Get Used to It: Ep. 164, "Voices of Our Lives: Christine Littleton"

(typewriter keys clacking) (soft upbeat music) - Today, we have a wonderful guest. As you know, every so often we talk to a person who's spent a good deal of their life doing good. And today is no exception. Our guest is Vice Provost Christine Littleton. She's the Vice Provost at UCLA of Diversity and Faculty-- - Development. - Development. I was gonna say recruitment and retention, but that's all development. (Christine laughs) So, welcome, Chris. - Thank you. Great to be here. - Thank you so much for being here. Well, I do want to talk to you later in the show about all of the incredible stuff that's been happening because as some of the audience may not know, Chris is a long time legal scholar and activist. A law professor at UCLA at (mumbles) years. Many, many years. - 27. - And head of the Women Studies Department at UCLA. A lot of wonderful stuff in your career. So, I think, since it's been such an extraordinary year for the community in terms of our legal stuff, I wanna talk about that, but I wanna talk about you if that's all right. - Always happy to talk about me. - So let's start at the beginning. Where did you grow up? - I grew up in Pennsylvania in a series of small towns, mostly rural. - Series of small towns? - Yeah, my father, for much of the time I was growing up was a Methodist minister and they like to move you around every couple of years so you don't get too cozy with the local sinners (laughs). - But still, that must get kind of uprooting to a kid. - It was disruptive, I have to admit. Although, one thing that was really good about it was I learned to make friends quickly because I had to. - Sure. - I didn't know how long we were gonna be there. And certainly, there was a lot of change and turnover. You know like most childhoods, there are pluses and minuses. - Siblings? - Yes, I was the oldest of four. I had two younger brothers and then there's a gap and then a sister. - So what was your childhood like? - Well, before, let's see, we were in Danville for the first six years of my life. That was a pretty quiet time. I could walk to school. It was only a block and a half away. It was a city. It had a famous hospital. Geisinger Hospital. And in fact, I remember the first time that they made oral Polio vaccine available. We went up to Geisinger and drank the little cups, you know? (Christine laughs) - I remember. - Yeah, that was a long time ago. - That was the first time we heard the name Jonas Salk. - That's right (laughs). - (indistinct), but he was. But he'd done something. - He had something pretty wonderful. But the town itself was very modest size, old railroad town. That was a fairly quiet life until my father decided that he had heard the call and wanted to go to seminary. And from then on, it was kind of a rollercoaster. - And so, did your mom work? - Not until after my father left the ministry. Before they were married she was an accountant. And she had a great head for numbers. Thank goodness, because once my father became a minister, you had to add, subtract, divide and multiply that little tiny paycheck a lot of ways-- - I imagine. - to raise four kids. - So you spent a lot of your life working on issues related to justice. I mean, even just going to law school, although it doesn't guarantee that a person is interested in justice, but certainly that's the way it turned out for you. Did something trigger that early on? - I think a lot of things. Interestingly enough, when I was younger, I wanted to be a lawyer but I was convinced that women couldn't be lawyers. I didn't know any lawyers on television. All you saw was Perry Mason (laughs). I wanted to be Perry Mason. And everybody said, "Well, you can be Della Street." (Sheila and Christine laugh) - Exactly. - The kind of towns that I grew up in the late '50's, early '60's it really was a question of well, you're a smart girl, you could be a teacher or you could be nurse so, of course, I picked teacher. That's a much easier job, (laughs) right? - So you became a teacher? - I did. Got through college. It took me a while to get through college. I kept running out of money and-- - It's happening people today too. - Exactly. I mean, at that point, it was a lot cheaper. I went to a very small state school, Shippensburg State College. I started there in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. And so, it was very inexpensive at the time, but more than I (indistinct) and I was so naive. We didn't know about taking loans for college or how to get financial aid. I can't figure out why didn't we know this stuff, (laughs) right? - So you'd stop and work and-- - I stopped and went to work. - save some money and then go back? - That's right. And fortunately, about the second time it happened a very nice woman in the financial office said, "What have you been living on the last couple of years?" And I said, "Well, you know I've been working and saving my money and then spend it then I was working." I was working (laughs) midnight to 8:00 shift at an alarm company monitoring the alarms and the security stuff, which was great, 'cause I could do my homework while I was there. - Of course. - And then stay up, go to class, and then go home, then crash. As long as you didn't fall asleep it was a great job. But she said, "We can give you money." I said, "You can?" - It was just like-- - I know, it's amazing. - this big revelation to me that people were willing to. - Those things change our lives. - Exactly. - Right. - People were actually willing to help you get through. - So with you just sort of intermittently finishing your degree did you think you were going to law school? - Absolutely not. I ended up at Penn State. No, I majored in theater for most of the time I was in college, although I kept changing around. I finally ended up with a degree in education. Was one thing I didn't expect. Going from theater through communications to education. - (laughs) It was quite a ride. But I guess I (laughs) and in fact, at one point, I know I was, I think I was in my junior year. No, I must've been getting close. I must've been like a semester or two away from getting through finally. So I went to the pre-law advisor. And I said, "You know, I think I'd might