Small Great Things
Jodi Picoult’s Small Great Things (2016) explores themes of race, privilege, and justice through the story of Ruth Jefferson, an African American labor and delivery nurse accused of causing the death of a white supremacist couple’s newborn. The novel alternates perspectives between Ruth, the infant’s father Turk Bauer, and Ruth’s public defender Kennedy McQuarrie, revealing systemic racism and personal biases. Inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s quote about doing “small things in a great way,” the narrative examines moral dilemmas and societal structures. The book has been praised for its thought-provoking examination of contemporary racial tensions and is being adapted into a film.
Stage One: Active Labor — Kennedy 1
byPicoult, Jodi
The chapter opens with a chaotic morning in Kennedy McQuarrie’s household, where miscommunication between her and her husband, Micah, leads to oversleeping. Their four-year-old daughter, Violet, throws a tantrum over breakfast, culminating in a humorous misunderstanding when she demands a “fuckin’ knife” instead of a fork and knife. The incident sparks a brief argument between Kennedy and Micah about her swearing habits, highlighting the challenges of balancing parenthood and demanding careers. The morning ends with Violet triumphant in her sequined shoes, while her exhausted parents head to their respective jobs—Micah to perform surgeries and Kennedy to her work as a public defender.
Kennedy’s day takes a frustrating turn when she is tasked with negotiating an absurd prison policy regarding female lawyers wearing underwire bras. The policy, which requires strip searches or going braless, is both impractical and discriminatory. In a meeting with prison officials and a private-sector lawyer, Kennedy challenges the logic behind the rule, pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing keys and golf cleats while banning bras. The discussion devolves into absurdity when the deputy warden cites “toe-lickers” as a justification for banning sandals, leaving Kennedy exasperated by the irrationality of the prison’s policies.
Amid the absurdity, Kennedy reflects on her career choices, contrasting her current role as a public defender with the lucrative corporate law path she could have taken. She recalls how her husband, Micah, encouraged her to pursue meaningful work despite the lower pay, reinforcing her commitment to justice. This introspection underscores her dedication to advocating for marginalized clients, even as she grapples with systemic inefficiencies and biases. The chapter highlights the tension between her idealism and the often ridiculous realities of her profession.
The chapter concludes with Kennedy leveraging her legal expertise to challenge the prison’s discriminatory policy. She threatens to involve the ACLU, framing the issue as a violation of gender equality and attorneys’ rights. Her assertive stance reflects her broader belief in the importance of public defenders as equalizers in the justice system. The scene encapsulates Kennedy’s resilience and wit, as well as her determination to fight for fairness, even in the face of bureaucratic absurdity.
FAQs
1. What is the central conflict Kennedy faces in her professional capacity during this chapter, and how does it highlight gender-based workplace challenges?
Answer:
Kennedy, a public defender, is forced to negotiate with prison officials about their policy banning female lawyers from entering the facility while wearing underwire bras—a policy that doesn’t apply to male attorneys. This absurd conflict underscores systemic gender bias, as women are subjected to invasive strip searches or forced to remove undergarments to comply with arbitrary rules. The situation reveals how institutional policies can disproportionately burden women, forcing them to navigate humiliating compromises (like going braless) to perform their jobs. Kennedy’s sarcastic remark about “busting someone out with a foundation garment” critiques the irrationality of the policy, which prioritizes control over practicality or equality.2. Analyze how Kennedy uses humor and legal rhetoric to challenge the prison officials’ bra policy. What does this reveal about her character and advocacy style?
Answer:
Kennedy employs biting humor (“Itty Bitty Titty Committee”) and logical arguments (“they let you go inside with keys”) to expose the policy’s absurdity. Her rhetorical strategy—contrasting bras with cleats (which are allowed despite having spikes)—highlights the officials’ flawed reasoning. This approach reveals her sharp wit and ability to use irony as a tool for advocacy. By framing the issue as both ridiculous and discriminatory, she pressures the officials to reconsider while maintaining professionalism. Her reference to an ACLU attorney further shows her tactical thinking, implying legal consequences for gender-based discrimination. This blend of humor and legal acumen defines her as a resilient advocate who combats injustice with intelligence and creativity.3. How does the chapter juxtapose Kennedy’s personal and professional struggles to develop its themes?
Answer:
The chapter opens with Kennedy’s chaotic morning (oversleeping, her daughter’s tantrum) and transitions to her demeaning work conflict, linking both through themes of frustration and resilience. At home, she navigates parenting challenges with humor (“I want a fuckin’ knife!”), mirroring how she tackles professional obstacles with wit. Her reflection on corporate law (“paneled wood conference rooms”) contrasts with her reality (“bleach and pee”), emphasizing her commitment to public service despite sacrifices. This parallel structure underscores that systemic inequities—whether in parenting roles or workplace policies—require adaptability and principle. Her husband’s support (“You make the difference”) ties these threads together, showing how personal choices enable her to confront broader injustices.4. Critical Thinking: Evaluate the prison’s justification for the bra policy (“minimizing risk”) and Kennedy’s counterarguments. Whose position is more logically sound?
Answer:
The prison’s justification collapses under scrutiny. Their claim that underwire bras pose a security risk is undermined by allowing cleats (actual weapons) and keys, revealing inconsistent priorities. Kennedy’s rebuttal—that the policy targets only women and impedes legal representation—exposes its discriminatory impact. The deputy’s “toe-licking” explanation further trivializes the issue, suggesting gendered control masquerading as protection. Kennedy’s position is stronger because she highlights the policy’s irrationality (via comparisons) and legal vulnerabilities (discrimination claims). The officials’ failure to address these points suggests their reasoning is rooted in bias, not security, making Kennedy’s critique both legally and ethically superior.5. Application: How might Kennedy’s experience inform discussions about equitable workplace policies in other male-dominated fields?
Answer:
Kennedy’s ordeal exemplifies how gendered policies can hinder professional participation. In male-dominated fields (e.g., law, corrections), similar arbitrary rules—like dress codes or equipment restrictions—may disproportionately burden women or nonbinary individuals. Her response models advocacy: (1) documenting inequities (ACLU threat), (2) using data (comparing bras to cleats), and (3) leveraging alliances (citing colleagues). Organizations should audit policies for disparate impacts and involve affected groups in reform. Kennedy’s story also underscores the need for male allies (like Micah) to support structural change. Applying these lessons could prevent policies that, while neutral on paper, perpetuate exclusion in practice.
Quotes
1. “I want a fuckin’ knife!” screamed Violet, and it was quite possibly the only thing that could have stopped both Micah and me in our frenetic tracks.”
This humorous yet relatable parenting moment captures the chaotic morning routine and sets the tone for Kennedy’s domestic life before transitioning to her professional challenges. The misheard phrase highlights how small domestic crises can derail even the most capable individuals.
2. “You know, it does beg the question of whether the entire clothing policy should be under review…Last year I was wearing sandals, and was told I couldn’t enter the prison with them. But the only other shoes I had were golf cleats, which were perfectly acceptable.”
This absurd anecdote from Arthur Wang perfectly illustrates the irrationality of prison policies Kennedy is fighting against. The contrast between prohibited sandals and permitted cleats underscores the arbitrary nature of institutional rules.
3. “Well, because of the toe-lickers…It’s like a conjugal visit with your foot.”
This shocking revelation about prison officials’ justification for footwear restrictions serves as a darkly comic highlight. It demonstrates both the dehumanizing aspects of prison culture and the ridiculous lengths institutions go to maintain control.
4. “I’ll make the money, Micah used to tell me. You make the difference. As a public defender I was never going to get rich, but I’d be able to look at myself in the mirror.”
This powerful statement encapsulates Kennedy’s professional ethos and personal sacrifice. It reveals her motivation for choosing public defense over corporate law and introduces the theme of justice versus privilege that runs through the chapter.
5. “And since we live in a country where justice is supposed to be meted out equally…shouldn’t public defenders be just as smart and aggressive and creative as any attorney for hire?”
This rhetorical question forms the chapter’s central argument about equal justice. Kennedy challenges systemic inequities while asserting the value of public defenders, positioning her daily struggles (even about bras) as part of a larger fight for justice.