University of Michigan Law School – Insights from the Quad ... · TRANSCRIPT . Page . 2. of . 53. 00:00:35.220 --> 00:00:43.890 . Monica Hakimi: I'm delighted that so many of you

University of Michigan Law School – Insights from the Quad Series 2020-21 Moving Toward Equality September 15, 2020 TRANSCRIPT

Page 1 of 53

Description:

The #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements have illuminated longstanding gender, racial, and interconnected inequalities on other grounds in life and in law. In this conversation, Catharine A. MacKinnon will discuss her recent legal proposal crafted with Columbia and UCLA law professor Kimberlé W. Crenshaw. They reenvision constitutional equality substantively and intersectionally from the ground up, focusing on rectifying the founding acts and omissions of race and sex separately and together, with further social hierarchies that ground unequal status and treatment.

Speakers:

- Prof. Catharine MacKinnon - Prof. Monica Hakimi (moderator)

00:00:04.110 --> 00:00:12.750

Monica Hakimi: Hi everyone, welcome to the Michigan Law School insights from the quad series. My name is Monica Hickey me and I'm on the faculty and one of the associate Dean's here at the law school.

00:00:13.259 --> 00:00:18.840

Monica Hakimi: We decided to launch the series because of coven. We know that many people are isolated as a result of the pandemic.

00:00:19.230 --> 00:00:28.530

Monica Hakimi: And they're isolated precisely at a time when the thirsty for serious conversations about the challenges of this country conference. So this is an effort to do what I think we do really well at Michigan.

00:00:28.950 --> 00:00:34.890

Monica Hakimi: Build a community of virtual community but still a community to engage together on some of the most important issues of the day.


Page 2 of 53

00:00:35.220 --> 00:00:43.890

Monica Hakimi: I'm delighted that so many of you have joined us this evening with a mix of alumni current students, faculty, staff and other friends of the law school on the call, welcome to all of you.

00:00:44.340 --> 00:00:56.160

Monica Hakimi: And I'm absolutely thrilled that to kick off our series Catherine MacKinnon will speak about her recent proposal co-authored with Professor Kimberly Crenshaw of Columbia and UCLA Law Schools for moving this country closer to equality.

00:00:56.700 --> 00:01:02.310

Monica Hakimi: Professor McKinnon really needs no introduction. She is the Elizabeth A long professor of law here at Michigan.

00:01:02.700 --> 00:01:06.300

Monica Hakimi: And the long term James bar aims visiting professor of law at Harvard Law School.

00:01:06.690 --> 00:01:11.010

Monica Hakimi: She specializes in sex equality issues under international and domestic law.

00:01:11.280 --> 00:01:21.180

Monica Hakimi: She has pioneered the legal claim for sexual harassment and has had a profound impact on the way we think about equality, not only in US law, but also in other domestic and international jurisdictions.


Page 3 of 53

00:01:21.930 --> 00:01:28.200

Monica Hakimi: We've decided to structure today's event like a conversation with me asking Professor McKinnon a series of questions about her recent proposal.

00:01:28.620 --> 00:01:35.490

Monica Hakimi: Thanks to those of you who submitted questions in advance. And for those of you who are still itching to ask something please do so via the

00:01:36.090 --> 00:01:43.260

Monica Hakimi: Question and Answer session on zoom. I can't promise that. We'll get to all of your questions, but we're certainly interested in knowing what they are and will definitely try

00:01:43.800 --> 00:01:55.140

Monica Hakimi: So to start, Professor McKinnon, thank you for being here and why don't you just go ahead and describe the proposal that you and Professor control have advanced and explain some of the problems that its aims to address.

00:01:57.240 --> 00:02:07.380

Catharine MacKinnon: Okay, thank you, Monica and thanks for asking me to do this and hello to everyone and, in particular, I send love to all my former students

00:02:08.580 --> 00:02:10.140

Catharine MacKinnon: I love you. I miss you.

00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:16.440

Catharine MacKinnon: I am so proud of your place in the world and everything that you do.


Page 4 of 53

00:02:19.650 --> 00:02:25.740

Catharine MacKinnon: Our proposal is both an act of hope and frustration.

00:02:27.390 --> 00:02:33.390

Catharine MacKinnon: It's the idea; it’s called the equality amendment or an equality amendment.

00:02:34.410 --> 00:02:37.260

Catharine MacKinnon: With a little humility in it.

00:02:38.910 --> 00:02:42.960

Catharine MacKinnon: And we proposed it because

00:02:44.760 --> 00:02:57.510

Catharine MacKinnon: Well, women were not even mentioned in the Constitution, originally. This is an amendment to the US Constitution, we propose. And once you see how people of color were mentioned in it.

00:02:59.160 --> 00:03:02.250

Catharine MacKinnon: Maybe it's kind of good, women weren't mentioned it at all.

00:03:03.420 --> 00:03:04.650

Catharine MacKinnon: In other words,

00:03:05.940 --> 00:03:19.530

Catharine MacKinnon: There was a founding subordination of all people of color and actually have race as a category, together with an exclusion of sex.


Page 5 of 53

00:03:20.220 --> 00:03:36.630

Catharine MacKinnon: And of all women, including women of color, from the Constitution. So, and this, in our view, has been continually re-inscribed ever since, through a variety of means. Principally

00:03:38.340 --> 00:03:48.240

Catharine MacKinnon: Despite real attempts at amending the Constitution, for example, with equal protection clause. The 14th amendment with its equal protection clause.

00:03:50.700 --> 00:04:02.370

Catharine MacKinnon: Added after the Civil War, but essentially with spit and a prayer, you know, an attempt to produce further equality and with

00:04:04.650 --> 00:04:05.460

Catharine MacKinnon: The

00:04:06.690 --> 00:04:10.980

Catharine MacKinnon: The Congress of the United States attempting to implement that amendment.

00:04:12.210 --> 00:04:23.880

Catharine MacKinnon: There's been courageous progressive initiatives advance to address those same any inequalities. But actually this at certain times, although there have been

00:04:24.540 --> 00:04:37.410

Catharine MacKinnon: Reasonably transformative moves advance throughout that including through the Civil Rights Movement initiated by African Americans in an attempt to get social equality through legal equality.


Page 6 of 53

00:04:39.030 --> 00:04:54.990

Catharine MacKinnon: Through those particular moves and also some by the women's movement and other movements of other peoples of color, notably actually Asian Americans whose initiatives.

00:04:56.220 --> 00:05:01.650

Catharine MacKinnon: Legal and litigation under the Equal Protection Clause have been

00:05:02.670 --> 00:05:09.330

Catharine MacKinnon: Very strong in advancing some transformation in it, and despite all of this.

00:05:12.030 --> 00:05:19.890

Catharine MacKinnon: A lot of the legal developments have seriously undermined those initiatives and at times, it seems

00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:24.540

Catharine MacKinnon: The law and the courts have been going further backwards.

00:05:25.830 --> 00:05:28.680

Catharine MacKinnon: Then forwards. Indeed they have and

00:05:29.880 --> 00:05:37.410

Catharine MacKinnon: Given all those doctrinal developments which we can talk about specifically, but certainly include the intent requirement.


Page 7 of 53

00:05:40.080 --> 00:05:45.090

Catharine MacKinnon: Which applies both to sex and to race under the equal protection clause.

00:05:46.230 --> 00:05:48.540

Catharine MacKinnon: Which has been particularly destructive.