like to go to law school." And she said, "Oh, no, you have to take all these other courses." And I said, "Well, how long will it take me?" And she said, "Well, you know, another year of college." I said, "I cannot afford that so forget about it." Now, it turns out that's not true. - Right, it was just virtually-- - You can go to law school with any old degree. - Right, exactly. - So I can't figure out whether she thought I was asking a different question and answered that question. - Or just wanted to discourage you. - Could be. (Sheila speaks indistinctly) I mean, maybe she thought I was a flake, right? I was a theater major (laughs). Weren't we all a flake? - I know now you're in a relationship, longterm relationship with a woman. - That's right. - But you were married before. - Oh, yeah. - And was that at this time while you were in college or? - I met my former husband in college. We were both in theater and then we moved to New Haven. He got an MFA at Yale and theater engineering. Apparently, it was the only place in the country that had that program in theater engineering, so he designs lighting and sound equipment. And then, moved to New York and he was working at CBGBs. You remember the punk rock days? - Most people don't quite remember, but you know. - (laughs) Yeah. We got off right (laughs). And so, we were in New York for a couple years. And that's where, so I taught high school while were in New Haven, a place called Gilford. Taught English speech and theater for three years and that really was enough of the public school experience. I really liked teaching, but I didn't like the part that went around it. Sort of the being the combination disciplinarian and social engineer. Trying to teach manners and, frankly, deal with people who didn't respect teachers very much. Since we didn't make much money, we must not be worthy of respect. And there was a real emphasis on playing it safe, not innovating. I have to tell you a story about this. I had this one class, this was such a sweet class. There was a scheduling mistake so I wound up instead of having 40 students in remedial reading I had something like 13, which was great, because I could actually pay attention to each one of them. And so, instituted this plan that when they reached a certain reading, these were kids who were like two, three, four years behind grade level in reading and, supposedly, behavior problems, right? So I instituted this plan that if they got up a certain number of levels in their reading program that I would bake them a cake. (Sheila laughs) And nothing happened until the first kid got to that level and got a cake. Took it down to the lunchroom and shared it with her friends. The first time she'd ever been able to brag about an academic success. - Sure. - About a school success. Boy, from then on, those kids were in there. They were in there during their study periods, they were in the reading lab after school, first thing in the morning. They were coming in, "Can I come in now and do my reading and stuff?" It was fabulous. And by the end of the year, almost, let's see I think it was, there were only two that didn't get tested out of the special section of the-- - Well, it sounds like you were very successful as a teacher, but you didn't wanna do it as a career. - Well, I got in trouble with the principal because the students are supposed to like learning for its own sake. Not something-- - Oh, not for cakes? - you can brag to their friends. Not for cakes, right. (Sheila laughs) I said, "Well, you know, what else?" They've never had any success. Why not celebrate it? So that's part of the part around the teaching. The actual teaching was terrific. But it's difficult to get to that. And I think in today's society with all the scrutiny on teachers, the slamming of teachers, blaming teachers for what's wrong. - Well, and the testing, you know, the-- - And the whole testing thing has gotten way out of hand. And so, it's even worse now. It's even harder to get actually to the teaching. - So I guess when we get to you being a law professor we'll talk about how that's actually different, but I'm interested because you didn't seem like law school was in your future. - Not at all. - How'd you get there? - See, now here's another thing. Amazing people helping me when I didn't expect any help. I learned how to type at one of these high schools that we moved around in. 'Cause I figured you could always use that skill, right? Especially now, who knew? (Christine laughs) We didn't have computers then and now we're really glad we how to do it. - That's right. - Texting, oh my gosh. Well, no, that's a whole other story. (Sheila laughs) But I knew how to type, so when we moved to New York I looked for the first thing I could find. I was doing some off off Broadway theater, which does not pay (laughs). I think I've made all of like a total of $100 in my entire acting career. (Sheila laughs) But a lot of free food, which sometimes came in handy. So I needed a day job. The first job I got was at the Legal Aid Society in downtown New York right across from the courthouse in Foley Square. So I was working and I got hired into the special litigation unit, which did really interesting work. I mean, one of the big cases had to do with rap sheets, which is your criminal record, and there were so many inaccuracies in the rap sheets that folks who had been acquitted of crimes were not able to get work because the rap sheet showed they'd been convicted and so people weren't hiring them. And they hadn't been found guilty of anything. And in another case, and then, so the lawyers let me actually get more into the substance of the work. They took me to court with them. - So it wasn't just interviewing people to testify, which is usually what you get when you're-- - And/or-- - Or typing. - Or typing. I mean, I was hired just as a typist, right? But I soon started doing more stuff. In fact, I helped do a study of the jury pool in New York at that time. And particularly, we were looking because it seemed to be very light on Latinos or Hispanics. Mostly, in New York at that time, it would've been Puerto Rican and Cuban, Americans. So we did this whole analysis of the jury pool and I testified about how we'd done the analysis. Boy, I was hooked. This was fabulous. But, remember, I thought you had to have, you got this classes. - Those classes that you had taken, right. - And you had to have, you know, you had to be brilliant and you had to have a fabulous GPA and-- - And you were a woman, I mean-- - Yeah, well, there was a woman lawyer in that unit. The first one I ever met. - That's inspirational. - That was incredibly inspirational. So I met a woman lawyer, I saw women lawyers in the courtroom, hadn't seen any on the bench yet. You can't really aspire to something that you don't know exists for you. - Right. - And so, I think the role modeling is really important. It was very important for me to know and to see women lawyers in action. And then, the lawyers there encouraged me and now it's like, well, you know, I could at least take that test that they give, right? - The LSAT test. - I could at least give it a try and see, so I did. And it was-- - Must've turned out okay because (laughs) ... - You laugh 'cause you know. - I happen to know where you went to law school. - (laughs) Yeah, we both went to the same place. - Yes, we did and we're both proud of going to Harvard. I think it's quite, for me, it felt like a major like, "How did I get here?" Did you feel that way too? - Well, shoot, where I grew up, Harvard, that was like Camelot, right? I wasn't even sure that it existed for real. - Right. My parents really didn't understand at all when I got in. My mother said, "Oh, but, honey, can't you keep your good job and stay in LA?" (Christine laughs) No, and she meant it in the-- - Yes. - very best way. - Oh, absolutely. - I mean it was kind of like I'm so completely off the charts. - That's right. I mean, the first thing since we were living in New York and I was still married first thing my mother said when she found out I got admitted to Harvard was, "But what will, what will John do? What will your husband do?" I said, "Well, he's gonna come with me, I think," you know? (Sheila laughs) There are jobs in Boston too. It's a big town. But, of course, we'd never been to any place like that, so-- - Right. - And it was funny. And then, I wrote onto the "Law Review" at Harvard. I was both on the "Women's Law Journal" and on the "Law Review." - I remember. - (laughs) That's another great story. But when I wrote into the "Law Review" my mother said, "Honey, I can tell from your voice that this is something really good, but could you tell me what it is?" (laughs) - Well, even the phrase "writing on." I don't think that most of the people watching really know. - Oh, wait. - Do you get to be on the "Law Review" at a law school in different ways? I mean, some people automatically get on and then other people have to write in order to be chosen? - Yeah, I mean, some places have everybody has to pass a writing competition. And other places have some people get on by having stellar grades. Well, I did not have stellar grades my first year in law school. I couldn't figure out what they were looking for. I was having a great time in class. I was so into it. I thought it was really interesting. And I was raising my hand and I was talking. And then, having a wonderful time and arguing with everybody. You know, afterwards we make this little arguments. And then, I get to the exam and I look at the question and I think what in the world is he asking me? (laughs) Right? - Me too. - And they were all hes, right? - Although, fortunately, when I went to college, B was a fabulous grade because it was during Sputnick. And so, they didn't give A's very much at the undergraduate level. So when I was at Harvard, and you know B is like a failing grade. Everybody gets As or Bs really at the law school. And so, when I brought my grades home, my parents were so proud of me because I'd gotten Bs, which everybody thought was a fabulous grade. So I did not disabuse them of the fact because I was happy that I even kinda made it through. It seemed like such an environment I could compete it. - And did you feel like a sort of like an alien who had been transplanted to this strange place? - Well, don't forget, "People" magazine was always writing about me. - Ah, right. - Because my character, Zelda Gilroy in the Doby Gillis show. "People" magazine would always go, "Zelda goes to law school." (Christine laughs) So suddenly, I am very different from everybody at this place and-- - And they're all watching you to see how are you gonna react. - And I was older too. - Right. - I was 34 before I went to law school. I was a feminist, which was just a very new thing and not everybody was. - Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. - So what was your experience like there? You were clearly very successful by the end. - Yeah, in fact, it was every interesting. My grades went up every semester. Once I figured out what the heck they wanted, oh, I can do that, right? Why didn't somebody tell me (laughs) what it was that we were supposed to be doing? - It seems like you've always stumbled into these things, Chris-- - Yes. - because you didn't want to be a law professor when you were little. - No, no. I wanted to be Perry Mason in drag, right? Or not in drag, right (laughs)? - He was sometimes in drag as well. It's all right, we-- - But, boy, that's what I wanted. In fact, while I was at the Legal Aid Society, I saw accused prostitutes brought in from the jail cells. They do a roundup at night. They bring 'em in, make 'em sleep in these crowded cells. And then, bring them into court in chains. Not just handcuffs, chained together. And these folks hadn't been convicted of anything, right? They hadn't even yet had their day in court, but they were chained. And I thought, okay, none of that. That's not gonna happen anymore. I'm going to law school. I'm gonna fix this, right? (laughs) Because that was my attitude and first year of law school, boy, it was just so interesting to see the, I remember one time in administrative law we're talking about the food stamp program and how it works. All these students are popping off about what they think about people who get food stamps and what they're like and I raised my hand. I said, "Well, when my family was on food stamps," and everybody goes, "Huh." - A hush. A hush comes over the room, right? (Christine laughs) And I