Neena Chaudhry, Senior Counsel and Director of Equal Opportunities in Athletics

by Neena Chaudhry, Senior Counsel, 
and Dina Lassow, Senior Counsel, 
National Women’s Law Center 

Along with others across the world, we mourn the passing of a legend today.  Senator Kennedy championed many causes, including the right to equal educational opportunities for all, regardless of race, sex, family income, language barriers, or disability.  One of his causes that is particularly near and dear to our hearts is Title IX. 

In addition to being a key supporter for passage of Title IX, Senator Kennedy led the fight to ensure that the reach of the law was as broad as originally intended.  In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in Grove City College v. Bell that Title IX’s protection against discrimination was limited to the specific programs within a school that received federal funds.  This decision had devastating consequences because it meant that athletics programs, for example, would not be covered unless they received federal funds, which they typically did not.  It also meant that students were only protected against sexual harassment if the harassment took place in a dormitory or classroom that happened to have been built with federal aid – not one across the street.  Senator Kennedy came to the rescue and was the leading author of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, which overturned the Supreme Court’s Grove City decision and required recipients of federal funds to comply with civil rights laws in all areas, not just in a particular program or activity that receives federal funding.

by Neena Chaudhry, Senior Counsel,
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a series about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

As Senators made opening statements on the first day of the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor, several referenced the now controversial “e” word—empathy.  This word became a focal point when President Obama mentioned it as one of the many qualities he is looking for in a Supreme Court Justice, and it is now being misused in an attempt to paint Judge Sotomayor as someone who will not be impartial but rather will make decisions based on personal biases.  Unfortunately, the President’s statement and the definition of the word empathy have both been distorted in the name of politics.  It is reminiscent of the telephone game that many of us played as kids, where the initial sentence or phrase was warped after repeated whisperings of it from one person to another. 

Since we’re talking about a Supreme Court nomination, it seems fitting to start with the facts.  Here is what President Obama actually said: “I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.  I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.  It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. . . . I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving a[t] just decisions and outcomes.  I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.  I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”