The journey of transforming societal perceptions about fundamental rights often begins in the most unlikely places—not in courtrooms or legislative chambers, but within the hallowed halls of academia where ideas are born and nurtured. During the 1970s, American law schools operated as bastions of traditional legal thought, places where innovation in certain directions was not merely discouraged but actively suppressed through institutional mechanisms designed to maintain the status quo. Within this environment, women who dared to challenge conventional wisdom faced obstacles that extended far beyond the typical challenges of academic life.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg emerged as one of the most transformative legal figures in American history, fundamentally reshaping how the Constitution protects individuals from discrimination based on sex. Her contributions to constitutional jurisprudence are now studied in every law school across the nation, and her arguments before the Supreme Court are analyzed as masterclasses in legal reasoning and strategic advocacy. However, the path she traveled to achieve this remarkable influence was fraught with institutional resistance, professional skepticism, and a deeply entrenched belief system that viewed her chosen field of study as intellectually lightweight and professionally dangerous.
The observation that pursuing gender equality research could jeopardize a woman’s prospects for achieving tenure at a law school, and that such work was dismissed as frivolous, reveals a profound irony embedded in the legal academy of that era. Here was an institution dedicated to the study of justice, rights, and constitutional principles, yet it systematically devalued scholarship focused on expanding those very principles to include half the population. This contradiction was not lost on Ginsburg, who recognized that the fight for gender equality would need to be waged on multiple fronts simultaneously—in the courts, in the classroom, and within the faculty committees that determined who deserved permanent positions in academia.
To fully appreciate the magnitude of the challenges facing women legal scholars during this period, we must examine the structural composition and intellectual culture of American law schools in the early 1970s. These institutions were almost exclusively male domains, both in terms of faculty composition and student enrollment. Women who managed to secure positions on law school faculties were rare exceptions rather than the norm, and their presence was often tolerated rather than celebrated.
The curriculum at these institutions reflected the priorities and perspectives of the predominantly male faculty. Traditional subjects dominated the course offerings: property law, contract law, tort law, criminal law, and civil procedure. These were considered the bedrock disciplines of legal education, the essential knowledge that every competent attorney needed to master. Advanced courses typically focused on specialized areas like tax law, corporate law, securities regulation, and complex litigation strategies. The emphasis was consistently on areas of law that served corporate clients and addressed commercial disputes.
Within this framework, legal scholarship focused on doctrinal analysis, examining how courts interpreted statutes and constitutional provisions in various contexts. The most prestigious scholarship involved intricate parsing of judicial opinions, identification of logical inconsistencies in legal reasoning, and proposals for doctrinal reforms that would create more coherent legal frameworks. Abstract reasoning and analytical rigor were prized above all else. Scholarship that connected legal analysis to social movements or political advocacy was viewed with suspicion, seen as contaminating pure legal reasoning with ideological concerns.
Gender-based discrimination simply did not register as a legitimate area of constitutional concern during this period. The Supreme Court had developed extensive jurisprudence around racial discrimination, particularly in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent civil rights cases. However, sex-based classifications received no similar scrutiny. In fact, the Court had repeatedly upheld laws that treated men and women differently, often relying on paternalistic reasoning about women’s supposed need for protection or their natural roles as mothers and homemakers.
This legal landscape meant that a scholar focusing on gender equality was working in territory that had no established doctrinal foundation. There were no Supreme Court precedents recognizing sex discrimination as a constitutional violation. There was no body of lower court decisions to analyze and critique. There was no recognized framework for thinking about how the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment might apply to sex-based classifications. In the eyes of tenure committees, this absence of existing doctrine made the field appear insubstantial—there was nothing there to study because the courts had not recognized it as a legitimate constitutional concern.
The tenure system in American universities serves multiple purposes. At its best, it protects academic freedom by ensuring that scholars can pursue controversial or unpopular ideas without fear of termination. However, the tenure system also functions as a powerful gatekeeping mechanism, one that enforces conformity to established norms and punishes deviation from accepted paths.
For a junior faculty member seeking tenure, the stakes could not be higher. Tenure represents the difference between a stable, permanent career and the prospect of starting over at a new institution or leaving academia entirely. The evaluation process is lengthy, typically spanning six to seven years, during which the candidate must demonstrate excellence in teaching, service to the institution, and—most critically—scholarly productivity that meets the standards of the discipline.
Those standards are defined and enforced by senior faculty members who already hold tenure. These gatekeepers assess whether a junior colleague’s scholarship makes a significant contribution to the field, whether it demonstrates sufficient intellectual rigor, and whether it enhances the institution’s reputation. Implicitly, they also evaluate whether the candidate’s work aligns with their own conception of what constitutes legitimate legal scholarship.
For women in the early 1970s pursuing research on gender equality, this evaluation process was stacked against them from the start. The senior faculty members who would judge their work were almost exclusively men who had built their careers on traditional legal subjects. Many of these men held conventional views about gender roles and saw no need for legal intervention to address sex discrimination. They genuinely believed that existing legal arrangements were fair and appropriate, or at least that any problems were better addressed through social evolution rather than constitutional litigation.