thought, well, you know, sometimes people need, I mean, my father lost his job at one point and he was out of work for a while. We were on food stamps. What are you gonna do? But at least I knew what people who were on food stamps thought. I wasn't trying to guess from the perspective of folks who were summering in the Hamptons. But you also were, you said you were involved in the "Women's Law Journal." - Yeah. So something about the condition of women in society had gotten to you somehow because it often isn't just about us. I mean, I was also a feminist in law school, although it was my class that started the "Women's Law Journal." - That's right. - I mean, three women in my class. - What I loved about the way you started it too was you had, the way this started was you had a celebration of a certain women had finally admitted to Harvard, like only 25 years-- - 25 years before that date, right? - before that. And so, it was a celebratory issue and then you called it volume one (laughs). - Well, we had a meeting. It was just supposed to be a little book for the celebration and we were gonna invite scholars to write about women's condition in the law. And we were in a room in one of the buildings at the law school and had to decide what to call it. And literally, my only contribution to the "Women's Law Journal," was walking to the board and writing how about "Harvard Women's Law Journal," volume one, number one? And it's still going. - Oh, yeah. - Yeah, we didn't know at the time because it was extraordinary. - 20 odd years later. - Oh, maybe 30. - They're publishing every year. And I was the managing editor of volumes four and five. And so, you were my hero before I met you, right? - Okay, we have to stop this and get back to your story. (Christine laughs) It is fun, but it's interesting to me. You did not think you would be a law professor. Now, are you still married? Did the husband indeed follow you to-- - He followed me and then we split during the first year of law school, second year? Pretty soon. No, about during early of my second year of law school. Law school is a pressure cooker. If there's any strain it splits. - This was also a time when people were being more open about their sexuality. - That's right. - And frankly, more exploring. I mean, it had really been in the '70's and you were there in the '80's, right? - Yeah, well early '80's. - Early '80's, right. - I started in '79. - And so-- - (indistinct) '82. - was this something you were going through too? - Yeah, definitely. I mean, I had always been different (laughs). - I'm not going to let you get away with that. Do mean Q of the LGBTQ variety or? - Q and yes. I often describe myself as not straight, but there never were any, there weren't that many categories then. - Right, you either had to be straight or gay. - That's right. And in fact, I remember at one point not too long after law school having anonymous HIV testing. And they asked me, "Are you gay, straight, or bi?" And I said, "Are those the only categories you have?" (Christine laughs) - Well, it would be sort of difficult to think about what else there was. - At that point. - Inadvertently celibate? - There was some, but now my students are like a complex, a galaxy of different kinds of ideas about their sexual identity, sexual orientation, their sexual practices. Those things don't always line up. Matter of fact, when I think about the relationships, the very important relationships in my life, one was with a straight man. Being married was not the most, being married was an interesting experience, I'm glad I had it. I'm also glad I don't have it anymore. A gay man who was a very, very important part of my life and is in fact still is. I think he talked about it on your show once. - Right, John Davidson. - And he's now-- - At Lambda. - Right. - Um, when we were together he was developing his own ideas about himself and what he was going to be doing. He was then working at a law firm. That's how we met. We were both working at the same law firm in Century City. And he was a fabulous, he's still a fabulous lawyer. He's probably the best lawyer I have ever known. And then, a lesbian. My current partner is-- - For a long time though, right? - Well, it's almost 15 years and I hope this is, I'd say I've had three really important relationships in my life. I hope this is the last one, but you never know. - Well, you always seem very mysterious to us about it, but I think that you really did not and seriously want to be categorized. In many ways, it's a kind of political statement even if you don't think of it that way. - I found it very frustrating. I was looking for a label for me for a long time. And I was willing to adopt whatever anybody wanted. One of my friends said, "Oh, yeah, you've always been out, we just never could figure out what you were out about." (Christine and Sheila laugh) - Oh, yeah, I guess so. - So here you are not wanting to be a law professor, but I've known you only really as a law professor for almost 20 years at UCLA. - Yeah, this was not my idea (laughs). - Really, so who wanted you to teach? - I didn't want to teach anymore. I mean, I didn't want to teach again, I wanted to go to court. - Well, what happened was I came to Los Angeles to clerk for a federal judge, which was a wonderful experience. And while I was clerking, someone at a local law school had read a piece I written for the "Harvard Law Review." And in those days, we didn't sign them. They were supposed to be a group effort, right? But everybody knew that was mine. And it was the only one indexed under feminist legal theory because (laughs) when we indexed the volumes they said, "Well, where do you want it indexed," and I said, "You know, I gave them a couple things." - You said, "I don't like categories." - And I said I want ... (Christine and Sheila laugh) In fact, I said, I want it indexed under federal feminist legal theory. And they said, "We don't have that category." And I said, "Well, make one. There'll be lots of 'em later." And in fact, that's true. There are lots of them later. - Right. - But at the time, there weren't any. So the made the category 'cause I was such a pain in the you know what until they did and did it. And somebody had read it and invited me to