When examining the trajectory of women’s participation in the American legal profession, few stories capture the dramatic transformation as powerfully as that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her experiences in law school during the 1950s reveal a world that seems almost unimaginable to contemporary students. The legal education system of that era operated as an exclusive club, one that systematically marginalized and excluded women from its ranks. Understanding this historical context is essential for appreciating both how far the legal profession has come and how much work remains to be done.
The mid-twentieth century represented a particularly challenging time for women seeking professional advancement in traditionally male-dominated fields. The legal profession stood as one of the most resistant bastions of male privilege, with law schools serving as gatekeepers that actively discouraged female participation. The statistics from this era tell a striking story of exclusion and discrimination that would shape the course of American legal history.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s own recollection of her law school experience provides a stark illustration of the gender imbalance that characterized legal education in the late 1950s. She described entering a classroom environment where her entire cohort consisted of more than 500 aspiring lawyers, yet among this massive group, fewer than 10 students were women. This dramatic disparity—representing less than two percent female participation—was not an anomaly or the result of a single institution’s policies. Rather, it reflected the systematic exclusion of women from legal education across the United States during this period.
This numerical imbalance created an environment of intense scrutiny and pressure for the handful of women who managed to gain admission. Each female student carried an enormous burden of representation, knowing that her performance would be viewed not as an individual achievement or failure, but as evidence of whether women as a whole belonged in the legal profession. The psychological weight of this responsibility cannot be overstated. Every question answered in class, every exam completed, every interaction with professors and peers became a referendum on women’s intellectual capacity and professional worthiness.
The isolation experienced by these pioneering women extended beyond mere numbers. They existed in a professional environment that questioned their very presence, that viewed them as interlopers in a masculine domain, and that created institutional structures designed to remind them of their outsider status. The legal education system of the 1950s was built by men, for men, and the few women who entered its halls were expected to either conform to its masculine culture or face constant marginalization.
When Ruth Bader Ginsburg walked through the doors of Harvard Law School in the fall of 1956, she entered one of the world’s most prestigious legal institutions. Harvard Law represented the pinnacle of legal education, a place where future Supreme Court justices, senators, and corporate leaders received their training. Yet this prestige came with a deeply entrenched culture of gender discrimination that permeated every aspect of the educational experience.
The entering class that year exceeded 500 students, a massive cohort that filled lecture halls and dominated campus life. Within this sea of aspiring lawyers, only nine women had been granted admission. This ratio was not accidental or the result of women’s lack of interest in legal careers. Instead, it reflected deliberate admissions policies that viewed women as unsuitable for legal practice and questioned whether precious educational resources should be “wasted” on female students who might abandon their careers for marriage and motherhood.
The academic environment at Harvard Law during this period was notoriously demanding. The Socratic method of instruction, where professors aggressively questioned students about case law and legal principles, created an atmosphere of intellectual combat. For male students, this rigorous approach was seen as preparation for the adversarial nature of legal practice. For female students, however, the classroom often became a space where they faced not only academic challenges but also gender-based humiliation.
The institutional culture at Harvard Law actively reinforced women’s marginal status. Faculty members, almost exclusively male, sometimes participated in practices that turned female students into objects of spectacle rather than serious scholars. The infamous “Ladies’ Days” represented one such practice, where professors would designate specific class sessions for calling exclusively on female students. Rather than providing equal opportunity for participation, these special days highlighted women’s difference and otherness, treating their presence as a curiosity rather than a normal part of legal education.
Despite facing this hostile environment, Ginsburg demonstrated extraordinary resilience and academic excellence. She managed her studies while simultaneously fulfilling demanding family responsibilities. When her husband, Martin Ginsburg, was diagnosed with cancer during his own law school career, Ruth took on the additional burden of attending his classes, taking comprehensive notes, and helping him keep pace with his coursework—all while maintaining her own academic performance and caring for their young daughter. This period of her life demonstrated not only her intellectual capabilities but also her remarkable capacity for managing multiple demanding roles simultaneously.
Among the many incidents that illustrated the prevailing attitudes toward women in legal education during the 1950s, one event stands out for its brazen display of institutional sexism. Erwin Griswold, who served as Dean of Harvard Law School, hosted a dinner at his home for the nine women in the class of 1956. On the surface, this gathering might have appeared to be a welcoming gesture, an opportunity for the Dean to mentor and support these pioneering students. The reality, however, proved far different.
During this dinner, Dean Griswold posed a question to each woman in attendance. He asked them to explain why they were occupying a seat at Harvard Law School. The underlying assumption embedded in this question was clear: by accepting admission to Harvard, these women had taken opportunities that rightfully belonged to men. The Dean’s inquiry suggested that women needed to justify their presence in a way that male students never would. No male student was ever asked to defend his decision to pursue legal education or to explain why he deserved his place in the entering class.
