Will the Court Consist of Eight Old Men and an Old Woman?

Difficult questions about age fill the mail this week. Mr. C.S. of Chester, Pa., for example, writes that since the 1930’s the Supreme Court has often been referred to as ”nine old men” and asks:
”If Sandra O’Connor’s appointment is confirmed, will it be correct thereafter to refer to the Court as eight old men and an old woman?”
No, Mr. C.S., ”eight old men and an old woman” will not do. In the first place, since Mrs. O’Connor is only 51 years old the phrase would strike most people over the age of 29 as viciously overloaded with youth bias. To people in their 20’s a female Justice of 51 may be an ”old woman,” but people old enough to remember Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes might just as reasonably think of a woman of 51 as a ”spring chicken.”
Do we want to refer to the Supreme Court as ”eight old men and a spring chicken”? Of course not. Even in America, vulgarity must have its limits. How about ”eight old men and a lady”? Out of the question – feminists have declared ”lady” a taboo word. They prefer the word ”person,” which would give us ”eight old men and a person.”
Unfortunately, this construction calls attention to Mrs. O’Connor’s femininity and may, therefore, be objectionable as a ”sexist” phrase. Are the eight old men, after all, not persons too, just as Mrs. O’Connor is a person? If Mrs. O’Connor were older we could solve the problem simply with ”nine old persons.” Under the circumstances, however, the only possible phrase is ”eight old