come in and talk to them. And I said, "No, no, you know, I'm really not interested in teaching." And they said, "Well, come have lunch," right? Free lunch, free food. I grew up poor. You do not turn down a free meal, right? - Right. - Fine. I had a fabulous time. I mean, I liked, these people were great. The intellectual conversations were great. And then, they pulled a fast one on me. Said, "Oh, well, you can still practice," right. (Sheila laughs) "You'll have time to do that and you can do what you want on the side. - They really wanted you there, Chris. - And it'll be fine." Sure. And I tried. I tried being a full-time law professor and practicing. (Christine mumbles) It's fine if you don't wanna sleep. - Right, exactly. So let's fast forward a little bit through it because I think people would understand what being a law professor is. And I know you started teaching a class in the Women's Studies, what was it at the time? Program? - It was a program. It was an undergraduate program. And ended up being the director of that program at UCLA. This is all at UCLA. - Yeah. I've been really lucky that way. I've got to stay with the same employer, i.e. UCLA, on the same campus, and change my job every couple of years. - Well, let me ask you one thing because I really wanna get to talk about the cases. 'Cause as you indicated, it's been an extraordinary year - Oh, wow. - for the LGBT community in the courts. But one of the interesting juxtapositions as you brought the Women's Studies program into being a department, which is a very big deal at a university and shepherded that beautifully. And really, I think brought a great respect. It's hard to say seriousness. I don't mean within, I mean without-- - It's got some real stature. - taken seriously. - I mean, Women's Studies at UCLA is seen nationally as, if not the best, certainly one of the best in the field. We have a free-standing PhD. See, I'm still saying, "We." - Well, that's okay. - I was the chair-- - You can have some - in that department-- - ownership of it. - till two weeks ago, right? - Right. - So that freestanding PhD, every single one of the PhDs that we've granted and it's only been around for 10 years, but we've already turned out 11 PhDs. And every single one has gotten either a tenure track position, a regular teaching position somewhere at a university or college or a post doc, which is prestigious too, right? - [Sheila] Mm-hmm. - And so, I'm really, really proud of that. - Well, the other thing I found interesting when we were talking was that there really was no place to locate a class about sexual orientation and the law really. Because there as no program yet at UCLA, things were new. And so, you actually opened a space for that in the Women's Studies program. - That's right, the first class that had the title, Introduction to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies was in Women's Studies. Matter of fact, I think it was first called, Introduction to Lesbian and Gay Studies, and then added on the Bisexual and Transgender. But we taught and we housed that course in Women's Studies for, oh, at least five, maybe six years until an undergraduate minor in LGBT studies was started and it's still cross-listed in both programs. Women's Studies has been the home for graduate work. If you want to do graduate work in sexual orientation, where do you do it? You do it in Women's Studies. Will that name always stay Women's Studies? Probably not. Probably sooner or later it'll switch to Gender Studies or Women, Gender, and Sexuality. I mean, those things are constantly, the field keeps changing and growing. But it's always been a very, very sexuality-oriented department. - Well, feminism is-- - And also, very racially diverse and socioeconomically diverse. - Well, feminism I always thought was a much bigger deal than people made it because it's sort of a transformational way of looking, in our discipline, for instance, looking at the law. The notion that experience counts. The notion that stories are as much a part of the law as theories. - And people are part of the law. And what happens to people is really crucial. - Right, the outcome, the consequences. - That's right. - Not just I'm applying the law like the law exists. It was amazing to me going to law school. I thought they were gonna teach me the law, only to find out that it didn't really exist. - That it was an argument. - That we are creating it all the time. We are creating it. - Even when there was law on the books, the whole thing was an argument about whether you actually did or did not cross this line or that line. - That's right. - Speaking of which- - Crossing line. - Well, let's talk about these cases because people have, I mean, the law itself has been a real battering ram for our community. - You mean like opening doors when we couldn't open them any other way? - Yes, that's one thing. But I was also thinking of an assault. Making the law, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defensive Marriage Act. Even being left out of the law, such as marriage equality or lack thereof. - And think of how much damage was done by sodomy laws until so recently. I mean, Lawrence versus Texas was only, what, six or seven years ago. I mean, until that time states were perfectly free to make it illegal to make love. Who came up with that concept, right? (laughs) - Well, I mean, it's just like Ursula K. Le Guin said. Same and different are nurturing words, are friendship words. Can be happy words. The killing words are better and worse, which is my opinion all that categories have ever been about. It's not are you different, but are you worse? Let me get a reward and you won't get it. Marriage is very much like that now. - And people be different equal. I mean, my scholarship was all about when I was publishing and researching and publishing in this area. My scholarship is all about trying to break that link between difference and inequality. I mean, Audre Lorde said, "Can we now treat each other as equals and different instead of having to be the same in order to be equal?" I mean, okay, sameness and equality go together in mathematics, not in human beings, (laughs) right? - Well, the California case that was about the benefits that the state of California