00:05:49.830 --> 00:05:58.800

Catharine MacKinnon: Particularly where systemic discrimination requires no intention. So if you are required to prove intent.

00:05:59.970 --> 00:06:07.320

Catharine MacKinnon: It's precisely when discrimination is most systemic with the least can be done about it through one. And also

00:06:08.400 --> 00:06:16.920

Catharine MacKinnon: By in that is affects the sex and race, the same, but there are other doctrines that affects sex and race differently.

00:06:18.150 --> 00:06:29.010

Catharine MacKinnon: For example, race is regarded as a suspect classification under the equal protection clause, which ends up, meaning that, for example, affirmative action even when you're able to have it.

00:06:29.460 --> 00:06:41.790

Catharine MacKinnon: is harder to justify for race than for sex because the category, get it, a bit suspect, whereas sex then remains marooned in sort of middle tier scrutiny.


Page 8 of 53

00:06:42.390 --> 00:06:56.040

Catharine MacKinnon: With sex discrimination law. Well, sex discrimination infrequently being found for women because often sex is thought kind of a nice differency thing.

00:06:56.910 --> 00:07:09.180

Catharine MacKinnon: So far as women are concerned, whereas fairly frequently it's found with regard to men, whereas their sex is not seen as some nice differency thing when it is used to disadvantage them.

00:07:10.920 --> 00:07:15.930

Catharine MacKinnon: Thus we build a sex equality law around the status of men.

00:07:17.730 --> 00:07:33.180

Catharine MacKinnon: Which as the advantage group on the basis of sex even when disadvantaged in particular cases is not, has not positively, you know, moved the needle forward.

00:07:33.720 --> 00:07:49.080

Catharine MacKinnon: For women in the ways that it should so that these are just two doctrinal ways that sex inequality has been continuously re-inscribed through the main headings of doctrine under existing law and so

00:07:50.010 --> 00:07:55.500

Catharine MacKinnon: Our idea, actually my original idea is, look, if you're going to have something called an equal rights amendment.

00:07:56.550 --> 00:08:00.420

Catharine MacKinnon: This is like 10 years ago. More than that, it's seeming to me.


Page 9 of 53

00:08:01.920 --> 00:08:08.520

Catharine MacKinnon: And this is the United States. After all, if you're going to call a thing. Equal Rights Amendment, it ought to have race in it

00:08:09.570 --> 00:08:10.620

Catharine MacKinnon: Really it ought to.

00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:22.260

Catharine MacKinnon: It's, it's not going to do what it calls itself. It’s not going to deliver on a promise of being an equal rights amendment if it doesn't have race in it.

00:08:23.670 --> 00:08:39.630

Catharine MacKinnon: As I say, given the United States and also given the status of women of color and the way in which discrimination based on race gets us to undermine women of color status as women actually

00:08:40.830 --> 00:08:43.710

Catharine MacKinnon: both legally and socially so

00:08:45.870 --> 00:08:55.410

Catharine MacKinnon: A lot of us have thought that was important for a really long time. And so I've been involved with various Equal Rights Amendments all along.

00:08:55.860 --> 00:09:01.800

Catharine MacKinnon: Continue to be in favor of them we can give some of the history of how this proposal actually came to be.


Page 10 of 53

00:09:02.730 --> 00:09:21.720

Catharine MacKinnon: But you know, it's its main ideas are to be substantive as opposed to abstract that is substance of equality, not just formal and to be affirmative and intersectional rather than negative and categorically discreet

00:09:23.850 --> 00:09:30.360

Catharine MacKinnon: And so its various provisions aim to do that which we can talk about in more specificity. As we go ahead

00:09:31.770 --> 00:09:34.590

Monica Hakimi: And why don't we, why don't we spell out a little bit more

00:09:35.640 --> 00:09:39.720

Monica Hakimi: The content of the amendment and what the, what the various provisions would do.

00:09:41.010 --> 00:09:44.070

Catharine MacKinnon: Okay, so the content is

00:09:45.450 --> 00:09:54.570

Catharine MacKinnon: Section one says women in all their diversity shall have equal rights in the United States and in every place subject to its jurisdiction

00:09:55.080 --> 00:10:12.750

Catharine MacKinnon: So this is substantive like say (CEAFDW ), to which the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the United States, along with about two other countries in the world has not ratified, which uses the word women by this is what we mean substantive


Page 11 of 53

00:10:15.030 --> 00:10:16.530

Catharine MacKinnon: And in so doing,

00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:28.140

Catharine MacKinnon: our argument is that it is intrinsically anti hierarchical rather than categorically prohibitive. This is Section one

00:10:28.950 --> 00:10:47.190

Catharine MacKinnon: So it is substantive. It is also intersectional in that women in all their diversity includes all women with everything that makes women be who women actually are, which is necessarily race, ethnicity,

00:10:48.450 --> 00:11:01.620

Catharine MacKinnon: Religion, disability, age sexuality, gender, gender identity. Every, everything that is part of the making of the group women.

00:11:03.060 --> 00:11:07.020

Catharine MacKinnon: Together with sex, sexuality and gender.

00:11:09.090 --> 00:11:09.720

Catharine MacKinnon: Is

00:11:11.280 --> 00:11:14.820

Catharine MacKinnon: Expressly recognized. So it is substantive and intersectional

00:11:16.380 --> 00:11:19.680

Catharine MacKinnon: And one can't say oh that's happened to her because of her race.


Page 12 of 53

00:11:20.970 --> 00:11:33.600

Catharine MacKinnon: If she's a woman, she's still a woman. See, this isn't just a. This isn't a that section one isn't race based sex based, it's women, the group. Anyone who's in there.

00:11:35.250 --> 00:11:44.850

Catharine MacKinnon: It is also affirmative in that it says women in all their diversity or I should say women in all our diversity shall have

00:11:46.770 --> 00:11:47.490

Catharine MacKinnon: Equal rights.

00:11:48.960 --> 00:11:49.710

Catharine MacKinnon: Shall

00:11:50.880 --> 00:11:55.860

Catharine MacKinnon: So far, at least in law is recognized as being mandatory.

00:11:56.910 --> 00:12:04.950

Catharine MacKinnon: Even though the Supreme Court has at times decided that there's mandatory and mandatory. But anyway, and some of it is less mandatory than others, right.

00:12:05.910 --> 00:12:18.360

Catharine MacKinnon: In Orwellian logic. But never mind. This is a new amendment, and so we shall have equal rights here and it's also horizontal in that it does not require state action do notice


Page 13 of 53

00:12:20.310 --> 00:12:24.330

Catharine MacKinnon: So Section two is an upgrade on the 72 ERA.

00:12:25.590 --> 00:12:37.980

Catharine MacKinnon: It says the quality of rights shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, which is the 1972 ERA. So whether that has passed.

00:12:39.030 --> 00:12:44.970

Catharine MacKinnon: Or recognized as past or not, which, you know, I'm also working on

00:12:46.800 --> 00:12:51.210

Catharine MacKinnon: To get it recognized as having been passed because enough states have now ratified.

00:12:54.030 --> 00:13:15.000

Catharine MacKinnon: What this provision, then does is say sex and then defines it as including pregnancy, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. So one of the moves here is to say that all of those are included in sex, which we did before the Supreme Court did it.

00:13:16.200 --> 00:13:19.500

Catharine MacKinnon: But they recently have they haven't done it for pregnancy yet actually

00:13:21.090 --> 00:13:28.830

Catharine MacKinnon: They've done it with gender, sexual orientation and gender identity, which some of us thought was pretty astounding.