This interrogation revealed the conditional nature of women’s acceptance into elite legal institutions. They were guests, not full members of the community. Their right to be present was constantly questioned and subject to challenge. The Dean’s question forced these women to provide acceptable rationales for their ambitions, to frame their goals in terms that would satisfy male gatekeepers who doubted their legitimacy.
Ginsburg’s response to this question demonstrated her tactical awareness even as a young law student. She explained that she wanted to understand her husband’s work better, to be a more supportive partner in his legal career. This answer likely satisfied the Dean because it positioned her education as supplementary to a man’s career rather than as preparation for her own professional ambitions. However, the fact that she felt compelled to provide such a response—rather than simply asserting her own intellectual interests and career goals—speaks volumes about the constraints women faced in this era.
The Dean’s dinner became a formative experience that Ginsburg referenced throughout her career. It crystallized her understanding of the institutional barriers women faced and the ways that even prestigious educational institutions actively worked to discourage female participation in the legal profession. This single evening encapsulated the broader message that the statistics conveyed: women were not truly welcome in the legal profession, and their presence would be tolerated only conditionally.
After two years at Harvard Law School, Ginsburg made the difficult decision to transfer to Columbia Law School for her final year of legal education. This move was necessitated by her husband’s acceptance of a position with a New York City law firm. Rather than pursue a long-distance arrangement or ask her husband to sacrifice his career opportunity, Ginsburg chose to complete her degree at another prestigious institution.
At Columbia, she continued to excel academically, ultimately graduating tied for first place in her class. This achievement represented the culmination of years of exceptional work, demonstrating that she could compete with and surpass her male peers at the highest levels of legal education. Her academic record was impeccable, her recommendations were stellar, and her credentials positioned her as an ideal candidate for the most prestigious legal positions.
Yet when Ginsburg entered the job market, she encountered a wall of rejection that had nothing to do with her qualifications and everything to do with her gender. Major law firms in New York City, despite their professed commitment to excellence and merit, simply refused to hire women attorneys. The partners at these firms harbored deep-seated beliefs that women could not handle the demands of legal practice, that they would abandon their careers when they had children, and that clients would not accept female lawyers representing their interests.
Even powerful recommendations from distinguished professors could not overcome this systematic discrimination. Ginsburg faced rejection after rejection, watching as male classmates with inferior academic records received multiple job offers from prestigious firms. The message was clear: no matter how talented, how hardworking, or how accomplished a woman might be, the legal profession would not grant her equal access to career opportunities.
Eventually, Ginsburg secured a clerkship with a district court judge, a position that provided valuable experience but represented a significant step down from the Supreme Court clerkships and major firm positions that her academic record should have commanded. This experience of discrimination, of having doors slammed in her face despite her obvious qualifications, profoundly shaped her understanding of gender inequality and motivated her future work as a litigator and advocate.
The connection between her law school experience—being one of fewer than 10 women among more than 500 students—and her subsequent career struggles was direct and undeniable. The same attitudes that limited women’s access to legal education also restricted their professional opportunities. The legal establishment operated as a closed system that excluded women at every stage, from admissions to employment to advancement within the profession.
Ginsburg’s response to these barriers was not to accept defeat or to abandon her legal ambitions. Instead, she channeled her experiences of discrimination into a focused mission to transform the legal landscape. If the legal profession would not accept her on equal terms, she would change the laws and constitutional interpretations that allowed such discrimination to persist.
She turned to academia, accepting teaching positions that allowed her to develop expertise in civil procedure and gender discrimination law. Simultaneously, she became involved with the American Civil Liberties Union, where she eventually founded the Women’s Rights Project. Through this platform, she developed a strategic litigation campaign designed to dismantle gender-based legal discrimination piece by piece.
Ginsburg’s approach to challenging gender discrimination was methodical and brilliant. She understood that courts—composed almost entirely of male judges—might not immediately sympathize with claims of discrimination against women. Therefore, she carefully selected cases that demonstrated how gender-based classifications harmed both women and men. By showing that rigid gender stereotypes constrained everyone’s freedom and opportunities, she built a body of case law that gradually eroded the legal foundations of sex discrimination.
Her personal history informed every aspect of this work. She had lived the exclusion that the statistics represented. She had felt the weight of being one of fewer than 10 women in a class of more than 500. She had experienced the humiliation of the Dean’s dinner and the frustration of job market discrimination. These experiences gave her both the motivation and the insight necessary to craft legal arguments that would resonate with courts and gradually shift constitutional interpretations.
The transformation of women’s participation in legal education over the decades following Ginsburg’s law school years represents one of the most dramatic demographic shifts in American professional life. Today, women constitute the majority of law students at most American law schools, a complete reversal of the situation that Ginsburg encountered in the 1950s.
This shift did not happen accidentally or inevitably. It resulted from deliberate efforts to challenge discriminatory admissions policies, from changing cultural attitudes about women’s roles, and from the legal victories that Ginsburg and other advocates secured. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited sex discrimination in employment, and subsequent legal developments opened doors that had been firmly closed during the 1950s.
