Paul J. Richards / AFP-Getty Images; Photo by Mark Wilson / Getty Images
Much has been made of the fact that Elena Kagan’s ascent to the Supreme Court means that for the first time in American history there will be three women on the high court. But beyond the fact that the court will be slightly more representative of the American people, and the possibility of yet more white lacy scarves from on high, what does the difference between having one, two, or three women at the court really signify?
Social scientists contend that the difference is more than just cosmetic. They cite a 2006 study by the Wellesley Centers for Women that found three to be the magic number when it came to the impact of women on corporate boards: after the third woman is seated, boards reach a tipping point at which the group as a whole begins to function differently. According to Sumru Erkut, one of the authors of that study, the small group as a whole becomes more collaborative, and more open to different perspectives. In no small part, she writes, that’s because once a critical mass of three women is achieved on a board, it’s more likely that all the women will be heard...
Nobody has been a stronger advocate for the need to reach a critical mass on the court than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. While she is usually reticent about all things soft and snuggly, she has been ever more vocal about the lack of women on the court. As she explained to Mark Sherman of the Associated Press in early August, at least once every term for the 13 years they shared the bench, someone arguing a case would mistake her for Sandra Day O’Connor or vice versa. Last term nobody mistook her for Sonia Sotomayor, however, and she contends that
the days in which the first two women were “curiosities” are finally over.http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/30/can-three-women-really-change-the-supreme-court.htmlNow we just need a couple more.