ILNews

Editor's Perspective: Another crack in the glass ceiling

Kelly Lucas
August 27, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

EidtPerspLucas-sigI’d like to make a suggestion to Indiana lawmakers when they return for the 2015 legislative session. I am not telling you how to do your jobs, but this suggestion falls under the guise of editing, so I feel I’m within my bounds.

If those who write the laws feel an itch again this year to propose amendments to the Indiana Constitution, you may want to take a look at Article 7. In it, the chief justice of the state of Indiana is repeatedly referred to as “he.” On Aug. 18 at 1:20 p.m., that became inaccurate. As we all know, “he” is now a “she.”

As long as you’re at it, and in the spirit of being thorough, a more extensive review may be in order. It appears that most state office holders are referenced as male throughout the document. The lieutenant governor, for example, is also referenced as “he” in the Indiana Constitution. That one has been erroneous for a while.

I am not faulting the framers of the constitution for their pronoun selection. When Indiana’s second constitution was written in 1851, women in this country were still decades away from having the right to vote. When Article 7 was last amended in 1970, there had not yet been a woman on the Indiana Supreme Court, so the chances were slim that a female chief justice was in the offing.

But things are different today.

Not only does the chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court happen to be female, but so is the chief judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Judge Nancy Vaidik. Our state’s tax court is presided over by Judge Martha Wentworth. At the federal level, Judge Robyn Moberly was appointed in July as chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Now, to those of you preparing to fire off a firmly worded email suggesting that I am “failing to see the forest for the trees,” please know that I realize the appointment of these very qualified women to top leadership positions does not mean that gender diversity in the legal profession or, specifically, the judiciary has been achieved. Clearly, work remains.

But the Indiana Lawyer devotes time and ink to reporting on shortcomings that exist concerning diversity and other areas of law, and I am a firm believer that we must report both sides of a story. We will shine a light on problems we see, but we will also blow the trumpet to celebrate success.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush remarked shortly after her selection that she “looks forward to the day when it is unremarkable” that a woman would be selected to lead the court. Throughout this process, she has made it clear that her motivation is to help keep the judiciary reflective of the diverse citizenry it serves. “The strength of our Supreme Court is based on the collective strength and wisdom of our five justices,” Rush said during her swearing-in ceremony, “and I am still just one vote.”

Gov. Mike Pence said that Rush was unanimously selected for this role because she was the best choice to lead the Supreme Court. The Judicial Nominating Commission had other very qualified candidates in Justices Steven David, Mark Massa and Robert Rucker, but they chose Rush because they agreed that she was the best person for the job today.

Most “firsts” seem remarkable – they require quashing stereotypes and clearing hurdles – and this one certainly earned a spot in the history books. With the selection of Loretta Rush as chief justice, another glass ceiling has been broken in Indiana. Now, as she said at the conclusion of her swearing-in ceremony, it is time to “get back to work.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT