B. Case Studies: Women in law school
In 1949 a committee at Harvard Law School discussed the topic of allowing women to enter the 1950 school year. The committee believed that:

the most serious justification for the exclusion of women is based upon the probability that a relatively small proportion would make professional use of their training…and that for each woman admitted a qualified man…would have to be excluded.

For many legal educators of the time, legal analysis was tied to traits such as hardness, toughness, and sharpness that often associated with men. These traits isolated legal education from the “softness” of women who were often told, as one Harvard alumna remembers, to “get secretarial training along with [a] law degree”. The longtime Dean of Harvard Law School, Erwin Griswold, epitomized the resentful sentiment toward female law students. Dean Griswold strongly opposed the admission of women because “each woman at the school was taking the place of a good man”. Each year he had a dinner party at his home to “welcome” the women of Harvard Law School. The evening consisted of dinner and “interrogation” for dessert where the women were seated in a circle to answer questions as to “why they were taking the place of a man” and “why they were wasting Harvard’s resources” when they would only practice a few years. As one woman remembers the dinners: “[They] were not particularly fun, special evenings…my view was that he didn’t want us there”.

Many professors at Harvard Law School were equally opposed to the presence of women in the classrooms. One professor in particular, Professor W. Barton Leach, held what he referred to as “ladies’ days”. He would state that he was mostly opposed to having women at the law school and then let the women know in advance when they would be called on and what case to prepare. On the appointed day, the women sat in the front of the class where they would discuss a belittling case – usually one involving underwear. One woman remembers it as being “like Picnic at the Zoo Day – and we were the animals in the cages”. Similarly, male classmates were unsure how to treat their female counterparts. Some of the men would request a seat change when assigned to sit next to a woman. Women always had “the sense of being such a tiny minority that stuck out and was the object of curiosity”.

As opposed to the disturbing experiences of some of the first women at Harvard Law School, the early women students at the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles were welcomed and well-regarded. From 1900 to 1930, USC enrolled at least one hundred fifty (150) women and graduated about one hundred fifteen (115). Women attended Portia School of Law in Boston comprised of all women and Washington School of Law in the District of Columbia comprised of mostly women, but neither were members of the American Association of Law Schools (AALS). USC cannot claim to be the first AALS member law school to admit women, but the number of women enrolled at USC ranked the school as one of the most women-friendly schools in the country. The school boasted two women law student organizations and a night school making attendance convenient for women with families or employment obligations. Two early deans of the law school supported the presence of talented women in the study of law even creating a Women’s Law Department to recognize “the great interest the women are taking in the study of law”. The positive experiences of women at USC occurred at the turn of the century, long before Harvard Law School opened its gates to female law students.

C. Changes in Statistics?
With such stark differences in women’s early experiences at USC and Harvard Law Schools, it is interesting to discern statistical viewpoints on gender differences at law schools today. The American Bar Association (ABA), an institution that did not allow female members until 1920, has charted the statistics of women enrolled at ABA approved law schools from 1947 to 2002. Based on the numbers indicating that women comprised a mere three to four percent until 1967, it may be inferred that women experienced at least an unwelcoming environment. According to a study conducted in 1970, some schools were still reluctant to accept women, and some legal educators still doubted women would ever become a force in the profession. Later studies indicate that once law schools became more accepting of women, namely after the influx of the 1970’s, women and men had very similar experiences at law school. For instance, although women are still more reluctant to volunteer in class, feelings of embarrassment or belittling were not gender specific nor were they prolific. However, a report by the Joint Task Force on Gender Fairness in the Profession has indicated that women continue to experience a general hostility based on their gender.

In a study conducted at the elite University of Pennsylvania law school, concluded in 1994, researchers found persistent gender stratification where women’s law school experiences differed markedly from that of their male counterparts. The study found differences within three main components of legal education. First, men were found to academically outperform women. Second, there were differences between the sexes in their attitudes regarding legal education. For example, women entered law school with intentions to promote social justice. Lastly, the study found that legal instruction, namely the Socratic-method, alienated women. The general claim of the study is that women feel excluded from the educational structure and environment, and some women are affected psychologically and professionally. This study suggests that perhaps the favorable statistics indicating higher admissions for women are not indicative of changes in gender issues at law schools.

Continued: III. Boston College and Boston College Law: A History