When these senior faculty members characterized gender equality research as “frivolous,” they were making a judgment that extended beyond mere intellectual assessment. They were declaring that this work did not deserve the institutional resources, prestige, and permanent commitment that tenure represented. They were sending a clear message to junior faculty members: pursue this path at your own risk.
The warning was particularly pointed when directed at women. If a woman focused on gender equality, she faced accusations of being self-interested rather than objective, of pursuing a political agenda rather than conducting neutral scholarship. Male colleagues could study labor law or civil rights without having their objectivity questioned, but a woman studying sex discrimination was assumed to be advancing her own interests rather than pursuing knowledge for its own sake.
Given these institutional barriers, Ginsburg’s decision to persist in her focus on gender equality required extraordinary intellectual courage. She was not naive about the risks she was taking. She understood clearly that her colleagues viewed her work skeptically, that tenure committees might hold her choice of subject matter against her, and that she was jeopardizing her long-term career prospects by refusing to conform to conventional expectations.
Yet she persisted because she recognized something that her colleagues missed: gender equality was not a trivial or marginal concern but rather a fundamental constitutional issue that the legal system had simply failed to address. She saw that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, should logically extend to sex-based classifications just as it applied to racial classifications. She understood that laws treating men and women differently were not neutral administrative choices but rather legal embodiments of stereotypes that limited opportunities for both sexes.
Ginsburg approached gender equality with the same analytical rigor that other scholars applied to tax law or civil procedure. She meticulously researched the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, examined how other legal systems addressed sex discrimination, and developed sophisticated arguments for why existing Supreme Court precedents should be extended to cover sex-based classifications. She did not approach the subject as an emotional advocate but as a careful legal analyst building a doctrinal framework from the ground up.
This methodical approach was essential to her eventual success. By treating gender equality as a serious intellectual endeavor rather than a political cause, she forced her colleagues to engage with her arguments on their merits. She demonstrated that this field required exactly the kind of rigorous analysis that legal scholars claimed to value. She proved that there was nothing frivolous about examining how constitutional principles should apply to laws that treated men and women differently.
Ginsburg did not confine her work to academic writing. She recognized that transforming legal doctrine required victories in court, not just persuasive law review articles. As a result, she became deeply involved in strategic litigation, carefully selecting cases that would advance her broader goal of establishing sex discrimination as a constitutional violation.
Her approach to case selection revealed her deep understanding of judicial psychology and the incremental nature of legal change. She recognized that the all-male judiciary of the 1970s would not suddenly embrace feminist arguments about women’s equality. Instead, she selected cases that demonstrated how gender stereotypes harmed everyone, including men. By showing male judges that they too could be victims of sex-based classifications, she made the issue more relatable and less threatening.
For example, she argued cases involving widowers who were denied Social Security benefits that would have been automatically available to widows. She represented male plaintiffs challenging laws that allowed women but not men to receive certain benefits. These cases demonstrated that gender stereotypes created arbitrary classifications that disadvantaged individuals regardless of their sex. By framing the issue in terms of fairness and equal treatment rather than women’s liberation, she made her arguments more palatable to conservative judges.
This strategic approach proved remarkably successful. Case by case, Ginsburg built a body of precedent that established sex-based classifications as constitutionally suspect. The Supreme Court began to apply heightened scrutiny to laws that treated men and women differently, requiring the government to provide substantial justification for such classifications. What had been dismissed as a frivolous concern became a recognized area of constitutional law, one that fundamentally transformed how American law addressed gender.
As Ginsburg’s litigation successes mounted, the perception of gender equality scholarship began to shift within the legal academy. What had been dismissed as trivial or political now appeared prescient and intellectually sophisticated. Law schools that had warned junior faculty away from this field began adding courses on sex discrimination and gender equality to their curricula. Faculty members who had built their careers on traditional subjects suddenly recognized that they had missed an important development in constitutional law.
This transformation vindicated Ginsburg’s intellectual courage. She had persisted in pursuing scholarship that her colleagues dismissed, and she had proven them wrong. The field she had helped create became a standard component of legal education, studied by every law student as part of the core constitutional law curriculum. Her own professional status evolved from a risky tenure candidate working on a marginal topic to a celebrated legal scholar who had fundamentally reshaped American constitutional law.
The irony was profound: the same institutions that had warned against pursuing gender equality scholarship now claimed credit for supporting this important field. Law schools that had created hostile environments for women scholars now celebrated their pioneering contributions. The legal establishment that had dismissed this work as frivolous now recognized it as essential to understanding constitutional principles.
The historical experience of dismissing gender equality as frivolous carries important lessons for contemporary academic institutions. It serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of allowing established gatekeepers to define what constitutes legitimate scholarship. Fields of study that later prove transformative often face initial skepticism and resistance from those invested in maintaining traditional boundaries.