Page 14 of 53

00:13:30.780 --> 00:13:36.660

Catharine MacKinnon: But anyway, we read what they read the term sex includes those things.

00:13:38.850 --> 00:13:46.650

Catharine MacKinnon: And then it says and or race. So the and or is although it may seem a little awkward is our best

00:13:47.880 --> 00:14:01.800

Catharine MacKinnon: Attempt to allow the classifications to be fully separate when they are separate and together when they are together that is in life so that law will track life.

00:14:03.840 --> 00:14:19.260

Catharine MacKinnon: So sex and or race means race is already then added to ERA separately and entirely as a category. So a whole new jurisprudence of race is invited here.

00:14:20.340 --> 00:14:28.890

Catharine MacKinnon: But at the same time intersectionality is built into it so that anytime you have an and, and often say with men of color.

00:14:30.060 --> 00:14:41.040

Catharine MacKinnon: It’s intersectional for them as well. It's based on race, but actually it's because they are men of color that they are being discriminated against. Lynching. For instance,

00:14:43.320 --> 00:14:46.080

Catharine MacKinnon: This happens like still and


Page 15 of 53

00:14:47.610 --> 00:14:54.060

Catharine MacKinnon: So often there's an unrecognized intersectionality in the discriminate and discrimination against men of color.

00:14:56.550 --> 00:15:15.360

Catharine MacKinnon: So then we say after race that it includes ethnicity, national origin, or color. So what we're doing there is racing those classifications by saying, actually. Those are raced in this country and they need to be recognized.

00:15:16.680 --> 00:15:30.660

Catharine MacKinnon: In the in their prohibition as contributing to the strength of the classification race, even as they have their own specific groundings so

00:15:31.560 --> 00:15:47.790

Catharine MacKinnon: That's what we say and then we add and or like grounds of subordination, such as disability or faith. Now, this we can talk later about having given rise to various controversies disability doesn't seem to give rise to much

00:15:49.320 --> 00:16:01.680

Catharine MacKinnon: As a major ground of structural subordination. In the United States, the disadvantages that are recognized as attached to it.

00:16:02.970 --> 00:16:16.230

Catharine MacKinnon: Have been prohibited under certain statutes to some effect, but it's not in the Constitution and needs to be. And we're saying it is a like ground of subordination, and can be separate.


Page 16 of 53

00:16:16.980 --> 00:16:40.980

Catharine MacKinnon: Or can also be combined. For example, the very high rates of sexual abuse of disabled women. There's a is an intersection of recognition here and faith we added because of the particular subordination of people of

00:16:42.000 --> 00:16:47.130

Catharine MacKinnon: non dominant faith groups in the United States, and here

00:16:48.450 --> 00:16:54.570

Catharine MacKinnon: We can talk later. I guess about push back on the ordinance, or rather the, the amendment.

00:16:55.710 --> 00:17:00.120

Catharine MacKinnon: Be because that's basically the only place we've gotten pushed back but

00:17:02.070 --> 00:17:12.840

Catharine MacKinnon: By some people who think face should be taken out of it because they think it will be misused by dominant religions and actually the way this is structured dominant religions can't be subordinate

00:17:13.980 --> 00:17:24.930

Catharine MacKinnon: except possibly an extremely exceptional circumstances in which case it should be recognized, but overwhelmingly dominant religions are dominated and

00:17:26.430 --> 00:17:40.650

Catharine MacKinnon: religions that are subordinated are subordinated on the basis of religion and anybody who can read Title seven law. We'll see what happens, say to his people of the Islamic faith Muslims after 911


Page 17 of 53

00:17:41.790 --> 00:17:56.280

Catharine MacKinnon: And I'm also some of it under the protection clause, and some of it in my opinion is disgraceful law, including especially the constitutional cases in the way intent is used all of that. It's like

00:17:57.690 --> 00:18:02.850

Catharine MacKinnon: Okay so needs to end. And so this would do that. And then we say

00:18:03.630 --> 00:18:11.460

Catharine MacKinnon: No law or its interpretation shall give force to common law disadvantages that exist on grounds enumerated in this amendment.

00:18:11.850 --> 00:18:29.190

Catharine MacKinnon: So what that means is the way say races built in and has been previously built into various common law adjudications. What this does is say, for those of you who know Shelley and Kramer, which is a pretty well-known case.

00:18:31.350 --> 00:18:33.330

Catharine MacKinnon: It says that

00:18:35.160 --> 00:18:37.200

Catharine MacKinnon: What it's been limited to its fact

00:18:38.790 --> 00:18:49.770

Catharine MacKinnon: It says that that is raised to a constitutional level principle across the board to all categories so that if you use one of these classifications as


Page 18 of 53

00:18:51.060 --> 00:18:54.630

Catharine MacKinnon: In embedded in common law that that has to go as well.

00:18:55.950 --> 00:19:02.400

Catharine MacKinnon: It just being explicit about that. The third provision is an implementation provision that requires

00:19:02.970 --> 00:19:12.600

Catharine MacKinnon: That the rights be fully realized by Congress and the states that is that they have to take legislative and other measures.

00:19:13.500 --> 00:19:23.760

Catharine MacKinnon: To prevent or redress disadvantage suffering by individuals or groups because of past and or present inequality as prohibited here.

00:19:24.630 --> 00:19:43.290

Catharine MacKinnon: So you know that gets us to. You got to do it. A further recognition express of disadvantage, which current equal protection law has excluded from recognition, which is why we need a new amendment among the many reasons and also

00:19:44.970 --> 00:19:45.690

Catharine MacKinnon: To

00:19:47.610 --> 00:19:53.190

Catharine MacKinnon: It's customary to speak of past discrimination as if it's all way back in the bad old days.


Page 19 of 53

00:19:54.210 --> 00:20:07.860

Catharine MacKinnon: When actually, it's very present. And so we say PAST AND and OR present and now we say, and shall take all steps requisite an effective, we said requisite and effective instead of necessary and proper.

00:20:09.240 --> 00:20:32.730

Catharine MacKinnon: Is existing language and we like requisite and effective much better to abolish prayer laws, policies and constitutional provisions that impede equal political representation. What this is about is that equality needs to keep on being implemented and that can only happen if the

00:20:34.770 --> 00:20:50.490

Catharine MacKinnon: Voting and electoral structure actually provides for equality as it today does not do so, this doesn't say how that is to be changed. For example, the Electoral College, which I think this has squarely and excites

00:20:51.900 --> 00:21:00.000

Catharine MacKinnon: Doesn't say it all, how that will be changed, but it does say it has to be because equality is not what it provides for us, I think, well known.

00:21:01.350 --> 00:21:04.800

Catharine MacKinnon: And actually the Electoral College was created.

00:21:06.210 --> 00:21:07.620

Catharine MacKinnon: As a compromise.

00:21:08.670 --> 00:21:13.200

Catharine MacKinnon: In light of the recognition of the existence of slavery at the time.


Page 20 of 53

00:21:14.460 --> 00:21:36.030

Catharine MacKinnon: And it's racist to the core. And so, you know, there's a good. There's a history behind that that can be brought to bear in whatever litigation would be inevitable. In that connection, the fourth section says simply nothing in section two which is negative equality.

