Friday, October 12, 2018

I Feel Pretty: What If Brett Kavanaugh's Female Law Clerks Are All Beautiful?

by Sherry F.  Colb

Mostly lost amidst the credible testimony and ignored accusations of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh was a story about his law clerk hiring practices.  The story suggested that (a) all of then-Judge Kavanaugh's female law clerks have looked like models; (b) this is no accident; (c) Professor Amy Chua at Yale Law School groomed some of the female students for these clerkships by asking applicants to send her selfies in the outfits they planned to wear to the interview; and (d) Professor Jed Rubenfeld of Yale Law School, husband of Professor Chua, advised female students that Judge Kavanaugh liked his clerks to have a "certain look." Chua vociferously denied the story, which in turn led a former student to say that Chua was "lying" in her denial.

Needless to say, this story raises some questions. And if Kavanaugh has done what he is accused of doing, it puts the fact that he has a very strong record of hiring female law clerks in a less-than-feminist light.


The first question is whether any or all of these claims are true. I do not know whether all of his female clerks looked like models. No one can know whether, if they did, this was "no accident," because one would have to peer into his mind. If they all looked like models, though, it seems unlikely to have been a coincidence. Meanwhile, Chua is in a bit of a "swearing contest" with students at Yale. For purposes of this discussion, however, let us assume that Kavanaugh has been hiring in the way he stands accused of hiring. What would be wrong with his doing that?

One possibility is that he hires beautiful women to clerk for him and then sexually harasses them. Perhaps he stares at their bodies, or comments on how green their eyes are, or asks them if they have seen pornography involving "Long Dong Silver". So far as I know, nothing like that has transpired. Although clerks are virtually always loyal to their judges, one would have expected at least an anonymous complaint of harassment if Kavanaugh did this sort of thing. It was apparently an open secret, by contrast, that Judge Alex Kozinski sexually harassed his clerks (but not so open that Kavanaugh--who clerked for and remained close with Kozinski--would admit to knowing it).

Thus, there is no reason to believe that Kavanaugh did anything harmful to his beautiful law clerks themselves. They enjoyed the benefits of a clerkship, including the precious mentoring that judges provide and the networks of powerful attorneys into which they would have gained entry.

These benefits, it should be said, were not exactly undeserved. Given the highly competitive application process, a "feeder" judge can hire clerks who are both beautiful and highly qualified. Still, by including looks as a criterion, a judge does harm some people--namely, the equally or even better qualified female applicants who do not measure up to his standards of beauty. Those less beautiful women would have suffered (at the hands of Kavanaugh and/or Chua or, if the charge is false, a hypothetical judge) because they lost something in virtue of lacking a characteristic that in no way bears on legal skill, ability to deal with litigants, or any other activity with which the judge might task them.

Why is that a problem? Consider the world of Mad Men. All of the male ad executives want stunningly beautiful secretaries, whether or not they intend to have sex with those secretaries. Some executives would look but not touch and behave in a perfectly appropriate manner. The secretaries might feel good, because the work is interesting or because the boss treats them respectfully. But when positions become vacant, homely women need not apply.

We might not think of this sort of discrimination against women who fail to live up to the beauty standard as sex discrimination at all. After all, a judge like Kavanaugh (again, assuming he did this) might hire more women than men, which suggests that if he is engaged in sex discrimination, it is against men rather than women. Yet in the 1989 case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court held that denying a female employee partnership on the basis, among other things, of her not wearing makeup or otherwise appearing "feminine" was unlawful sex discrimination. Compelling women but not men to conform to some ideal of femininity imposes a burden on the basis of sex.

Demanding femininity, of course, is somewhat different from demanding beauty, because any woman can act more femininely if she must, whereas most women cannot simply change their behavior and thereby become physically beautiful. This, however, seems to make beauty discrimination a worse form of sex discrimination rather than taking it out of the category of sex discrimination. Demanding feminine behavior is very oppressive but does not necessarily exclude any women from a job (though it might, in practice). By contrast, hiring only beautiful female clerks disqualifies many highly talented women from consideration.

What is the difference, though? Why should we care whether the large number of women who got to clerk for then-Judge Kavanaugh (not to mention the all-female group of law clerks working for him now) are beautiful? If he had hired all average-looking women instead--members of a group far larger than the group of model-like women--then most of the average-looking and highly qualified female applicants still would not have gotten the job, and the beautiful women that he did hire would not have gotten the job either. No matter what he did, many people would "lose." If he is in fact hiring more women than men, what is the problem?

