The hardest thing for my colleagues to accept was when we — and by we, I mean the ACLU women’s rights project, which I helped to found — challenged the TIAA CREF program, and the retirement program used by most colleges and universities, because they rigidly separated the policy beneficiaries by sex. So they used mortality tables for men, for women. And the women would get less when they retired than a man with equivalent salary and time in service. The reason was that on average it’s fair, because women on average live longer than men. And my view was, “Yes, that’s certainly true on average, but there are some men who live long and some women who die early.” And the whole notion is that you don’t lump together women simply because they are women, and that TIAA CREF should merge their mortality tables. Well, the immediate response was, “Horrors! We just couldn’t do that. Then all the men would desert the plan and get private insurance.” Well, TIAA CREF was such a good deal that when they did finally merge the tables, nobody left. But that was the most worrisome thing to my faculty colleagues. Even so, they supported a class action that was brought — with 100 named plaintiffs — on behalf of women teachers and administrators at Columbia, charging that maintaining separate mortality tables essentially denied women equal pay, and was in violation of our foremost anti-discrimination law, Title VII.