00:21:37.290 --> 00:21:39.960

Catharine MacKinnon: That is government shall not

00:21:41.280 --> 00:21:46.860

Catharine MacKinnon: infringe upon which requires the actual existence of a law that does right

00:21:47.310 --> 00:21:57.180

Catharine MacKinnon: So it says nothing in section two shall invalidate a law program or activity that is protected or required under section one or three. So that means

00:21:57.600 --> 00:22:07.620

Catharine MacKinnon: If we have legislation under section three or litigation under section one that actually have that ends discrimination.

00:22:08.520 --> 00:22:26.460

Catharine MacKinnon: Against these various groups, we cannot do what we do now, which is, oh, people who were privileged by that discrimination are now being disadvantage by either a law or a piece of litigation that is going after ending the discrimination.

00:22:27.720 --> 00:22:37.230

Catharine MacKinnon: So we're saying if something is required under one or three under four, it is not allowed to disallow that


Page 21 of 53

00:22:38.280 --> 00:22:42.240

Catharine MacKinnon: The simple idea is that undoing discrimination is not discrimination.

00:22:43.920 --> 00:23:03.930

Catharine MacKinnon: As formally quality tends to think and is categorical approaches to equality things. And in other words, promoting any quality and does any quality, you're actually promoting equality. Your undoing any quality, you're not forcing it

00:23:05.280 --> 00:23:06.900

Catharine MacKinnon: substantively speaking

00:23:08.190 --> 00:23:10.200

Catharine MacKinnon: Even if abstractly.

00:23:11.490 --> 00:23:20.550

Catharine MacKinnon: It may be seeing that you are, which is why this whole thing is substantive in the first place, rather than have strict. So those are the four provisions and how they look.

00:23:20.730 --> 00:23:25.140

Monica Hakimi: Okay, that's great. Thank you so much. And so, I hear you saying that

00:23:26.280 --> 00:23:36.600

Monica Hakimi: You know what you want. The reason you want to have this done as a constitutional amendment is that you want to override a number of the constitutional and statutory doctrines that have developed


Page 22 of 53

00:23:36.990 --> 00:23:54.630

Monica Hakimi: To entrench various forms of inequality. And I guess. So one follow up question would be what would keep courts from applying those same doctrinal tricks to undercut your amendment if passed in ways that have vitiated prior constitutional attempts to secure equality.

00:23:56.700 --> 00:24:06.840

Catharine MacKinnon: Yeah. And you know, that's a really good question. Um, and certainly does arise in people's minds. Having seen these maneuvers.

00:24:07.770 --> 00:24:28.680

Catharine MacKinnon: undercutting. What was the clear intent of Equal Protection Clause. At the time it was entrenched and also of the Reconstruction Amendments at the time that they were passed. Um, what we are. Our view is that

00:24:29.970 --> 00:24:34.380

Catharine MacKinnon: There's a very basic constitutional doctrine which is if you have

00:24:36.120 --> 00:24:36.750

Catharine MacKinnon: A

00:24:38.010 --> 00:24:40.530

Catharine MacKinnon: More recent amendment that you are

00:24:41.970 --> 00:24:53.010

Catharine MacKinnon: litigating under or invoking that the whole point of having a new amendment is to supersede prior amendments, in other words, it wouldn't be needed.


Page 23 of 53

00:24:53.580 --> 00:25:06.780

Catharine MacKinnon: If all the same old approaches worked. So by definition, because it is a new amendment, it can't use the same old ideas. So, you know, it may be that there's ways of coming up with

00:25:07.620 --> 00:25:17.880

Catharine MacKinnon: Yet other ways of squaring the circle, you know, of making sure that this can't work. It's just that we've had, you know,

00:25:19.050 --> 00:25:23.520

Catharine MacKinnon: A good HUNDRED AND HOW MANY YEARS NOW of experience with

00:25:25.080 --> 00:25:32.430

Catharine MacKinnon: Overt attempts to make sure that equal protection did not mean actually equality for the people who needed it the most.

00:25:33.180 --> 00:25:49.140

Catharine MacKinnon: And those have been ingenious and appeared. Oh so neutral on their face, you know, as if they don't have as if they weren't they didn't as if they didn't exist to entrench white rights.

00:25:49.950 --> 00:26:02.460

Catharine MacKinnon: And men's rights which, in any event, whatever their intention that is what they have done, and we're most interested in those outcomes and so

00:26:03.480 --> 00:26:06.960

Catharine MacKinnon: having that experience. I mean, this is built on


Page 24 of 53

00:26:08.700 --> 00:26:19.590

Catharine MacKinnon: countering that experience and figuring out what where it comes from, for example, Aristotle, it comes from formerly quality. That's like old

00:26:20.190 --> 00:26:25.950

Catharine MacKinnon: And, you know, he thought. Didn't think slavery was a violation of equality.

00:26:28.050 --> 00:26:36.570

Catharine MacKinnon: It, the idea that women couldn't be citizens wasn't a violation of his likes a like unlike, unlike treatment, you know, he already had.

00:26:37.800 --> 00:26:50.820

Catharine MacKinnon: Equal people within his polis, you know, and his whole idea of equality was to keep those guys from fighting with each other, you know, so that's why he said likes a like unlike, unlike

00:26:52.920 --> 00:27:04.290

Catharine MacKinnon: And, you know, that doesn't work in a society with intrinsic entrenched structural inequalities previously built in. Indeed, Aristotle didn't even intend it to be used.

00:27:05.970 --> 00:27:15.000

Catharine MacKinnon: In such context. See intended it to be used after you already had one a society in which a narrow elite was ruling.

00:27:16.050 --> 00:27:22.620

Catharine MacKinnon: And the people they ruled where it. It wasn't even a question as to whether that was an unequal structure.


Page 25 of 53

00:27:24.360 --> 00:27:38.610

Catharine MacKinnon: So I think, you know, once we figured out all that and the built in disadvantages calling for an entirely different approach than this so called common sense equal sign.

00:27:39.630 --> 00:27:46.770

Catharine MacKinnon: A notion of equality. In other words, you first have to be the same in order to be treated the same. Well,

00:27:47.880 --> 00:28:05.370

Catharine MacKinnon: Okay, diversity is already a completely different idea. It means that differences among people are affirmatively valued and people are treated the same based on their differences from each other. In other words, equally hired equally admitted to higher education.

00:28:06.660 --> 00:28:09.840

Catharine MacKinnon: Equally recognized as capable of everything.

00:28:10.920 --> 00:28:19.200

Catharine MacKinnon: In the society and, you know, so the whole idea of diversity is itself the most anti Aristotelian idea around

00:28:20.430 --> 00:28:24.090

Catharine MacKinnon: So long as you don't build in diversity from

00:28:25.200 --> 00:28:37.410

Catharine MacKinnon: White privilege, you know, diversity from male dominance know if you build that in, then you're just starting over again we entrenching the same hierarchies within it.


Page 26 of 53

00:28:38.670 --> 00:28:54.900

Catharine MacKinnon: But if the recognition is to undo the hierarchies and to value everyone's uniqueness and the contributions that all communities brain and the members of all those communities bring forward from their experience.

00:28:55.980 --> 00:29:09.690

Catharine MacKinnon: You know, then you have something more like what we're talking about. And you know that foundation doesn't allow for the preexisting yeah you know routes around over under around

00:29:10.770 --> 00:29:14.550

Catharine MacKinnon: The quality record that we've seen in the past.

00:29:14.700 --> 00:29:17.430

Monica Hakimi: Mm hmm. That's great. And so

00:29:18.660 --> 00:29:25.470

Monica Hakimi: In addition to that, I mean. So when I think about some of the proposal’s strong points just in my own line include

00:29:25.980 --> 00:29:41.460

Monica Hakimi: First of all, the intersection, will the recognition of intersectionality. Second of all, the requirement that the, the lack of a requirement that there be state action. So the effort to remedy any qualities in relationships that are not structured around the state.