The answer is both simple and complicated. The simple part is that by hiring only (or even mostly) gorgeous women, he is (again, if he does this) making beauty a qualification for the position when women apply. He is making it clear that he likes to look at beautiful women and finds it perhaps distasteful to interact much with women who are not beautiful. Women who know the truth--perhaps by hearing from Rubenfeld that Kavanaugh likes a certain look--come to feel that they are failed sex objects in a competition for a highly cerebral, intellectual job. That is a special kind of blow to a person's ego.

That leads us to the more complicated part. The reason that excluding a woman from a job because she is not pretty enough is so harmful is that it resonates with what happens to women on a daily basis. Pretty women have it easier in all sorts of ways. When I was a lot younger, I was pretty--though maybe not Kavanaugh-clerk pretty (again, assuming that's a thing). When I went somewhere to ask for help, men would smile and go out of their way to be helpful. When I walked around in shorts in Central Park, men would say hello and be friendly, picking up anything I might have dropped on the ground.

When I was looking for a summer job at age 20, with virtually no skills or qualifications, a (handsome) graduate student in the psychology department offered to recommend me for a non-advertised well-paid position conducting interviews for the Columbia Psychiatric Institute. I got the job, even though they had been looking for someone twice my age, because the grad student had said I was very mature (though he barely knew me and had no idea whether I was mature). The same grad student then called me a few nights later to see if I would go out with him. I said no, that I had a boyfriend, and he went on his way.

Is this just a gratuitous walk down memory lane? Perhaps, but my point is that many things came very easily to me because I was pretty. I did not view it as unjust at the time, because I felt that being pretty was like being smart, something you're born with and nonetheless get rewarded for. Men sometimes seem grateful to a pretty woman simply for being there, like a pleasant fragrance that makes everyone feel better. Pretty women can sometimes even leap over established hierarchy and tease men who would never tolerate that from either average-looking women or from men occupying the same rung of the ladder as the pretty women.

I do not mean to suggest that life is perfect for pretty women or that misogyny completely skips over them. The "incel" Isla Vista killer made a video in which he said that he was motivated to take revenge against pretty women, because, as a group, they had rejected his romantic overtures. Being beautiful can be dangerous, and there are times when being an invisible woman (because one is average-looking) is a blessing. But much of the time, average-looking women (and even moreso, less-than-average-looking women) absorb the continual message that they (we) lack something essential. And that is stigmatizing. Women come to view themselves as unattractive or worse; it can become part of their self-concept in a way that appears less common for men.

If I failed to get a job because I was not pretty enough, the stigma of that disqualification might make me reluctant to even complain about it. It is far easier to say "I wasn't hired because I was female" or "I wasn't hired because I was African American" than it is to say "I wasn't hired because I am physically unattractive and undesirable." As it happens, Title VII has generally been construed to permit appearance-based discrimination anyway. My point is that even if the courts or Congress were to change the law--and the law should be changed--there would remain social obstacles to the assertion of claims by "unattractive" people.

Meanwhile, if Judge-turned-Justice Kavanaugh or any other Article III judges or justices have in fact been selectively hiring beautiful women to clerk for them, they ought to cut it out.

12 comments:

Joe said...

A few thoughts.

A recent comment made "allegations" notable. Also, seemed a greater need to remind us the whole thing was a "take for granted" sort of thing. And, Michael Dorf wants to make it that he still thinks you are pretty today. I believe that's required.

Also, I think "pretty" here has wider bias implications since people generally have somewhat idiosyncratic ideas about that (though there is general overlap) that also potentially raise discrimination concerns regarding the usual suspects. For instance, a white person might only think certain types of people, generally whites of a certain ethnicity, are pretty.

Granting that he likes pretty clerks (the Fox News effect?), also it is more likely that problems will arise. Maybe not Kozinski level,* especially since we are assured (at some point assurances to me are something you take with a grain of salt -- the average person need not remind people that many times; perhaps it is trying to deny abortion rights to at risk teenagers) he would simply be horrified at that type of thing, but if looks matters so much to him, there is more likelihood at some point he might be tempted.

I guess I'm glad no article so far had pictures of his four clerks.

