The landscape of American legal education in the mid-twentieth century presented formidable obstacles for anyone who didn’t fit the traditional mold of a white male attorney. When we examine the composition of elite law school classrooms during the 1950s, we encounter a startling reality that seems almost incomprehensible by contemporary standards. The barriers to entry for women and minorities weren’t merely informal social pressures—they were institutional policies backed by centuries of tradition and reinforced by cultural attitudes that viewed legal practice as inherently masculine territory.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who would eventually become one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices in American history, documented her experience entering Harvard Law School in 1956 with remarkable clarity. Her entering class contained merely nine women, representing a slight increase from the five women who comprised the second-year class above them. Additionally, only one African American student had gained admission to her class. Perhaps most tellingly, every single professor at the institution shared identical demographic characteristics—they were all white men. This homogeneous faculty composition meant that students from underrepresented groups had no mentors who shared their lived experiences or understood the unique challenges they faced.
These statistics, which Ginsburg referred to as representing “now-ancient days,” weren’t actually that distant in historical terms. Yet the cultural chasm between that era and our current moment feels vast. The numbers she cited weren’t merely dry statistics—they represented real isolation, tangible discrimination, and the enormous psychological burden of being perpetually viewed as an outsider in spaces designed explicitly for others.
Harvard Law School’s relationship with female students was remarkably brief when Ginsburg arrived on campus. The institution had only begun admitting women in 1950, a mere six years before Ginsburg’s enrollment. This meant that female students remained an absolute novelty within the halls of this prestigious institution. The gender disparity was staggering—nine women among a class exceeding 500 students created an atmosphere where female students were constantly visible, constantly scrutinized, and constantly aware of their exceptional status.
This visibility created unique pressures that male students never experienced. When a male student struggled with coursework or performed poorly on an examination, his failure was viewed as an individual shortcoming. When a female student faced similar difficulties, however, her struggles were often interpreted as evidence that women as a group lacked the intellectual capacity for legal reasoning. This unfair burden meant that Ginsburg and her female classmates couldn’t simply be students—they were representatives of their entire gender, ambassadors whose every action would be judged as reflecting on all women’s capabilities.
The environment demanded not merely competence but perfection from these pioneering women. A mediocre performance wouldn’t be tolerated the way it might be for their male peers. Every classroom discussion, every written assignment, every examination became an opportunity either to challenge or reinforce the prevailing stereotypes about women’s intellectual abilities. The psychological toll of this constant pressure cannot be overstated. These women weren’t just pursuing legal education—they were fighting a battle to prove their very right to exist in these spaces.
Furthermore, the institutional culture of Harvard Law School during this period actively reinforced these gender barriers. The school’s traditions, social events, and informal networks had been built over generations with the assumption that students and future attorneys would be male. Women found themselves excluded from study groups, social gatherings, and mentorship opportunities that their male classmates took for granted. The few women present had to create their own support systems in an environment that offered them little institutional backing.
Ginsburg’s observation about “one African American” student in her entering class reveals another dimension of exclusion that characterized elite legal education during the 1950s. The legal profession had constructed barriers that effectively prevented people of color from accessing the training necessary to become attorneys. These barriers operated at multiple levels—from discriminatory admissions policies to financial obstacles to hostile campus environments that made retention difficult even for those who gained admission.
The presence of only a single African American student in a class of over 500 people wasn’t an accident or an unfortunate coincidence. It reflected deliberate policies and practices that had kept the legal profession overwhelmingly white throughout American history. Many law schools had only recently begun admitting African American students at all, and those who did gain admission faced extraordinary challenges. They encountered not only the academic rigor of legal training but also social isolation, discrimination from faculty and peers, and the knowledge that their professional opportunities would be severely limited even if they successfully completed their degrees.
The faculty composition that Ginsburg noted—entirely white and entirely male—compounded these problems. Students had no professors who could serve as role models or mentors for anyone outside the dominant demographic group. This lack of representation sent a powerful implicit message about who belonged in the legal profession and who was merely a temporary guest. When every authority figure, every expert, every person in a position of institutional power shares the same demographic characteristics, it becomes difficult to imagine alternative possibilities.
This homogeneity also impacted the substance of legal education itself. Professors who had never experienced discrimination based on race or gender were less likely to recognize or teach about the ways law could be used to challenge such discrimination. The curriculum reflected the perspectives and priorities of those who created it, which meant that issues affecting women and minorities often received minimal attention or were framed in ways that reinforced existing power structures.
