 612 C. The Significance of the Falwell Opinion: Civility and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ..................................................... 616 11. THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE ............................. 626 A. Public Discourse and Community ........................................ 627 B. The Structure of Public Discourse ............... ..................... 633 C. The Nature of Critical Interaction Within Public Discourse ................. 638 D. The First Amendment, Community, and Public Discourse ................... 644 Im. PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND THE FALIWELL OPINION .............................. 646 A. The "Outrageousness" Standard .......................................... 646 B. The Distinction Between Speech and Its Motivation ........................ 647 C. The Distinction Between Fact and Opinion ............................... 649 i. Some Contemporary Understandings of the Distinction Between Fact and Opinion ............................................................ 650 (a) Rhetorical Hyperbole ............................................. 650 (b)
  • THE SURGEON GENERAL and the BULLY PULPIT Michael Stobbe a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the University of North Carol

    THE SURGEON GENERAL and the BULLY PULPIT Michael Stobbe a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the University of North Carol

    THE SURGEON GENERAL AND THE BULLY PULPIT Michael Stobbe A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Public Health in the Department of Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health Chapel Hill 2008 Approved by: Ned Brooks Jonathan Oberlander Tom Ricketts Karl Stark Bryan Weiner ABSTRACT MIKE STOBBE: The Surgeon General and the Bully Pulpit (Under the direction of Ned Brooks) This project looks at the role of the U.S. Surgeon General in influencing public opinion and public health policy. I examined historical changes in the administrative powers of the Surgeon General, to explain what factors affect how a Surgeon General utilizes the office’s “bully pulpit,” and assess changes in the political environment and in who oversees the Surgeon General that may affect the Surgeon General’s future ability to influence public opinion and health. This research involved collecting and analyzing the opinions of journalists and key informants such as current and former government health officials. I also studied public documents, transcripts of earlier interviews and other materials. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................v Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1 Background/Overview .........................................................................................1
  • The Office of Women's Studies the Ohio State University Vol

    The Office of Women's Studies the Ohio State University Vol

    THE OFFICE OF WOMEN'S STUDIES THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY VOL. VI, NO. 8 APRIL, 1980 economically at risk. Recent Bureau of GUEST EDITORIAL Labor statistics reveal that black women have a higher unemployment rate (12.9%) SEXUAL HARASSMENT: WHY MUST WE than do white women (8.3%) and their in- BE DIFFERENT? come is generally lower: 88% of that earned by white women. They must offer more than their white counterparts in the way of saleable skills and intellectual CYNTHIA A. RENZ aptitude to be considered as merely "equal" to a similarly qualified applicant or stu- "A female is continually obliged to seek dent. Because of this institutional dis- survival or advancement through the crimination, they have the most to lose approval of men as those who hold power. by protesting unwarranted sexual advances She may do this through appeasement or of supervisors (who could hire or promote through exchange of her sexuality for them) and professors (who are often called support and status." upon to write letters of recommendation --Kate Millett, Sexual Politics. for a job or entrance to higher education.) In this respect, black women have been Sexual harassment can be broadly defined more able to grasp the essence of the sex- as unwanted sexual advances in the con- ual harassment issue earlier and more text of unequal power relationships (em- firmly than other, more advantaged, women. ployer/employee, faculty/student, male/ female, white/black.) It may be obvious As black women, they are faced with to a few that it is a condition to which another problem: the traditional myth no woman, black or white, young or old, that black women are more sexually acces- "attractive" or not, is immune.
  • Fall 2013 Fall 2013

    Fall 2013 Fall 2013

    W ORCESTER W OMEN’S H ISTORY P ROJECT We remember our past . to better shape our future. WWHP VOL.WWHP 13, VOLUME NO. 2 13, NO. 2 FALL 2013 FALL 2013 WWHP and the Intergenerational Urban Institute at NOTICE Worcester State University are pleased to OF present 18th ANNUAL MEETING Michèle LaRue Thursday, October 24, 2013 in 5:30 p.m. Someone Must Wash the Dishes: Worcester Historical Museum followed by a talk by An Anti-Suffrage Satire Karen Board Moran Many women fought against getting the vote in the early 1900s, on her new book but none with more charm, prettier clothes—and less logic— than the fictional speaker in this satiric monologue written by Gates Along My Path pro-suffragist Marie Jenney Howe, back in 1912. “Woman suf- Booksigning frage is the reform against nature,” declares Howe’s unlikely, but irresistibly likeable, heroine. Light Refreshments “Ladies, get what you want. Pound pillows. Make a scene. Photo by Ken Smith of Quiet Heart Images Make home a hell on earth—but do it in a womanly way! That is All Welcome so much more dignified and refined than walking up to a ballot box and dropping in a piece of paper!” See page 3 for details. Reviewers have called this production “wicked” in its wit, and have labeled Michèle LaRue’s performance "side-splitting." An Illinois native, now based in New York, LaRue is a professional actress who tours nationally with a repertoire of shows by turn-of-the- previous-century American writers. Panel Discussion follows on the unfinished business of women’s rights.
  • THE SURGEON GENERAL and the BULLY PULPIT Michael Stobbe a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the University of North Carol

