Judge Makes Jaw-Dropping Comments On Women In The Judiciary
One judge's controversial comments on seeing more women judges.
Sure, everyone knows that “sexism” is still a “thing,” but it is easy to get complacent and believe that the very worst of it (or at least the most blatant) ended in the 1950s. Fortunately(?) Lord Jonathan Sumption, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, made a series of comments about women in the judiciary that reminds us all sexism is alive and well.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Lord Sumption was asked about increasing women in the British judiciary (women currently make up about 25% of British judges, with the percentage decreasing higher up the hierarchy), and he responded with all the privilege he could muster:
Lord Sumption, a Supreme Court judge, said he believed that the judiciary was a “terrific public asset” which could be “destroyed very easily” if the selection of candidates was skewed in favour of women.
Are Small Firms Going Big On Legal Tech?
Yup, the very fabric of the judicial system could be “destroyed” if we move too quickly on that pesky equality thing.
“These things simply can’t be transformed overnight, not without appalling consequence in other directions,” he said.
You see pretty lady, it is like the butterfly effect.
“It takes time. You’ve got to be patient. The change in the status and achievements of women in our society, not just in the law but generally, is an enormous cultural change that has happened over the last 50 years or so. It has to happen naturally. It will happen naturally. But in the history of a society like ours, 50 years is a very short time.”
Sponsored
How AI Is The Catalyst For Reshaping Every Aspect Of Legal Work
Document Automation For Law Firms: The Definitive Guide
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
Why don’t you just busy yourself in the kitchen until we’re ready for equality?
Warning that the judiciary and the quality of British justice was “a terribly delicate organism”, Lord Sumption added: “We have got to be very careful not to do things at a speed which will make male candidates feel that the cards are stacked against them. If we do that we will find that male candidates don’t apply in the right numbers. 85 per cent of newly appointed judges in France are women because the men stay away. 85 per cent women is just as bad as 85 per cent men.
Let’s just say Justice Ginsburg has a very different opinion on the subject. But in this comment we have the same nugget of male fear that typifies the MRA movement — the fear of losing the privilege you’ve benefited from your whole life (through no work of your own, mind you). Change is scary, but that cannot stop the quest for what is right.
In the interview Lord Sumption also blamed the low numbers of women at the top of the legal profession on the long hours and “appalling” conditions. I’m not one to defend the practices of the legal field, but to suggest that men are somehow better suited to do difficult work is pretty offensive.
Reaction to Lord Sumption’s comments hasn’t been kind. A spokesperson for the British Supreme Court released the following statement:
Sponsored
Are Small Firms Going Big On Legal Tech?
Profit Powerhouse: Elevating Law Firm Financial Performance
“Some of Lord Sumption’s comments appear to have been misunderstood. The full quotes make clear that he believes that increasing diversity at all levels of the profession is important, and that the range of hidden barriers to improving diversity – particularly of the judiciary – present a very complex problem. Nowhere did he try and reduce this to a simple question of ‘lifestyle choice’. The concern he expressed was against introducing any form of positive discrimination to the judicial appointments system without careful analysis of the full range of potential consequences.”
Somehow, that just doesn’t help much.
Rush for gender equality with top judges ‘could have appalling consequences for justice’ [Evening Standard]
Earlier: You Won’t Believe This Law Firm Memo From The 1950s