00:29:42.840 --> 00:29:46.110

Monica Hakimi: And third of all, not just the obligation.


Page 27 of 53

00:29:46.800 --> 00:29:54.480

Monica Hakimi: Not to intrude or cause any qualities, but also affirmative obligations to take steps to promote equality. So those are some

00:29:54.750 --> 00:30:09.150

Monica Hakimi: In my view, really strong points. I'm wondering what I'm missing. So what else you think are among the proposals really strong points and then if you could also identify what you think some of the most salient criticisms, one might lodge against the proposal would be

00:30:11.550 --> 00:30:14.190

Catharine MacKinnon: Yeah, um, you like those

00:30:14.850 --> 00:30:17.580

Catharine MacKinnon: That you like I'm very much

00:30:19.410 --> 00:30:26.910

Catharine MacKinnon: And the two pillars of it really substantive at an intersectionality are conceptually fundamental and

00:30:28.650 --> 00:30:37.860

Catharine MacKinnon: The idea being to transform sex and raise both concretely at know as lived

00:30:38.910 --> 00:30:40.650

Catharine MacKinnon: Through an in law.


Page 28 of 53

00:30:41.790 --> 00:30:45.300

Catharine MacKinnon: Through you know through law and as live um

00:30:46.770 --> 00:30:53.520

Catharine MacKinnon: The idea is to, you know, undo white male supremacy basically

00:30:54.720 --> 00:30:57.870

Catharine MacKinnon: The structural that the structure that we're in.

00:31:00.540 --> 00:31:11.850

Catharine MacKinnon: And, you know, so we see those goals, but as its strongest points as being its core.

00:31:13.050 --> 00:31:17.640

Catharine MacKinnon: commitments and centrally built into it. Um,

00:31:18.990 --> 00:31:21.450

Catharine MacKinnon: No, I, I don't guess

00:31:24.090 --> 00:31:26.550

Catharine MacKinnon: Well, okay, so one

00:31:29.070 --> 00:31:30.180

Catharine MacKinnon: There are


Page 29 of 53

00:31:31.830 --> 00:31:37.230

Catharine MacKinnon: There there's also the categories that are not mentioned, but which are permitted

00:31:38.850 --> 00:31:39.960

Catharine MacKinnon: That is to say,

00:31:42.450 --> 00:31:45.840

Catharine MacKinnon: When we say, including or

00:31:47.040 --> 00:31:51.060

Catharine MacKinnon: Like grounds of subordination such a disability or faith.

00:31:52.320 --> 00:31:54.060

Catharine MacKinnon: That is an expansion joy.

00:31:55.500 --> 00:31:57.270

Catharine MacKinnon: And I think that's also a strong point

00:31:58.530 --> 00:32:17.250

Catharine MacKinnon: That deserves being thought of that thought about that is categories that we may not even know about. Now, but will become more vivid as time goes on, more clear as more equality comes to be

00:32:19.800 --> 00:32:21.630

Catharine MacKinnon: On the grounds that we do know.


Page 30 of 53

00:32:23.370 --> 00:32:27.630

Catharine MacKinnon: The other thing is there are grounds that we know about now.

00:32:29.010 --> 00:32:37.740

Catharine MacKinnon: That we haven't mentioned that are not prohibited under existing law, of which the primary one in my mind is class economic class.

00:32:40.410 --> 00:32:50.610

Catharine MacKinnon: And that would need to be fully developed in terms of being structural which, in my opinion, it is without question.

00:32:51.840 --> 00:32:52.380

Catharine MacKinnon: But

00:32:53.460 --> 00:32:55.830

Catharine MacKinnon: In litigation could be

00:32:56.880 --> 00:32:57.450

Catharine MacKinnon: A

00:32:59.190 --> 00:33:01.050

Catharine MacKinnon: Unnamed but analogous ground.

00:33:02.370 --> 00:33:12.210

Catharine MacKinnon: So that I would say would be another strong point and maybe it's a weak point that it is mentioned I wanted one could say that as a criticism of


Page 31 of 53

00:33:14.490 --> 00:33:15.210

Catharine MacKinnon: One.

00:33:16.290 --> 00:33:19.170

Catharine MacKinnon: But I think the main criticism of it is that it's a law.

00:33:22.020 --> 00:33:29.850

Catharine MacKinnon: That and it's a constitutional amendment. So there's the question of the constitutional amending project.

00:33:30.960 --> 00:33:45.810

Catharine MacKinnon: Not only the difficulties of achieving it politically, which requires a lot of states and would have to go through those states we actually think that isn't maybe all that hard right now, but maybe we're under estimating that

00:33:47.070 --> 00:33:49.440

Catharine MacKinnon: Some of the groups that are most interested in this.

00:33:50.550 --> 00:33:56.520

Catharine MacKinnon: As something to forward because it embodies the society they want to live in.

00:33:58.110 --> 00:34:03.330

Catharine MacKinnon: Think that they could get it through the states of course it has to go through


Page 32 of 53

00:34:05.040 --> 00:34:10.680

Catharine MacKinnon: The, you know, the Congress as first as well. The

00:34:14.730 --> 00:34:17.040

Catharine MacKinnon: So that may be a drawback.

00:34:18.120 --> 00:34:29.700

Catharine MacKinnon: But I would think would just be seen as a difficulty. But anyway, that's as a as a process question, but that is a law. I just want to like stress, a little bit more, which is

00:34:39.240 --> 00:34:44.460

Catharine MacKinnon: We don't think that you get equality, just because it says so in law.

00:34:46.680 --> 00:35:11.760

Catharine MacKinnon: What our take is that, first of all, one of the ways you get equality is by fighting for it, including in law, but that that's a much broader political process. And so this is intended to be a partial focal point for a broader social conversation that the process of which, having

00:35:13.860 --> 00:35:16.950

Catharine MacKinnon: Is helpful in moving toward

00:35:18.210 --> 00:35:27.780

Catharine MacKinnon: The equality goal at least as much as actually having the law. Another way of saying it is you get what you fight for. And that means you got to fight for it first.


Page 33 of 53

00:35:29.160 --> 00:35:42.120

Catharine MacKinnon: And in order to have it. And so that there is no necessary magic in it being in LA. At the same time, it's hard to imagine having the kind of equality that we are

00:35:42.960 --> 00:35:55.830

Catharine MacKinnon: Proposing which is real, which is the undoing of hierarchies without law. So it isn't that the law is a sufficient condition for getting that equality, but it may be one of the necessary ones.

00:35:58.200 --> 00:36:06.540

Catharine MacKinnon: So that's, that's our idea that is equality we think is unlikely to be produced without law.

00:36:09.360 --> 00:36:14.040

Catharine MacKinnon: But that the process of a democratic political engagement.

00:36:15.330 --> 00:36:28.650

Catharine MacKinnon: That is necessary to produce an amendment, like this one is a lot what creates the preconditions for the equality to be real wants it exists.

00:36:29.940 --> 00:36:31.590

Catharine MacKinnon: In as a constitutional

00:36:32.940 --> 00:36:47.280

Catharine MacKinnon: And then of course there's the obvious legitimacy that the existence of such a thing in the in the Constitution gives that we are currently deprived because I said, you know, we might already been mentioned in the Constitution and the mention


Page 34 of 53

00:36:48.780 --> 00:36:56.070

Catharine MacKinnon: Of people of color is denigrating in the extreme and so both of those.