----

* The reference to it being an open secret again makes me think of a book on the Barbie/Bratz litigation where Kozinski was a major character and the breadth of the problem did not seem to be known to the author. Kozinski came off generally positive even if a few questionable instances might suggest to the careful reader something more.

David Ricardo said...

One has to assume that the reason there has been no pictures of the four female clerks is that all four are attractive and white. Why do we think this? Because if they had been a diverse group of women the Judge would have immediately released the pictures and claimed that this vindicated him of each and every charge against him.

Look, discrimination if discrimination. It is just as bad to hire all female clerks in order to make a political statement as it would be to hire all male clerks. As for Judge Kavanaugh, every day confirms that he is not a suitable Associate Justice. And yes, the truth will come out, maybe months, maybe years, but it will come out.

Shag from Brookline said...

Linda Greenhouse had an interesting column a couple of days ago in the NYTimes, with a comparative of Justice Black and his performance on the Court after post-confirmation disclosure of Black's once membership in the KKK, suggesting that possibly Justice K might go in an opposite direction. But I doubt Justice K will give up his membership in The Federalist Society.

By the way, even prior to Justice K's confirmation it had been revealed that in anticipation Justice K went the "Charlie's Angels"route one better.

Joseph Simmons said...

To answer Mr. Ricardo, one of the clerks is African American.

As for whether Kavanaugh's clerks are unusually attractive, everyone is do an online image search of his clerks, past and present. One might google other Justices' clerks and do some kind of analysis to compare their relative attractiveness, I suppose. Whether one thinks Kavanaugh's clerks look especially attractive is in the eye of the beholder, but not a silly argument I will engage in.

Good looks certainly can help people get ahead. It may be that students at Ivy-league schools are more attractive than the average also. I don't think the rumor and speculation about Kavanaugh's clerks gets us very far.

David Ricardo said...

I agree that discussion and speculation about Judge Kavanaugh's clerks is not a good use of anyone's time, but it seems the Judge himself brought up the issue for the purpose of trying to salvage a reputation that will only be salvageable by his ruling and demeanor on the bench. One is not hopeful.

Likw most conservatives Bart wants to have it both ways, credit for hiring female clerks and then he and/or his supporters be horrified that someone would question his motives.

And of course Ivy League students are more attractive than the general population. Being raised in a wealthy household with all of the benefits available to them will make them more attractive, healthier and better educated than a just as intelligent student raised in poverty. Notice that Bart when he talked about his summers he never mentioned the job thingee, just working out to get ready for football season.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gmail sign up said...

very good. Thank you for sharing!
Hotmail login

Shag from Brookline said...

This is not really off-topic: NYTimes column "Two Cheers for Feminism! - What girls and women get right about empathy and connection." By David Brooks, who is still too conservative despite Trump to provide a "Third Cheer." Sorting through Brooks' column, I found this pony:

"These male-dominated narratives created a tunnel. Everything that extolled competition, self-interest and independence was celebrated, and everything that celebrated relation and intimacy was diminished. As Niobe Way, Alisha Ali, Carol Gilligan and Pedro Noguera argue in the introduction of 'The Crisis of Connection,' a new anthology they edited, the stereotypical masculine culture values 'self over relationships, individual success over the common good, the mind over the body, and thinking over feeling.'”

What might Ayn Rand think?

Shag from Brookline said...

David's 6:11 PM comment includes this:

"Likw most conservatives Bart wants to have it both ways, credit for hiring female clerks and then he and/or his supporters be horrified that someone would question his motives."

Amy S. Kaufman's WaPo OpEd "Chivalry isn’t dead. But it should be. The medieval defense of Brett Kavanaugh" provides a historical comparison with appropriate background to appreciate the impact of David's comment.

Shag from Brookline said...

And in today's NYTimes "What Civil Rights History Can Teach Kavanaugh’s Critics - A week after the justice’s controversial swearing-in, the African-American activists I study offer a lesson to those who are in despair: Failure is part of the process." By Blair L.M. Kelley, a history professor and author, the article suggests sometime in the future the efforts of those objecting to Kavanaugh's confirmation may produce more positive results for those suffering from sexual abuse/violence.

Joe said...

Me and Shag feel a special something when "Bart" is referenced -- it's a sort of inside joke of sorts. Not a funny one really.