Today’s junior scholars working in emerging fields face similar challenges. Those focusing on environmental justice, disability rights, LGBTQ equality, or other evolving areas of law may encounter skepticism from tenure committees steeped in traditional approaches. They may receive warnings that their chosen fields are too narrow, too political, or too risky for someone seeking tenure. The echo of “frivolous” continues to reverberate, even if the specific language has changed.
Ginsburg’s experience provides both validation and encouragement for scholars facing such resistance. It demonstrates that institutional gatekeepers are not infallible arbiters of what matters in legal scholarship. It shows that persistence in pursuing important questions can eventually transform the mainstream, forcing established institutions to recognize what they initially dismissed. It proves that intellectual courage in the face of professional risk can yield transformative results.
Moreover, the historical dismissal of gender equality scholarship reminds us that progress is not inevitable or automatic. The expansion of constitutional protections to cover sex discrimination happened because specific individuals were willing to take professional risks to advance their convictions. Had Ginsburg and others like her heeded the warnings about tenure risk and pursued safer topics, American constitutional law might have evolved very differently—or not evolved at all in this crucial area.
The characterization of gender equality as frivolous also reveals something profound about how legal institutions resist social change. By dismissing emerging fields as intellectually lightweight, established institutions can avoid engaging with challenging questions about justice and rights. The label of “frivolous” serves as a defense mechanism, protecting the status quo from serious examination.
This dynamic extends beyond academia into the broader legal system. Courts often dismiss novel legal claims as frivolous, regulatory agencies characterize new concerns as trivial, and legislatures ignore emerging issues as unworthy of attention. In each case, the dismissal serves to maintain existing arrangements and defer serious consideration of whether those arrangements are just.
Ginsburg’s success in overcoming the frivolous label demonstrates that persistence and rigorous analysis can eventually break through institutional resistance. By refusing to accept the characterization of her work as trivial, by insisting on the fundamental importance of gender equality, and by demonstrating the intellectual sophistication required to address these questions, she forced the legal system to take seriously what it had previously dismissed.
This lesson extends to contemporary movements for social justice. Whether addressing climate change, systemic racism, economic inequality, or other pressing concerns, advocates often face dismissal of their claims as exaggerated, trivial, or frivolous. The historical example of gender equality scholarship shows that such dismissals reveal more about institutional resistance than about the merits of the underlying claims. It suggests that persistence, rigorous analysis, and strategic advocacy can eventually overcome even deeply entrenched skepticism.
The reflection on how pursuing gender equality research jeopardized tenure prospects and was dismissed as frivolous captures a specific historical moment when fundamental constitutional rights were denied recognition by the very institutions supposedly dedicated to justice and legal scholarship. This moment reveals the profound barriers that existed not only for women seeking careers in law but for the ideas and principles that would eventually transform American constitutional law.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s response to these barriers—her refusal to abandon her chosen field despite professional risks, her insistence on treating gender equality with intellectual rigor, her strategic litigation that gradually built constitutional protections, and her eventual transformation from risky tenure candidate to celebrated legal icon—stands as a testament to the power of conviction paired with careful analysis. She did not merely overcome institutional resistance; she fundamentally reshaped the institutions themselves, forcing law schools and courts to recognize gender equality as a central concern of constitutional law rather than a frivolous distraction.
Her legacy provides inspiration for contemporary scholars and advocates facing similar dismissals of their work. It demonstrates that today’s “frivolous” concern may become tomorrow’s fundamental principle, that institutional gatekeepers do not have the final word on what matters, and that intellectual courage in the face of professional risk can yield transformative results. The journey from dismissed as trivial to recognized as essential is never easy, but Ginsburg’s experience proves that it is possible when rigorous analysis and persistent advocacy combine to challenge established assumptions.
The evolution of gender equality from a professionally dangerous field dismissed as frivolous to a cornerstone of constitutional law serves as a powerful reminder that justice often requires challenging comfortable assumptions, that progress demands risking professional security for principled conviction, and that the legal establishment’s current blind spots may be future generations’ most obvious injustices. Ginsburg saw what her colleagues missed, pursued it despite their warnings, and ultimately proved that gender equality was never frivolous—it was fundamental all along.
Explore More About Ruth Bader Ginsburg
If you found this quote inspiring, you might enjoy these products related to Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
- The Unemployed Philosophers Guild Ruth Bader Ginsburg Doll – 12″ Soft Stuffed Plush Little Thinker – $24.95
- Bleacher Creatures Ruth Bader Ginsburg 10″ Plush Figure- The RBG Icon for Play or Display – $24.99
- The Unemployed Philosophers Guild Ruth Bader Ginsburg Magnetic Personality – Plush Finger Puppet and Refrigerator Magnet, Approx 4″ Tall – $9.95
- Feminist Wood Plaque Gift, Women Belong In All Places Where Decisions Are Being Made, Plaque with Wooden Stand, Wood Sign Plaque Gift, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, RBG Woman’s Rights B1 – $7.99
- Feminist Wood Plaque Gift – RBG Woman’s Rights, Wood Sign Gift with Stand – $9.99
As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.