4-24-89 Sarah Weddington [still alive and well at 64], who argued the case of Roe v. Wade before the United States Supreme Court in 1971 and 1972 (the case was decided in January 1973), spoke on campus this evening as part of the university lecture series. My Philosophy of Law class runs from six o’clock until 8:50 P.M., so we stopped early (at 7:40) in order to make it to the Memorial Student Center on time. I didn’t require attendance, although I could have, since we read and discussed Roe v. Wade two weeks ago. At least seven of the twenty-seven students attended, as well as several from my other courses. Some sat near me; others did not. I was surprised at how many people showed up for the talk. There must have been five hundred people in attendance. As for the talk, it was everything I expected and hoped for. Weddington provided background information about the case, including how she came to have Jane Roe (a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey) as her client, what she thought and felt about handling such an important case at such a young age (she was fresh out of the University of Texas Law School at the time), and what she thinks the [United States] Supreme Court will decide in the Webster case from Missouri, in which oral arguments will be heard Wednesday. Members of the audience were given a chance to ask questions after Weddington’s talk. Although I was tempted to walk up to the microphone to pose a question, I did not. One of my students did, however. Hope Warren, a brave student in my Contemporary Moral Issues course, asked about the personhood of the fetus. I admire her courage.
Afterward, a few dozen people mingled about at a reception, sipping orange juice and munching cookies. A number of my students, including some I hadn’t seen during the talk, came up to say hello. But I wanted to talk to Weddington. I finally found her in a small crowd of people, one of whom, Dede Whitley, is taking two of my courses. Dede has been accepted at St Mary’s Law School and will start her legal studies this fall. She admires Weddington greatly, and at one point asked for her autograph. I couldn’t resist making a comment about one of Dede’s questions, which was why Weddington argued on privacy grounds rather than liberty grounds or autonomy grounds. Weddington explained that there were legal precedents for the privacy argument, but none (or not as many) for liberty or autonomy arguments. That’s when I jumped in. I introduced myself as a philosopher of law and told Weddington that Dede was my student. My point was that, if we were writing on a clean slate, we would ground Roe v. Wade in either liberty or autonomy. We would say, for instance, that women have a right to liberty with respect to abortion. But lawyers such as Weddington were not writing on a clean slate in the early 1970s; nor are they now. They had a body of law to work with and argue from. That, I pointed out, is one important way in which law and philosophy differ. The former is pragmatic, the latter idealistic. Weddington smiled and commented on the point. Later, I asked her whether anything unusual happened during oral argument. Minutes later, Weddington was whisked away by her handlers. She has a number of media appearances to make in the next two days in connection with the Webster case.
As a radical feminist, one of my goals is to get women into positions of power—throughout society. Once this is done, there will be role models for girls as well as boys. For a long time, girls looked out into the world and saw only male politicians, male lawyers, male doctors, male athletes, male scientists, and male entrepreneurs. It was, and in many ways continues to be, a male world. But things are changing before our eyes (though not as quickly as I would like). Women like Sarah Weddington have made a difference, usually against long odds. When I saw Dede ask for Weddington’s autograph, it was perfectly appropriate. I knew exactly how she felt and why it was important to her. It’s the same as when I got Dick Pole’s autograph at a baseball game several years ago. I imagined myself as a professional baseball player. By getting Pole’s autograph, I was in touch with his world, however briefly. There was a direct link. That’s what Dede did tonight. She imagined herself as a lawyer, like Weddington, and not just any lawyer, but a good one—a lawyer who wants to make a difference in society. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’d rather have a conservative female such as Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court than a liberal or radical male. Whether O’Connor likes it or not, she represents women—solely because she’s a woman. No longer will girls look at the Supreme Court and think that it’s impossible to get there. It’s difficult, but not impossible. As a society, we need to make it no more difficult for a woman to get there than for a man to get there.
The Aggie baseball team is 46-3 and ranked second in the country. Arizona’s baseball team is having another fine year as well. I hope to see both teams in the College World Series this June.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 