The contrast between Ginsburg’s experience and contemporary legal education is striking. Modern law school classrooms are diverse spaces where women participate fully and equally, where female professors hold positions of authority, and where gender-based exclusion is not only prohibited but widely condemned. The idea that a law school dean would host a dinner to question why women were taking up valuable seats seems almost unthinkable today.
However, this progress should not breed complacency. While women now enter legal education in equal or greater numbers than men, significant disparities persist in the profession itself. Women remain underrepresented in law firm partnerships, judicial appointments, and positions of legal leadership. The barriers have shifted from explicit exclusion to more subtle forms of discrimination, but they have not entirely disappeared.
When Ginsburg recounted her experience of being one of fewer than 10 women in a class of more than 500 students, she was doing more than sharing a personal anecdote. She was providing historical testimony about a specific moment in American legal history, documenting the conditions that existed and the obstacles that women faced. This testimony serves multiple important functions.
First, it preserves historical memory. Younger generations who have never experienced such dramatic exclusion might otherwise struggle to understand how recently women were systematically barred from professional opportunities. The statistics that Ginsburg cited make the discrimination concrete and undeniable, preventing historical amnesia about the struggles that previous generations endured.
Second, the quote provides context for understanding the legal and social changes that followed. The transformation from fewer than two percent female participation to majority representation did not happen gradually or smoothly. It required sustained effort, legal challenges, cultural shifts, and the determination of countless women who refused to accept exclusion. Ginsburg’s recollection helps us understand what was at stake and why the fight for equality mattered so profoundly.
Third, the quote serves as a warning against backsliding. Rights and opportunities that seem secure can be eroded if vigilance lapses. By reminding contemporary audiences of how recently women faced near-total exclusion from legal education, Ginsburg encouraged continued attention to gender equality and ongoing efforts to address remaining disparities.
Throughout her career, Ginsburg returned to this theme repeatedly, sometimes varying the specific numbers but always emphasizing the dramatic gender imbalance that characterized her law school experience. She paired the statistics with the story of the Dean’s dinner, using both data and narrative to convey the full reality of what women faced. This combination of quantitative and qualitative evidence made her testimony particularly powerful and memorable.
The story of women’s exclusion from legal education and the subsequent transformation of the profession carries implications that extend far beyond law schools and legal practice. It illustrates broader patterns of how professional exclusion operates, how it is challenged, and how change can be achieved even in the face of entrenched resistance.
The mechanisms that kept women out of law schools in the 1950s—discriminatory admissions policies, hostile institutional cultures, and assumptions about women’s proper roles—operated in similar ways across many professional fields. Medicine, business, academia, and other prestigious careers employed comparable strategies to maintain male dominance. Understanding how these barriers were challenged and eventually dismantled in the legal profession provides insights applicable to ongoing efforts to achieve equality in other domains.
Moreover, Ginsburg’s experience demonstrates the importance of representation and critical mass. Being one of fewer than 10 women among more than 500 students created an environment of isolation and intense scrutiny that made success extraordinarily difficult. As women’s numbers in legal education increased, the burden of representation became more distributed, and individual women faced less pressure to prove the capabilities of their entire gender. This dynamic applies to any situation where underrepresented groups seek entry into exclusive institutions or professions.
The numerical reality that Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced when she entered law school in 1956—being one of fewer than 10 women in a class exceeding 500 students—represents more than a historical curiosity. It stands as a powerful reminder of how recently women were systematically excluded from professional opportunities that we now consider fundamental rights. The dramatic transformation from near-total exclusion to majority participation in legal education represents one of the most significant social changes of the past century.
Ginsburg did not allow the statistics that defined her early experience to limit her ambitions or silence her voice. Instead, she used her understanding of discrimination, gained through lived experience, to fuel a career dedicated to dismantling legal barriers to equality. She transformed the American legal landscape, ensuring that future generations of women would not face the obstacles that she encountered.
Today’s legal profession, while far from perfect, is vastly more inclusive and equitable than the world Ginsburg entered in the 1950s. This progress did not happen automatically or inevitably. It resulted from the courage, persistence, and strategic brilliance of advocates like Ginsburg who refused to accept exclusion and who fought to expand the definition of who belongs in the legal profession.
As we reflect on Ginsburg’s recollection of her law school years, we must remember that the work of achieving true equality remains incomplete. While the most blatant forms of discrimination have been eliminated, subtle barriers and biases continue to limit opportunities for women and other underrepresented groups in the legal profession and beyond. Honoring Ginsburg’s legacy requires not only celebrating the progress that has been achieved but also committing to continued vigilance and action to address remaining inequalities.
The journey from fewer than 10 women in a class of more than 500 to today’s diverse law school classrooms demonstrates that transformative change is possible even in the face of deeply entrenched discrimination. This history should inspire continued efforts to expand opportunity, challenge exclusion, and build a legal profession—and a society—that truly values and includes the talents and perspectives of all people, regardless of gender or other characteristics. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s story reminds us where we have been, how far we have come, and how much work remains to be done.
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.