was giving to its employees where for healthcare men got all the healthcare they needed and women got an equal thing, which was all the healthcare that-- - [Both] men needed. (Christine and Sheila laugh) - Right, which was, you know, and the Supreme Court said, "Fine." - That's right. - That's not sex discrimination because at any given time many women are not pregnant. And therefore, it was not a division between men and women, but a division between pregnant-- - Pregnant. - and non-pregnant persons. - Don't you love that? Now, remember, there were no women on the Supreme Court at the time they said-- - But there were women in Congress and what happened? Congress said, "Huh?" and amended Title VII, so that pregnancy discrimination was a form of discrimination. So, you're right, the law has been a way of opening doors certainly for women. But now, I think, for our community. - I think so too. I mean, after all, look, the Constitution doesn't say that this is a document for straight people. It did at one point say it was a document for men and for men who held property. But it says, and particularly, that great 14th Amendment that has the equal protection clause in it. It says, "No state shall deny to any person, any person, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And I thought, boy, I mean, that's one of the things that really got to me. That statement got to me when I was in law school. I said, "Here's something I can believe in. Here's something that really solid and I believe in this." That you've gotta be able to all people, no matter who we are or how different or how similar we are. We have to be able to access this. And I think that's what happened 10 years ago when the US Supreme Court finally said in Romer versus Evans. Look, you can't say, "Okay, this group, i.e. gays and lesbians, they're not allowed to petition the government." Other groups, this was Colorado, right? - Right. - One of their propositions said, "No, the gays and lesbians can't petition the government for any benefit." So you can't pass any laws like that. We're not gonna let you. We're just gonna freeze things the way they are so that you're second-class citizens and that's equal. And the Supreme Court said, "No, you can't do that to any group. We don't care how much you dislike them. You just can't do that," right? (laughs) - But it was a slow awakening over the history of the United States in terms of Supreme Court. Now, first, of course, a case has to be brought and often a case is brought and kicked out and brought and kicked out and brought and kicked out because it's just like with women where they said, "Equal protection does apply to women because they're not similarly situated to men and therefore, you don't get into the 14th Amendment." - That's right (laughs). - And then, suddenly, there's this awakening, which I think does relate to the history of what's going on in the country. - It does. - A lot of voices are saying, "Wait a minute." - There has to be a serious political and social movement and somewhat well organized too. In order to move the courts to understand things differently. What you're doing is shifting. It's just like when you think about the difference between Plessy versus Ferguson and the Brown cases, Brown versus Board of Ed. The shift in thinking between it's okay as long as blacks and whites get to ride in the same train even if they're-- - But not in the same car? - in different cars to, oh, maybe it's not okay even if they're similar. And, of course, they never were similar, right? It was always the case that the white schools were a lot richer and better and had no broken windows and had-- - But, see but that-- - textbooks. - was a real people moment. - That was it. - When he brought the results of the experiment with the black dolls and the white dolls and showed that the black children thought that the white dolls were beautiful and the black dolls were not. And you had a real people harm-- - That's right. - from segregated schools. Even separate, but equal. - Even if, in theory, you both had the same thing, what are you doing to people when you teach them that they are not as good? - So what's happening? I mean, this year alone it's almost like somebody set off the fireworks and every week is like (sputters), you know? - And in fact, this summer is amazing. - This summer you had-- - Let's talk about the, tell us what happened, if you can, you know? - The summary had three separate, just the summer alone, not even talking about year, just the summer alone, you had three different federal courts, basically, taking pro-gay positions and finding in, let's see, District Court in Massachusetts finding that the Defensive Marriage Act, which is the federal rule prohibiting us from getting married. That was unconstitutional. Finding that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that the military uses to kick us out of the military, 13,000 soldiers with skills that we could use, being kicked out because somebody found out. - Like Arab interpreters. - Yeah, it would be helpful to have same or Pashto speakers would be very helpful. And also, just really the District Court in California finding that, so the injunction against Don't Ask Don't Tell and the court finding that Prop 8, which tried to break, which again, it's an attempt to keep us out of marriage, just to keep us out of the Constitution is unconstitutional. So, there you go, boom, boom, boom. They're all unconstitutional. Now, they are District Court cases, right? - Which is the lowest federal court. - That's the lowest federal court. But nonetheless, that's where you can find some room. Some brave folks who say, "Yeah, we might've thought about, you know, marriages not include same sex marriage for a long time, but there's nothing really that, in the Constitution that says you should do that. And there's nothing really in logic that says that." Because, after all, this is a government benefit. Being able to marry, having that kind of protection for your kids, having that kind of protection to be able to get Social Security benefits, to be able to file joint taxes, to be able to visit your sick partner in the hospital, those are benefits that the government gives in public hospitals. That's a governmental