Ginsburg’s specific notation that her class contained nine women, “up from five” in the previous class, deserves careful attention. This detail reveals both progress and its limitations. Yes, the number of women had increased—nearly doubling from one year to the next. However, this growth was occurring from such a minuscule baseline that even dramatic percentage increases resulted in tiny absolute numbers. Going from five to nine women might represent an 80% increase, but it still left women comprising less than 2% of the student body.
This glacial pace of change reflected deep institutional resistance to integration. Harvard Law School and similar institutions weren’t enthusiastically embracing diversity—they were grudgingly making minimal concessions to changing social pressures. The decision to admit women in 1950 came more than 130 years after the law school’s founding in 1817. Even after making this decision, the school clearly wasn’t committed to recruiting women in meaningful numbers or creating an environment where they could thrive.
The phrase “now-ancient days” that Ginsburg employed carries particular significance. She was writing from a perspective decades removed from her law school experience, looking back at what felt like a different civilization. Yet the temporal distance wasn’t actually that great—we’re discussing events from the mid-twentieth century, not the distant past. This disconnect between chronological time and cultural change highlights how rapidly American society transformed in certain respects during the latter half of the twentieth century, particularly regarding gender roles and opportunities for women.
However, Ginsburg’s characterization also contains a note of irony. By calling these days “ancient,” she emphasized how foreign this world of extreme exclusion should seem to contemporary readers. She wanted to highlight the progress that had been made, the barriers that had been broken down. Yet she also understood that the work remained incomplete and that vestiges of these old attitudes persisted.
The hostile environment that Ginsburg and her female classmates encountered wasn’t merely a matter of implicit bias or unconscious discrimination. In many cases, the hostility was explicit and came from the highest levels of institutional leadership. One particularly revealing incident involved Dean Erwin Griswold, who led Harvard Law School during Ginsburg’s time there. Griswold organized a dinner specifically for the nine women in Ginsburg’s entering class, arranging the seating so that each woman sat beside a male professor.
During this dinner, Griswold posed a pointed question to each female student in turn: Why were they occupying seats that could have gone to men? This question wasn’t asked with genuine curiosity or interest in understanding these women’s motivations. Rather, it reflected and reinforced the prevailing attitude that women didn’t truly belong at Harvard Law School. The question’s underlying assumption was that every seat occupied by a woman represented an opportunity denied to a more deserving male applicant.
Ginsburg’s response to this question revealed both her diplomatic skill and the impossible position these women occupied. She explained that she wanted to understand her husband’s work better—a response that framed her legal education in terms of supporting a man rather than pursuing her own professional ambitions. This answer was strategic, designed to minimize conflict and avoid challenging the dean’s assumptions too directly. Yet it also represented a compromise with discriminatory attitudes, a necessity for survival in an environment that questioned her very right to be present.
This dinner incident provides crucial context for understanding Ginsburg’s later written reflection. When she carefully enumerated the women in her class—nine in her year, five in the class above—she wasn’t simply providing demographic data. She was documenting the isolation and marginalization she experienced. These numbers mattered because they represented the extent to which she and her female classmates were viewed as aberrations, as exceptions to the natural order of legal education.
The psychological impact of facing such hostility from institutional leadership cannot be overstated. These women weren’t just dealing with prejudiced peers or biased individual professors—they were confronting a system that questioned their legitimacy from the very top. Dean Griswold’s question made explicit what was often left implicit: that women were interlopers in legal education, taking opportunities that rightfully belonged to men.
The discrimination and isolation that Ginsburg experienced during her legal education profoundly shaped her subsequent career trajectory. She didn’t simply overcome these barriers and move on—she dedicated her professional life to dismantling the legal structures that had made such discrimination possible. Her firsthand experience of being treated as a second-class citizen in legal education gave her unique insight into how law could be used both to oppress and to liberate.
After completing her legal education—she actually transferred to Columbia Law School for her final year, graduating tied for first in her class—Ginsburg faced continued discrimination in the job market. Despite her exceptional academic credentials, law firms were reluctant to hire her. She was a woman, she was a mother, and she was Jewish—each of these characteristics represented a strike against her in the eyes of many potential employers. These experiences reinforced the lessons she had learned at Harvard about the pervasive nature of gender discrimination.
Rather than accepting these barriers as immutable features of the legal profession, Ginsburg chose to challenge them. She co-founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, creating an institutional platform for challenging sex discrimination through strategic litigation. This work allowed her to transform her personal experiences of discrimination into legal arguments that would benefit millions of women.
Ginsburg’s litigation strategy was remarkably sophisticated. She understood that courts—composed overwhelmingly of male judges who had never experienced sex discrimination—might be skeptical of claims brought by women. Therefore, she strategically chose cases involving discrimination against men, demonstrating that rigid gender roles harmed everyone. By showing male judges how they or their sons could be disadvantaged by sex-based classifications, she made the abstract principle of gender equality more concrete and relatable.
Throughout this work, Ginsburg drew on her experiences at Harvard Law School and in the legal profession more broadly. She understood viscerally what it meant to be judged based on group characteristics rather than individual merit. She knew the frustration of having one’s capabilities doubted simply because of one’s gender. She recognized how supposedly neutral rules and policies could have discriminatory effects. All of these insights, forged in the hostile environment of 1950s legal education, informed her approach to civil rights litigation.
The transformation of legal education since Ginsburg’s time at Harvard Law School has been dramatic. Today, women comprise approximately half or more of law school enrollment at most institutions. Many law schools actively recruit diverse student bodies and have implemented programs designed to support students from underrepresented groups. Faculty composition has also diversified significantly, with women and people of color holding professorships and leadership positions that would have been unthinkable in 1956.
These changes represent genuine progress that shouldn’t be minimized. The barriers that Ginsburg faced—explicit policies excluding women, hostile questioning of their right to be present, complete absence of female role models on the faculty—have been largely dismantled. Contemporary female law students can pursue their education without facing the same level of institutional discrimination that characterized earlier eras.
However, Ginsburg’s documentation of the 1956 class composition serves multiple purposes in our contemporary context. First, it provides a benchmark for measuring progress. By understanding where legal education started, we can appreciate how far it has come. The contrast between nine women in a class of over 500 students and today’s roughly equal gender distribution illustrates transformative change within a single lifetime.
Second, Ginsburg’s words serve as a reminder that these barriers existed in the relatively recent past. The “now-ancient days” she described aren’t actually ancient at all—they’re within living memory. This temporal proximity should give us pause. It reminds us that progress isn’t inevitable or irreversible. The barriers that were dismantled could potentially be reconstructed if we become complacent about protecting equality.
Third, her focus on demographic composition highlights the ongoing importance of diversity in education. While gender balance has improved dramatically in law schools, other dimensions of diversity remain challenging. Students from low-income backgrounds, students with disabilities, and students from certain racial and ethnic groups remain underrepresented in legal education. Ginsburg’s careful enumeration of her class composition invites us to perform similar accounting today, asking who remains excluded or underrepresented.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s reflection on her 1956 Harvard Law School class represents more than personal memoir—it constitutes vital historical documentation of a transformative period in American legal education. Her careful attention to numbers—nine women, up from five, one African American, all professors of the same race and sex—creates a precise snapshot of institutional exclusion. These details matter because they make abstract discrimination concrete and measurable.
The quote also demonstrates Ginsburg’s understanding of her own historical significance. By documenting these conditions, she ensured that future generations would understand the barriers she overcame. She created a record that would allow her subsequent achievements to be properly contextualized. Her Supreme Court appointment wasn’t just a personal accomplishment—it represented a dramatic departure from the legal world she had entered in 1956.
Furthermore, Ginsburg’s words model a particular approach to discussing discrimination and progress. She presented factual information without excessive emotion or rhetoric. The numbers spoke for themselves—nine women in a class of over 500 students requires no additional commentary to convey the severity of gender imbalance. This straightforward, factual approach characterized much of Ginsburg’s work, both as a litigator and as a jurist.
The legacy that Ginsburg created through her documentation, her litigation, and her judicial service ensures that the legal profession will never return to the homogeneous composition that characterized her law school years. Her work helped establish legal principles and cultural norms that make explicit gender discrimination in education unacceptable and illegal. While challenges remain, the fundamental transformation she helped achieve stands as one of the most significant civil rights accomplishments of the twentieth century.
Understanding this history remains essential for contemporary legal education and practice. Students who take for granted their access to legal education should understand that this access was hard-won through the efforts of pioneers like Ginsburg. Faculty who teach in diverse classrooms should recognize that this diversity represents a dramatic departure from historical norms. And all participants in the legal profession should remain vigilant against complacency, understanding that the progress achieved can only be maintained through continued commitment to equality and inclusion.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg entered Harvard Law School in 1956 as one of nine women in a class of over 500 students. She left a legacy that transformed not just legal education but American society more broadly. Her careful documentation of the barriers she faced serves as both historical record and moral compass, reminding us where we’ve been and pointing toward where we still need to go.
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.