00:36:57.600 --> 00:37:09.930

Catharine MacKinnon: Would be shifted substantially in terms of legitimacy. The other I guess critique that as I mentioned before, that's been leveled is

00:37:11.220 --> 00:37:17.790

Catharine MacKinnon: Included the, the inclusion of faith in the in the

00:37:19.260 --> 00:37:20.220

Catharine MacKinnon: In section two

00:37:23.850 --> 00:37:34.140

Catharine MacKinnon: I am unmovable in this question, but it's not up to me, you know, entirely but my view is that as I alluded to previously.

00:37:34.950 --> 00:37:49.590

Catharine MacKinnon: Well, okay. So there are a lot of people who are litigating constantly these days against people asserting religious claims and there are a lot of religious rights already in the in the Constitution and in statutory law.

00:37:50.610 --> 00:37:54.540

Catharine MacKinnon: Both under Title seven and the refa the

00:37:55.920 --> 00:37:58.230

Catharine MacKinnon: Religious Freedom Restoration Act is


Page 35 of 53

00:37:59.880 --> 00:38:03.960

Catharine MacKinnon: And those are being used against equality rights.

00:38:05.550 --> 00:38:09.300

Catharine MacKinnon: And so what that suggests to the people who are

00:38:10.590 --> 00:38:13.800

Catharine MacKinnon: On the equality side and entrenched in litigation.

00:38:14.970 --> 00:38:19.230

Catharine MacKinnon: against religion is that they don't want to give even a little tiny bit more

00:38:20.310 --> 00:38:43.470

Catharine MacKinnon: Possibility to that side. And my view on that is number one, sometimes when first of all we are everybody. And if you're going to give rights, the kinds of rights that we all need it's possible that some people whose side you may not be on will get those rights.

00:38:44.850 --> 00:38:52.410

Catharine MacKinnon: And I'm actually kind of for that. I mean, I'm actually a lot for that. I don't need people to be on my side to have rights

00:38:52.950 --> 00:39:03.990

Catharine MacKinnon: Um, everybody ought to have them is my opinion. And then if we have conflicts and you can't entirely eliminate conflicts of rights.


Page 36 of 53

00:39:04.800 --> 00:39:25.500

Catharine MacKinnon: In a, in a document like this then you fight those out. You litigate those out. But it's a much more. It's a more square, more fair, more level playing field for once. In other words, the idea here is this gives us a fighting chance

00:39:26.670 --> 00:39:32.730

Catharine MacKinnon: Against say religious requirements that are anti sex equality.

00:39:33.870 --> 00:39:43.800

Catharine MacKinnon: Because those two will then be equally posed against each other or even not so equally because most of them just to get a little finger pointing here.

00:39:44.220 --> 00:40:00.810

Catharine MacKinnon: Are in the name of the Christian religion which is not a subordinated religion. So whether they could even bring that under this is something they would have to first win in order to have even quite frankly a level playing field against sex equality, which is here.

00:40:02.070 --> 00:40:18.900

Catharine MacKinnon: Is recognized here, given that it is overwhelmingly women and women sex equality, right, such as being pregnant while teaching and religious schools, for example, which is now being fought over under Title seven and in connection with RFRA also

00:40:20.490 --> 00:40:22.260

Catharine MacKinnon: And has yet to be fully resolved.

00:40:24.600 --> 00:40:36.900

Catharine MacKinnon: And disliked not is not decisively get resolved, and it also the possibility that this might create yet another forum in which that could be raised.


Page 37 of 53

00:40:37.350 --> 00:41:02.550

Catharine MacKinnon: Is not something that I think is worth eliminating the spiritual and conscientious faith based rights that a lot of people are affirmatively discriminated against in the subordination sense of the term. People are subordinated because of their faith, and that includes Jews, for example.

00:41:03.840 --> 00:41:12.450

Catharine MacKinnon: And there are rights that exists that can yet still be asserted already, but some of us don't think there are enough

00:41:13.890 --> 00:41:16.530

Catharine MacKinnon: anti-Semitism is alive and well.

00:41:18.090 --> 00:41:19.350

Catharine MacKinnon: And the

00:41:20.430 --> 00:41:27.030

Catharine MacKinnon: In many respects documented as stronger every day and

00:41:28.320 --> 00:41:35.010

Catharine MacKinnon: You know, I, for reasons like that and others that I previously mentioned, I think we need this in there.

00:41:36.300 --> 00:41:42.990

Catharine MacKinnon: So you know that's both saying something that I think some people think is a weak point that


Page 38 of 53

00:41:45.060 --> 00:41:51.360

Catharine MacKinnon: I'm defending as defensible. And to me, one of its

00:41:53.460 --> 00:41:54.210

Catharine MacKinnon: Stronger

00:41:55.410 --> 00:41:55.920

Catharine MacKinnon: Revisions

00:41:57.150 --> 00:41:59.640

Catharine MacKinnon: And that isn't to say there's no opposition.

00:42:01.320 --> 00:42:11.640

Monica Hakimi: That makes sense. So maybe we could shift gears a little bit and I could just ask you about the writing process. So this is a joint proposal that you and Professor Crenshaw developed together.

00:42:12.000 --> 00:42:26.850

Monica Hakimi: And you each have substantial body of work on your own terms. And so I was just wondering if you could talk a little bit about how you would describe each of your most distinctive contributions to this particular proposal and to the article in developing it.

00:42:29.400 --> 00:42:30.750

Catharine MacKinnon: Yeah, um


Page 39 of 53

00:42:32.100 --> 00:42:46.380

Catharine MacKinnon: A major well Kim and I have worked together a lot for decades, many decades, including ever since, especially she established the African American Policy Forum at her request.

00:42:47.130 --> 00:42:54.480

Catharine MacKinnon: You know, if you participated in any number of events there but also she and I just have worked together all through the decades, literally.

00:42:56.130 --> 00:42:56.730

Catharine MacKinnon: And

00:42:57.840 --> 00:43:10.290

Catharine MacKinnon: Her work has always actually been substantive not abstract in the sense of being animated by a concrete analysis of structural hierarchy.

00:43:10.830 --> 00:43:24.870

Catharine MacKinnon: The dynamics of real political and social power that's always been there in her work, but she hasn't theorized that she's just done it. Okay. And similarly, my work has always been intersectional

00:43:27.330 --> 00:43:37.050

Catharine MacKinnon: And, you know, in the sense of embodying and understanding that race in particular is part of sex or sex is incomplete.

00:43:38.280 --> 00:43:52.920

Catharine MacKinnon: And you can find that all the way back to 1979 my book. You know, it's got a whole section under women subset black pages, dot, dot, dot, black subset capital B. By the way, 79


Page 40 of 53

00:43:54.060 --> 00:44:01.080

Catharine MacKinnon: Subset women dot dot dot see also etc and you know, it

00:44:03.000 --> 00:44:03.570

Catharine MacKinnon: But

00:44:05.070 --> 00:44:10.110

Catharine MacKinnon: Without again. I haven't see I didn't see theorize intersectionality Kim did

00:44:11.130 --> 00:44:20.970

Catharine MacKinnon: Know, so once she theorized it so brilliantly. It became it's become possible to

00:44:23.100 --> 00:44:34.080

Catharine MacKinnon: At once she pioneered the theorizing of it in such a brilliant way starting from 1989 it's become possible to do so much more with it so

00:44:35.430 --> 00:44:39.660

Catharine MacKinnon: Those are, you know, the two pillars of the piece. And what we contributed to it.

