Miers helped to promote "liberal ideas" at SMU - Conservatives are concerned

Harriet Miers was reportedly involved in the creation of a lecture series at her alma mater, Southern Methodist University, which hosted speakers with strong feminist backgrounds. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the series exposed SMU's student body to some "unmistakably liberal ideas."

In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio, one of the first women to rise to prominence in the Texas legal community. A strong advocate for women, Ms. Raggio helped persuade state lawmakers to revise Texas laws to give women new rights over property and in the event of divorce.

Ms. Miers, whom President Bush announced on Monday as his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not only advocated for the lecture series, but also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground.

A feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, delivered the series's first lecture, in 1998. In the following two years, the speakers were Patricia S. Schroeder, the former Democratic congresswoman widely associated with women's causes, and Susan Faludi, the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (1991). Ann W. Richards, the Democrat whom George W. Bush unseated as governor of Texas in 1994, delivered the lecture in 2003.

Tony Perkins, head of the arch-conservative Family Research Council is notably alarmed. In an e-mail to FRC members, Perkins describes the guests of the lecture series as "an unbroken string of pro-abortion speakers."

Perkins suggests that the Bush Administration needs to be much more explicit about Ms. Miers' anti-abortion bona fides.

This story needs to be handled with care. The Chronicle is certainly no friend of the pro-life cause and may have exaggerated Miss Miers' role in setting up the lectureship. But the issue does need to be carefully explored. It raises a host of questions about judgment. For example, how "key" was Miss Miers' role and how hard did she "push" to create this lectureship? Was this speakers' series named for Louise B. Raggio from its inception? Ms. Raggio is a high-profile Dallas lawyer who has received well- publicized awards from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. Did Miss Miers know what kind of program she was helping to establish? Should she have known? The law students surely would have benefited from hearing contrasting points of view. All of these are reasonable questions. We need to see the documentation on the Raggio Lecture Series, how it was set up, who played what role, and how it was perceived at the time. There can be no question of attorney-client privilege here, nor of Executive Privilege. The atmosphere on all too many campuses is, tragically, pro-abortion. But the climate of opinion around the U.S. Supreme Court is more intensely so. The reporters, commentators, lawyers, and far too many clerks constitute a powerful pro-abortion monopoly of opinion. A man or woman must have strong principles and unshakable determination to resist those pressures. President Bush has assured us that Harriet Miers does have that inner toughness. We certainly hope she does.

The Miers nomination is shaping up as a debate over whether there is, in fact, an abortion litmus test for the Supreme Court. The religious right is demanding assurances that Miers will take the bench determined to overturn Roe v. Wade. President Bush has been able to lie relatively low on abortion for four-and-a-half years. However, his "no litmus test" rhetoric appears no longer operative.

This is ironic. If Bush had nominated an accomplished intellectual conservative jurist, he could have skated on this one. As with John Roberts, the president could have touted his nominee's "strict constructionist" credentials, leaving the left to interpret what it might mean for the future of reproductive rights and other issues dear to liberals. A conservative judge with a record of ruling to restrict access to abortion would have left the religious right with no questions to ask. They would have understood with a wink and a nod.

Democrats could have howled until their tonsils bled. They could have attempted a filibuster. Or, they could have rolled over just as they did for John Roberts. Either way, the result would have been the same.

Now, however, the president finds his nominee under fire from the very constituency he has taken for granted for so many years. The religious right wants abortion outlawed. Period. They are demanding to know whether their president feels the same. Vague references to the "culture of life" just won't cut it anymore. Before this is over, Bush could end up having to make clear not only Ms. Miers' opinion on Roe v. Wade, but also his own.