ALL RIGHT, she said it in 2006 as deannot a judge, and about women and Harvard law journal membership, not about SFFA and minority admissions, but I’d be interested to know why she expressed that concern about women, but not about URM.
Along the same lines, my former colleague (now DC Circuit Judge) Neomi Rao once presented a lecture noting a perceived anomaly in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s jurisprudence. Ginsburg insisted on strict, formal legal equality for men and women, even when patronage would benefit women. She didn’t apply the same reasoning when it came to racing. Ginsburg, when asked how she balances the two positions, admitted that she had never thought about it. I wonder if Kagan did.