status. Now, there's a religious status that goes with it too, but that's not our issue, right? That's up to the churches. If you want to get church weddings and whether it's a sacrament of marriage, that's a whole different thing than marriage as a civil right and to have the courts recognizing that kind of thing. So if you look at in three different areas, in nondiscrimination, per se, this year, we've got the US Supreme Court saying that University of California's Law School in San Francisco, the Hastings Law School, which is part of the UC system, so it's a state school, this law school has a rule student organizations if they wanna use our name and they wanna get money from us, they have to take everybody. They can't discriminate on any of these bases. You can't discriminate. You can't have the white students clubs and not let in the Asian Americans. And you can't have the Christian Legal Society and not let in gay people. And Christian Legal Society said, "Wait a minute, we wanna teach that relations, same sex relations, are sinful and awful and how can we do that if there are gay people in the room?" Well, you have managed to do it in front me pretty well, but that's a different story. (Christine and Sheila laugh) - They don't seem to have any problems. - That's right, right. They wanted to say, "We can't admit and still be able to have our identity." Well, of course you can. You just don't get the money from the taxpayers. You don't get public money. You could have your own little clique, but you can't get public money, you can't use the state's name to do that. And the US Supreme Court said, "That's right." Now, the state can't force them to take people that they think don't fit their beliefs. - Right, it's just there are consequences-- - That's right. - in terms of doing something or you don't get-- - don't get. - No public benefits. - You can do it privately and we're not gonna interfere with you, but if you try to do it publicly, this is a nondiscrimination clause. It's applied equally. It doesn't say you can't have a particular belief. Just says you just gotta, whatever these people believe, if they wanna be in the Christian Legal Society they can be as long as-- - So it seems like it's been really an extraordinary year and it really, although we know and our audience knows, there's been an enormous amount of work that's been going on for decades. Bringing these cases, preparing the cases, arguing the cases, finding the witnesses, losing in some cases. Been a slow slog, but it seems like suddenly it's really come together. (Christine and Sheila speak indistinctly) I don't know, you know a-- - You get a foothold. - Right. - You find an opening and that's what that lawyers do in a large sense. I mean, this is one of the reasons I'm so happy to be at UCLA and particularly now dealing all the time with diversity. I mean, my full-time job is to encourage diversity, racial, religious, ethnic, gender equity, LGBT issues, disability issues, all that stuff. But one of the reasons I'm so proud of UCLA is we have things. Like, UCLA is one of the top 20 in campus pride because we have a fabulous LGBT resource center thanks to people like Ronni Sanlo and Melissa Etheridge, who gave them money for the library. And we have the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Law. I mean, you said there weren't any places for sexual orientation issues. Now we have courses regularly, the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at the UCLA Law School has, thanks to people like Chuck Williams who gave the first set of money and Brad Sears who's the executive director. I mean, that place has done enormous work. They have sponsored, that policy brief that you and Stuart Beagle did on how to deal with gay teenagers and how to have safe space in schools. - Right, it was all about safety in schools. It turned out to be, of course, incredibly timely. We went to DC to present this paper to the National Education Association. And it was just days after the suicide at Rutgers, which was only one of five suicides that week. - That's right. - And it's this whole issue of bullying now. It's almost like it has to numerically catch the attention of a country. I think that that's what's happening with these cases. Because here's my question to you. Why does the Supreme Court or District Courts, the California Supreme Court who made an incredible decision about our marriages have to be allowed before Prop 8. - Right. In 2008, yeah. - Why now? How does this happen that the court does not see us as part of the Constitution and then the court does. I mean, people a little (indistinct) about it. Because it's sort of like suddenly the court changed it's mind about something and it feels very political to people, but to me, and I wonder what your opinion is of this change. - Well, you know it doesn't happen overnight. I mean, think about what had to lead up to that. You had to have 100 years of, as we said, the Constitution not recognizing that women were people. And then, finally, in 1971 saying, "Oh, right, I guess it does apply to you too." No, 100 years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. And then, you've got another 50 years before you're sort of finally start thinking, well, you've got the Stonewall Riots, you've got people, you've got the Coming Out movement. Coming out has been the single most effective way of breaking down homophobia and gay and lesbian hatred, than anything you can imagine. Because suddenly, you find out through coming out, through the whole process of coming out, you find out that your kids or your uncle or one of your teachers, your football coaches, your heroes, your movie stars, your musicians, your classmates are in fact gay, lesbian, transgender. Who knew? Right? - Mm-hmm. - And that whole process of coming out, I mean, it's gotten to the point now where there was a country western star who made a big deal of coming and the paper said, "Ah," you know, "Been there, we've heard all that," right? Everybody's out now. Well, it's not true, obviously. Yeah, maybe on the thin slices of the East and West Coast. There's a huge part of the country where that process still needs to happen. But think about how long that's gone on. Think about how long the show's