Sandra Day O’Connor ‘50, LLB ‘52 took a walk down memory lane on Monday as she spoke to students in an intimate setting at Branner Hall, exploring issues including discrimination, the psychology of public service and Constitutional law.

But the talk was not all policy — the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice often joked with the forty students present, who were selected to attend based on a written submission. O’Connor said that she decided to major in economics while at Stanford because it was convenient.

“I chose economics because they never had classes on Fridays, which worked out well for me,” she said. “I loved geology though and could have easily picked that. But they went off on field trips on the weekend.”

O’Connor said that Branner, her home while she was a freshman, had changed a lot since she lived there. For instance, quiet hours began at 7 p.m.

“They were not enforced, I can tell you that,” she joked.

O’Connor was the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court, where she served from 1981 until 2006. Upon her arrival on the court, O’Connor proved pivotal in divisive issues such as affirmative action, the death penalty and religion. Notably, her vote reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case permitting women the right to an abortion.

In a wide-ranging, two hour discussion with students from the Graduate School of Business, Law School, Haas Center for Public Service and Branner, O’Connor spoke of the struggles she faced after college, persuading students to face the challenges life throws at them.

“I couldn’t get interviews with any law firms,” she said. “I was shocked. It never entered my mind that I would not be able to get a job.”

The former justice outlined her first job interview — which she only managed to secure through contacts from Stanford — where the employer told her that while her resume was good, the firm had never hired a female lawyer and that clients would not stand for it.

O’Connor, the first annual Rathbun Visiting Fellow, heaped praise on Harry Rathbun ‘16, Engr. ‘20, JD ‘29 and explained how he was a key factor in her decision to go to law school.

“Harry was the first person I had ever heard who said that an individual could make a difference in the world,” she said. “He was so convinced that anyone could succeed at accomplishing anything. I think most of us believed him because he was so persuasive.”

O’Connor strongly urged the audience to consider a life working as a public servant.

“I have seen many gifted law clerks who used to work for big law firms with $200,000 signing bonuses on top of their good salaries,” she said. “Yet no matter what the consequence, they came back to public service. They wanted the personal satisfaction from knowing that they were helping make society function better.”

She declared that even if students did not wish to work in the public sector, they could still make positive change in society by working in the private sector.

“I never aspired to be the Supreme Court Justice,” she said. “It just happened. I just wanted my work to be something worth doing that made a difference and was not something that just any person could do. It was pretty natural, one thing followed another.”

When asked how to live a balanced life, O’Connor outlined four steps that she felt were important: family, exercise, sleep and loving one’s work.

“There’s a famous sleep professor here at Stanford,” she said, referring to Prof. William Dement, of the psychiatry, behavioral sciences and sleep disorder sleep center. “Take his class. Everyone I knew at the Supreme Court was committed to keeping their family in good shape. Put your family first but then give up everything else.”

Other students peppered O’Connor with political questions. One law student questioned whether personal opinions or faith ever affected her decisions, particularly in cases involving the death penalty. In response, O’Connor pulled out a copy of the Constitution from her purse, and said she expressly followed what the Constitution said.

“I swore to uphold the Constitution,” she said. “The Constitution does not prohibit the death penalty and so it is not for a judge to decide. I didn’t need to balance my own opinion — it is what the laws stated. I moved from case to case and did the best I could with it.”

She cited the example of the presidential election in 2000, in which the results indicated that the popular vote supported Al Gore while the Electoral College supported President Bush.

“If people were unhappy, it was because of the Electoral College system and not our decision,” she said. “The Constitution is not going to change because it will negatively affect the smaller states. So I am fine with the outcome — it doesn’t bother me.”

One student asked her what was her most meaningful accomplishment in life.

“Serving on the Supreme Court,” she said, “and not making a total disaster out of it.”