    THE SURGEON GENERAL and the BULLY PULPIT Michael Stobbe a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the University of North Carol

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository THE SURGEON GENERAL AND THE BULLY PULPIT Michael Stobbe A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Public Health in the Department of Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health Chapel Hill 2008 Approved by: Ned Brooks Jonathan Oberlander Tom Ricketts Karl Stark Bryan Weiner ABSTRACT MIKE STOBBE: The Surgeon General and the Bully Pulpit (Under the direction of Ned Brooks) This project looks at the role of the U.S. Surgeon General in influencing public opinion and public health policy. I examined historical changes in the administrative powers of the Surgeon General, to explain what factors affect how a Surgeon General utilizes the office’s “bully pulpit,” and assess changes in the political environment and in who oversees the Surgeon General that may affect the Surgeon General’s future ability to influence public opinion and health. This research involved collecting and analyzing the opinions of journalists and key informants such as current and former government health officials. I also studied public documents, transcripts of earlier interviews and other materials. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................v Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1
  • Frank, Barney (B

    Frank, Barney (B

    Frank, Barney (b. 1940) by Linda Rapp Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. Entry Copyright © 2004, glbtq, inc. Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com Barney Frank. United States congressman Barney Frank is known for his intelligence, his quick and acerbic wit, and his spirited defense of his social and political beliefs. He has been a leader not only in the cause of gay and lesbian rights, but also on issues including fair housing, consumer rights, banking, and immigration. Frank was born on March 31, 1940 in Bayonne, New Jersey, where his father owned a truck stop. As a youngster Frank developed an interest in politics. He did not, however, foresee a career in government for himself because he observed in politics a dismaying amount of corruption and an inhospitable attitude toward Jews. He had, moreover, realized at the age of thirteen that he was gay, which also seemed an obstacle to a political career. Nevertheless, Frank remained an avid student of politics. After receiving a bachelor's degree from Harvard in 1962, he entered the university's graduate program in political science. In addition to offering courses in government from 1963 to 1967, he worked as the assistant to the director of the Institute for Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government in 1966 and 1967. Frank left the graduate program in 1967 to work on Kevin White's campaign to become mayor of Boston. Following White's victory, Frank was his executive assistant for three years and then spent a year as an administrative assistant to Representative Michael J.
  • Panelist Bios

    Panelist Bios

    PANELIST BIOGRAPHIES CATE ADAIR Catherine Adair was born in England, spent her primary education in Switzerland, and then returned to the UK where she earned her degree in Set & Costume Design from the University of Nottingham. After a series of apprenticeships in the London Theater, Catherine immigrated to the United States where she initially worked as a costume designer in East Coast theater productions. Her credits there include The Kennedy Center, Washington Ballet, Onley Theater Company, The Studio and Wolf Trap. Catherine then moved to Los Angeles, joined the West Coast Costume Designers Guild, and started her film and television career. Catherine’s credits include The 70s mini-series for NBC; The District for CBS; the teen film I Know What You Did Last Summer and Dreamworks’ Win a Date with Tad Hamilton. Currently Catherine is the costume designer for the new ABC hit series Desperate Housewives. ROSE APODACA As the West Coast Bureau Chief for Women's Wear Daily (WWD) and a contributor to W, Rose Apodaca and her team cover the fashion and beauty industries in a region reaching from Seattle to Las Vegas to San Diego, as well as report on the happenings in Hollywood and the culture-at-large. Apodaca is also instrumental in the many events and related projects tied to WWD and the fashion business in Los Angeles, including the establishment of LA Fashion Week, and has long been a champion of the local design community. Before joining Fairchild Publications in June 2000, Apodaca covered fashion and both popular and counter culture for over a decade for the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Sportswear International, Detour, Paper and others.
  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    VOLUME 134 JANUARY 2021 NUMBER 3 © 2021 by The Harvard Law Review Association MEMORIAM: JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG The editors of the Harvard Law Review respectfully offer this collec- tion of tributes to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Brenda Feigen∗ Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed all our lives by profoundly influenc- ing the law that had encouraged sex discrimination in the United States for centuries. I am writing now in tribute to her. In the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court ruled that women had neither the right to practice law1 nor the right to vote.2 In the mid- twentieth century, the Court approved “beneficial” practices by states making women’s service on juries optional3 and approved Michigan’s law preventing women from working in bars unless a male relative was present when they were working.4 In 1970, while some of us were joining the call of the women’s liber- ation movement to march in protest of outrageous sex discrimination, Ruth and her husband Marty, a tax lawyer, decided to represent Charles Moritz, who lived alone with his elderly mother and had tried to obtain a tax deduction for wages paid to her caregiver.5 The Tax Court had said that type of deduction was available only “to a woman, a widower ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ J.D. 1969, Harvard Law School. Ms. Feigen directed the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project with then-Professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was National Vice President for Legislation of NOW and a cofounder of the National Women’s Political Caucus and of Ms. Magazine. She au- thored Not One of the Boys: Living Life as a Feminist (2000), republished in electronic format twenty years later with a new edition forthcoming.