Skip to main content

The Women’s Movement Needs Lawyers and Organizers Working Together


Legal intervention as an avenue for social change has been central to social, economic, and political progress for women, but is difficult to access for the people who most need it. Until recently, the mainstream women’s rights movement in the United States was dominated by white and wealthy women — such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Betty Friedan — fighting for the rights of others who look like them. As a result, the movement has too often excluded and erased the experiences of non-white and working-class women, limiting the movement’s progress in advancing equality for Black women, Indigenous women, and other women of color in this country.

As the women’s movement shifts to an intersectional approach — a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe that identities such as race and gender cannot be isolated in understanding the oppression of people who hold multiple marginalized identities — elevating the voices and experiences of women who have been historically excluded is critical. Lawyers must ally with community organizers, who work on the ground with those most impacted, to make the women’s movement more accessible and inclusive — an approach the ACLU Women’s Rights Project strives to model.

Legal intervention as an avenue for social change has been central to social, economic, and political progress for women, but is difficult to access for the people who most need it.

Though I provide legal support to attorneys now, I co-founded a tenants’ union in Ithaca, New York in 2019, and I know firsthand that there is heavy skepticism between lawyers and organizers. Lawyers can be out of touch with the communities they are supposed to be helping, yet often deem themselves experts in tackling a problem over people who are closest to the issue. Organizers, on the other hand, sometimes utilize bold strategies that test the limits of the law, which some lawyers are uncomfortable with. Bridging this gap and finding more ways to work together will fill needs on both ends and lead to more progress.

In 2018, the ACLU and several state affiliates, along with private counsel, partnered with Fight for 15 (FF15) organizers to confront rampant sexual harassment at McDonald’s restaurants nationwide. Senior Staff Attorney Gillian Thomas and FF15 organizer Allynn Umel explained to me that people in politically and economically vulnerable positions (such as undocumented people, teenagers, and low-wage workers) frequently avoid complaining about workplace abuse, let alone taking legal action, out of fear of retaliation. Because lawyers can be removed from their clients’ everyday realities, collaborating with organizers helps the attorneys stay informed and build the trust that is essential for time-consuming and emotionally draining cases. Recognizing the risks and pressures of challenging their employer, FF15 organizers met with workers to speak about the importance of legal intervention and make sure they knew they were not alone.

Lawyers must ally with community organizers, who work on the ground with those most impacted, to make the women’s movement more accessible and inclusive — an approach the ACLU Women’s Rights Project strives to model.

“Particularly for the most marginalized and vulnerable, it is pretty critical to have organizers familiar with what workers are putting on the line every single day as part of a larger fight entails as the workers engage in the legal process, as an organizer’s main job is to help push people past their fear and into a place of power,” explained Umel.

There is a marked difference between attorneys interested in supporting further organizing and attorneys looking to limit organizing to protect organizational or institutional concerns, Umel noted. The central question, she said, is “Are we on the same team? Do the attorneys here fully appreciate and value the role of organizing and overall campaign and making sure the workers and community members have some greater degree of ownership of what happened beyond just trying to enforce the law?” In speaking to her experience working with the ACLU, Umel emphasized that the respect for the organizers, coupled with an understanding of the support that survivors of harassment needed to come forward, was critical for the campaign and fight.

Bridging this gap and finding more ways to work together will fill needs on both ends and lead to more progress.

In 2020, during the height of the pandemic, the ACLU Women’s Rights Project and ACLU of Missouri worked with KC Tenants to file a federal lawsuit challenging the Jackson County Circuit Court for permitting eviction cases despite the nationwide eviction moratorium. On navigating the relationships and tensions between organizers and lawyers, Senior Staff Attorney Sandra Park explained that KC Tenants was the client, and ultimately, they determined if and how the litigation advanced their goals.

“In the early days of the pandemic, it was crucial for us to be in communication with folks on the ground, organizing, to determine what the greatest needs were and whether litigation could be used to help stop mass evictions,” said Park, reflecting that she does not see it as her role to determine organizers’ goals and strategies.

These are examples of integrated advocacy at its most effective. In both instances, the lawyers and organizers were able to respect each other’s expertise and collaborate to advocate their causes. These frameworks provide a roadmap that must be replicated in order for the women’s movement to be as inclusive and impactful as possible.

We need you with us to keep fighting
Donate today

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...