been on, right? A show like this. And then, you start seeing things like "Will and Grace," which let people, straight people think that, oh, well, I wouldn't mind having a neighbor like that. He seems like a decent guy (laughs). - But how does that affect the courts? I mean, I guess I wanna get at this notion and I really don't have the vaguest idea what you're gonna say about it, but this notion that the courts are political. And so, now you have a political movement and so they quickly just change their minds and suddenly discover we're in the Constitution. It seems to me what happens is it's like a veil is lifted from people's eyes or from the court where every single one of them this year has essentially said, "These laws are unconstitutional." Why? Because even though the government may distinguish between categories of people, they need a reason. - They need a good reason. - They need at least a rational reason or, in some cases, not wholly irrational. Remember those cases? - That's right. - That's sort of the lowest standard. - But they, you know-- - And it doesn't even meet that standard. It can't any longer-- - It's not good enough to say, it's not a reason to say, "Yeah, but this people are yucky," right? - Or we've always done it this way. - Right. We've always done it this way. - And that has been one of the arguments. Marriage has always been between a man and woman and therefore, it must be constitutional to bar marriage by anybody else. And the court finally said, "No." - See, that's the way education works though, right? I mean, this is why, and you've been in that setting too of teaching law as well as using law as well as using the political process that the way education works is the first time you hear a theory it's very odd and all the evidence that might support that theory is filtered out. But the more evidence you have you start thinking, well, my theory doesn't fit that evidence, you know? I see these couples and they look like they're in love and they've been together for 20 years or they've raised kids. And the kids seemed to have turned out all right. We have a 24-year study of lesbian families, kids raised in lesbian families. And we found out that they're, on most things, there's no difference between the kids raised by lesbians and the kids raised by other sex couples. And in a couple categories the kids of lesbians do a little better (laughs). - You means the kids are all right? - The kids are all right. You find that out, you know, 24, Well, how can I maintain my theory that these people are something alien to me? That they're not like, they're not people, when I see this, when I see this evidence. That's how all theories change. That's how all progress is made in the education, in the sciences, and in the courts. So the fact that you've got political movements that are doing this educating, doesn't mean it's any different than any other kind of educational process. We are still learning all our lives as people and as a country. - So what are you learning, Chris? There's five minutes remaining in the show. (Christine laughs) I wanna bring it back to you 'cause I think it's also, the value of a life, a life so devoted to justice and ongoing. I mean, the new job, fabulous. - Oh, yeah. - What are you still learning, Chris? - I am learning every single day that people who care can make an enormous difference. My colleagues have just been so fabulous in helping me try to figure out how to make this transition. My students want to do good in the world. I mean, they don't wanna just make money. They want to do something important to make the world a better place. And when we get together and do it, we can actually save. The bodhisatta vow is ascension beings are numberless. I vow to save them all. That's a goal that all of us can aspire to. Not reach, but aspire to. - So how are you doing at reaching your goals? - I am so far from saving all of them, (laughs) but it doesn't matter because as a little kid who threw the starfish back in, when he was told it was useless because there's so many dead starfish. He said, "It makes a difference to this one" (clicks) and I think I heard that story from you first time. - (laughs) I'm not sure, but it's a very good story. And if you did, I'm going to use it again having forgotten it, you know? This is what good friends are for. - Of course. - So, of all the things that you've done, of all the various jobs that you've done or cases you've been on or people you've taught, what are you most proud of? Or two things if you can't choose. - (laughs) Oh, there's so, well, I am, probably the thing I'm most proud of is that there is a fully-functioning and high status and high stature and high quality Department of Women's Studies at UCLA. Not because of me, but because enough people came together to make it happen. I'm incredibly proud of the California Women's Law Center that you and I helped found. It did so much terrific work. It has done so much terrific work. And I'm still really proud of the Supreme Court opinion when Justice Thurgood Marshall said, "It should be, we should, that's okay to try to make some equality between working dads and working moms and not take away the jobs of working moms just because they become moms." Among all those things, pretty darn hard to pick. - So one more thing you'd like to do or two or three? - In my whole lifetime? - In your whole lifetime? - I would like, within the next three years, to make a really serious difference in the diversity across the entire campus and particularly number of women in the hard sciences and in places like in engineering. 'Cause I think all of the research indicates that if you have racial, gender, and other kinds of diversity you get better quality. And that research is wonderful and I wanna just spread it far and wide that there's no conflict. Not only is there no conflict between diversity and excellence, you don't get excellence without diversity. - Chris, thank you so much for being with us. Really wonderful to get to talk to you. Totally selfish when I do this show and just pick people that I really admire and like to talk to for an hour. And I hope that you enjoyed it as well. Remember, one person can make a big difference so get used to it. (upbeat music)