00:44:41.880 --> 00:44:49.200

Catharine MacKinnon: It kind of major discovery for me in all this. Although, you know, as I say, we've always worked together. And it's always worked


Page 41 of 53

00:44:50.310 --> 00:44:52.230

Catharine MacKinnon: Is that we don't disagree about a single thing.

00:44:53.670 --> 00:45:00.960

Catharine MacKinnon: You know, I don't go into things, assuming I agree with anybody. You know, it's just we wanted to do this together so we

00:45:02.160 --> 00:45:05.460

Catharine MacKinnon: Actually in the process. The way this happened was,

00:45:06.660 --> 00:45:15.090

Catharine MacKinnon: As a celebration of the combination of 100 years of women's suffrage with the first year that all 18

00:45:15.120 --> 00:45:27.270

Catharine MacKinnon: Top Law School EICs were women somebody noticed that someone at Duke and proposed there be like a joint a combined something

00:45:27.840 --> 00:45:46.230

Catharine MacKinnon: That celebrated women's suffrage by all of the all of the law reviews so Yale wanted me and obviously Columbia UCLA wanted Kim and Michigan brilliantly chose Denise Brogan Kator a graduate of our school

00:45:47.610 --> 00:45:53.160

Catharine MacKinnon: As their contribution and as Michigan's contribution, Harvard, it seems chosen no one


Page 42 of 53

00:45:54.090 --> 00:45:54.210

Catharine MacKinnon: To

00:45:54.600 --> 00:45:55.410

Catharine MacKinnon: figure that one out.

00:45:57.630 --> 00:46:02.700

Catharine MacKinnon: And although their EIC participated very actively

00:46:04.170 --> 00:46:13.380

Catharine MacKinnon: Well you anyway. There's a volume and we'll go to were told, write whatever you want and said some things about how you can write about your own life and stuff. I don't want to write about my own life.

00:46:14.010 --> 00:46:31.560

Catharine MacKinnon: I want to write about women’s lives and what we need. Yet, if we're going to publish something out here. So, Kim and I decided we would do that together. And there was a little bit of pushback on you know, together, really. I'm like,

00:46:32.970 --> 00:46:43.200

Catharine MacKinnon: So anyway, we. That's how we came to write this article, but to back up a little. We came to write this thing together the

00:46:44.340 --> 00:47:03.750

Catharine MacKinnon: The amendment because I was originally working on it with Charles Ogletree at Harvard and yeah and Tree was going was about to with Kim and all the other people acknowledged in it that is Mari Matsuda


Page 43 of 53

00:47:05.430 --> 00:47:06.480

Catharine MacKinnon: Chuck Lawrence

00:47:08.610 --> 00:47:20.820

Catharine MacKinnon: Terry O’Neill was the President of NOW at the time, Gloria Steinem who's been for this and behind it strongly ever since we thought, you know, this thing needs race in it, and all this anyway. We were all ready to

00:47:21.900 --> 00:47:25.890

Catharine MacKinnon: Go forward and then Professor Ogletree

00:47:27.330 --> 00:47:43.170

Catharine MacKinnon: became ill and at around about the same time, we were thinking of having a meeting at Harvard Law School with bringing everybody together to workshop, the thing and Harvard decided they weren't going to pay for lunch.

00:47:45.300 --> 00:48:02.190

Catharine MacKinnon: So I said to Kim, Hey, how about we do this at the Center on Intersectionality and Policy studies at Columbia and the African American Policy Forum sponsored within. She said, great. She invited us all paid for lunch.

00:48:03.600 --> 00:48:11.130

Catharine MacKinnon: And everybody went to New York. And actually, it turned out to be easier for at least a lot of the New York based people were able to attend.

00:48:12.030 --> 00:48:25.020

Catharine MacKinnon: And they are all acknowledged in the beginning of the piece. And so we workshopped it in a time that turned out to be a couple weeks after the 2016 election for President.


Page 44 of 53

00:48:26.850 --> 00:48:28.860

Catharine MacKinnon: And then we workshopped it again.

00:48:30.210 --> 00:48:40.080

Catharine MacKinnon: Much later, and so all those contributions, together with Kim's in mind, became the product and then Kim and I wrote the article.

00:48:41.580 --> 00:48:54.900

Catharine MacKinnon: Discussing what all our thoughts around it were and we just Kim is amazing, with not only brilliant, but amazing with technology. So once we met together and she stuck the whole thing up. Put our draft up

00:48:55.440 --> 00:49:02.490

Catharine MacKinnon: On a thing on the wall so we can see it all and then she would go through and say, you know, sort of think this and maybe

00:49:02.820 --> 00:49:09.030

Catharine MacKinnon: Let's get this. So it really does it and then we got it so it really did it and then we thought, you know, that's going to scare everybody to death.

00:49:09.630 --> 00:49:15.720

Catharine MacKinnon: So let's back it off a little bit. That was her kind of contribution, I kind of never made that contribution.

00:49:16.200 --> 00:49:26.430

Catharine MacKinnon: But was able always to come up with a way to back off with the thought that Kim had so I'd like write it down on paper and then we'd stick it up, she put it up there.


Page 45 of 53

00:49:27.210 --> 00:49:39.510

Catharine MacKinnon: So we revise the whole thing a bunch of times. And then my amazing Harvard students where I was at the time did a cite check and were able to you know help

00:49:40.290 --> 00:49:50.010

Catharine MacKinnon: With the footnotes. And so we were able to do the kinds of things you want to do with footnotes which is both substantiate what you have to say, but also at times note.

00:49:50.430 --> 00:49:59.220

Catharine MacKinnon: You know a lot of people don't agree with this, and this is their thing with that there as well. So anyway, that's how the process came, but

00:49:59.640 --> 00:50:11.460

Catharine MacKinnon: It kind of began to strike me after we've been talking sometimes for hours. So we don't disagree on anything. And not even strategically, which is often the hardest

00:50:12.390 --> 00:50:22.920

Catharine MacKinnon: But certainly not in substance or content or history or anything. And that, to me, was kind of incredible I it would have been fine if

00:50:23.520 --> 00:50:39.570

Catharine MacKinnon: You know, we had disagreements and we think, you know, we built them in and work them, you know, said things or around them that you know presented them both, or however we did it, they would have been just fine. But it turned out not to be necessary. So

00:50:40.890 --> 00:50:41.220

Catharine MacKinnon: Anyway,


Page 46 of 53

00:50:42.900 --> 00:50:49.290

Monica Hakimi: I have not had that experience of not disagreeing with anyone. So I look forward to that opportunity for myself.

00:50:49.440 --> 00:50:56.640

Monica Hakimi: And I think we have time for one more question. And this is a question that comes from a current student and I think probably reflects

00:50:57.180 --> 00:51:13.140

Monica Hakimi: What a lot of current students want to ask, which is, okay, so, seeing as this amendment is not yet enforced. How can members of the legal profession take tangible action to promote equality, when the system as it currently stands is, so, in their view fundamentally an equitable?

00:51:15.300 --> 00:51:27.540

Catharine MacKinnon: Yeah, know our thought has been that this piece and the principles articulated in this amendment could be seen as a

00:51:28.680 --> 00:51:32.340

Catharine MacKinnon: Guide to, first of all, interpreting

00:51:33.660 --> 00:51:37.620

Catharine MacKinnon: The existing proposed equal rights amendment which

00:51:38.790 --> 00:51:43.350

Catharine MacKinnon: Although it most probably requires state action, although that hasn't yet been decided.


Page 47 of 53

00:51:45.780 --> 00:51:52.830

Catharine MacKinnon: That if we pass that we could use this as an interpretive tool.

00:51:54.870 --> 00:52:11.730

Catharine MacKinnon: And build in an anti-hierarchical approach at least the sex, which as Ogletree once put it to me, you know, even if we don't get race added. I just want to be clear to you that we are for the ERA that gets most of our people.

00:52:12.810 --> 00:52:16.830

Catharine MacKinnon: You know, so we would then want to build in

00:52:18.210 --> 00:52:28.470

Catharine MacKinnon: An approach to sex that necessarily was intersectional, even though it doesn't express and notice it on the face of the text. You can do that by interpretation.

00:52:30.690 --> 00:52:37.680

Catharine MacKinnon: So, you know, that would be an idea and also potentially with the Equal Protection Clause, although it's more difficult.

00:52:39.600 --> 00:52:50.880

Catharine MacKinnon: Given everything you know that it has been done with it, and is recognized here, but also so far as political activism goals as well as policy.

00:52:51.900 --> 00:52:55.260

Catharine MacKinnon: Policy development could can be predicated on this.


Page 48 of 53

00:52:56.370 --> 00:53:01.470

Catharine MacKinnon: Implementing a whole range of existing provisions, including state.

00:53:03.390 --> 00:53:06.060

Catharine MacKinnon: Era, which a lot of states have

00:53:08.010 --> 00:53:15.120

Catharine MacKinnon: As well as legislation federal legislation and state legislation state human rights provisions.

00:53:16.440 --> 00:53:40.350

Catharine MacKinnon: Could be used for. It's also usable in terms of principles under international law and that's possible in the international legal system, but also to more effectively utilize international human rights principles in the domestic legal system which it is in serious need of

00:53:41.460 --> 00:53:44.190

Catharine MacKinnon: And then, as I say, for political activism.

00:53:45.660 --> 00:53:54.450

Catharine MacKinnon: A lot of it recognizes that, for example, the inadequacies of the political activism around women's suffrage.

00:53:55.530 --> 00:53:58.410

Catharine MacKinnon: The actually racist ways


Page 49 of 53

00:53:59.790 --> 00:54:02.100

Catharine MacKinnon: White supremacist racist ways

00:54:03.300 --> 00:54:06.510

Catharine MacKinnon: At the women's suffrage movement at times.

00:54:08.250 --> 00:54:17.820

Catharine MacKinnon: Developed and its exclusion of African American women who were passionate in its favor and wanted to vote.

00:54:19.620 --> 00:54:34.380

Catharine MacKinnon: And whose support was ultimately extremely powerful in advancing the cause, but that you know that racism in that movement set back of

00:54:35.490 --> 00:54:38.550

Catharine MacKinnon: Advancement for women in serious ways

00:54:39.810 --> 00:54:45.450

Catharine MacKinnon: It's a lesson. And there's a lesson in the contemporary women's movement also where

00:54:46.770 --> 00:54:56.460

Catharine MacKinnon: Women of color have always been its leaders they have always been in its leadership, but the mass media doesn't seem to think they even exist.

00:54:58.290 --> 00:55:02.940

Catharine MacKinnon: And that's a lie and it needs to be combated.


Page 50 of 53

00:55:04.170 --> 00:55:12.420

Catharine MacKinnon: And also, then those images get super imposed on reality to where everybody has to think this is some white woman's thing when it never has been.

00:55:14.670 --> 00:55:22.710

Catharine MacKinnon: And it's, it's a nice like an exclusion of the contributions of women of color throughout in building that movement.

00:55:23.700 --> 00:55:34.140

Catharine MacKinnon: That sees it in that way. So, and then that contributes to their further exclusion. Which isn't to say white women in the women's movement don't need constant checks on racism

00:55:35.190 --> 00:55:44.940

Catharine MacKinnon: And in fact, white privilege that of course needs to happen not acting like that isn't there. I'm just saying that women of color are there always have been.

00:55:46.650 --> 00:56:10.530

Catharine MacKinnon: And still very much are so the combination of sex and race as a way of forwarding political activism. This know which younger people understand quite well in fact very well, is another way that you know this work, but of ours can contribute to that of theirs

00:56:12.000 --> 00:56:12.600

Monica Hakimi: Great. Well,

00:56:13.770 --> 00:56:18.750

Catharine MacKinnon: One thing to it in there is there's a real reason why we started off here.


Page 51 of 53

00:56:19.770 --> 00:56:29.640

Catharine MacKinnon: This piece, recognizing the contribution of native peoples to constitutional thinking there's a big historical debate about it and

00:56:30.240 --> 00:56:45.240

Catharine MacKinnon: You know whether the Iroquois Confederacy was fundamental as Benjamin Franklin said it was to the construction of the US Constitution, people who rely on written records say there's no indication of that will Yo, you know,

00:56:46.260 --> 00:57:03.570

Catharine MacKinnon: Wampum a written record. I should point out, but also not everybody can read it and you know there's lots of different ways of creating history and native peoples who were subjected to genocide and today to cultural forms of it

00:57:05.310 --> 00:57:20.100

Catharine MacKinnon: contributed substantially to the Constitution. But two things were left out from the Iroquois Confederacies rules. One women's equality, which they had and two the vision of needing to look at

00:57:21.150 --> 00:57:22.620

Catharine MacKinnon: Far generations.

00:57:24.090 --> 00:57:33.750

Catharine MacKinnon: That the sort of long distance vision view, which is why our piece begins unto the seventh generation.

00:57:34.950 --> 00:57:43.290

Monica Hakimi: That's great. Um, well thank you so much for this wonderful conversation Catherine has been really nice seeing you, and I hope


Page 52 of 53

00:57:43.320 --> 00:57:44.580

Monica Hakimi: You in the audience.

00:57:44.610 --> 00:57:50.850

Monica Hakimi: WILL JOIN ME virtually, and thank you, Catharine, I will do the clapping on behalf of all of us. Thank you so much for being here.

00:57:51.150 --> 00:58:00.420

Monica Hakimi: And to all of you in the audience. I hope you'll join me for future events in this series. The next one, just to mark your calendar is scheduled for September 29 at 5pm

00:58:00.840 --> 00:58:14.130

Monica Hakimi: And it will cover the legal responses to the COVID-19 pandemic our speakers will be Professors Nick Bagley, Kyle Logue and Nicholson Price. So I hope to see you then. And again, Catharine. Thank you so much for being here. It's been really wonderful talking to you this evening.

00:58:15.150 --> 00:58:22.320

Catharine MacKinnon: It's been wonderful. Thank you for your questions and to the audience for your contributions and for being here. I miss seeing you.

00:58:23.520 --> 00:58:29.850

Catharine MacKinnon: And I hope at some time in the not too far future will be able to have our paths cross in person.

00:58:30.750 --> 00:58:32.340

Monica Hakimi: I really hope so too. Thank you.


Page 53 of 53

00:58:34.440 --> 00:58:35.130

Catharine MacKinnon: Thank you.

Documents

University of Michigan Law School – Insights from the Quad ... · TRANSCRIPT . Page . 2. of . 53. 00:00:35.220 --> 00:00:43.890 . Monica Hakimi: I'm delighted that so many of you