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 Two: Pushing — Ruth 4
byPicoult, Jodi
The chapter depicts a pivotal courtroom scene where Kennedy McQuarrie, Ruth Jefferson’s attorney, confronts the racial undertones of the case head-on. After months of avoiding the topic, Kennedy boldly addresses the jury about systemic racism, forcing them to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Ruth, moved by Kennedy’s words, reflects on how her life has been shaped by these very issues, yet recognizes that the message carries more weight coming from Kennedy, a white woman. The moment is charged with emotion as Ruth struggles to articulate her gratitude, while Kennedy, in turn, thanks Ruth for the opportunity to speak these truths.
The prosecutor, Odette Lawton, counters Kennedy’s argument by redirecting the focus to Ruth’s professional conduct. She acknowledges the racial prejudice Ruth faced but argues that Ruth failed to uphold her nursing duties, prioritizing her anger over the infant’s care. Odette draws parallels to her own experiences with discrimination, emphasizing that personal grievances should not compromise professional responsibilities. She paints Ruth as someone who let her emotions override her ethical obligations, suggesting that Ruth’s actions—or inactions—directly contributed to the baby’s death, regardless of the racial context.
The tension escalates as Odette accuses Ruth of dishonesty and malice, contrasting her with Turk Bauer, whose overt racism is at least transparent. Odette argues that Ruth’s momentary admission of intervening with the baby—after initially denying it—reveals her unreliability. She dismisses the defense’s focus on race as a distraction from the core issue: Ruth’s alleged negligence. The prosecutor’s closing remarks underscore the irreversible tragedy of the infant’s death, implying that no amount of racial discourse can absolve Ruth of blame.
As the jury deliberates, Ruth and Kennedy reflect on the trial’s emotional toll and uncertain outcome. Kennedy admits that her bold strategy may have jeopardized Ruth’s case, as jurors could be swayed by the emotional weight of the accusations rather than the evidence. Ruth, however, finds value in having the truth spoken aloud, regardless of the consequences. The chapter ends on a somber note, with Ruth contemplating the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence and the profound personal transformation she has undergone throughout the ordeal.
FAQs
1. How does Kennedy McQuarrie’s courtroom strategy shift in this chapter, and why is this significant?
Answer:
Kennedy McQuarrie makes a pivotal strategic shift by directly addressing racial prejudice in court after months of insisting race didn’t belong in legal proceedings. She forces the jury to confront the “elephant in the room” by framing Ruth Jefferson’s actions within systemic racism (e.g., comparing patient reassignment to a McDonald’s customer avoiding a Black cashier). This is significant because, as Ruth reflects, the message carries more weight coming from Kennedy (a white woman) than it would from Ruth herself. The chapter highlights how privilege operates in advocacy—Kennedy’s identity grants her credibility to voice truths Ruth couldn’t effectively share.2. Analyze Odette Lawton’s rebuttal to Kennedy’s argument. How does she attempt to redirect the jury’s focus?
Answer:
Odette Lawton strategically reframes the case by separating the issue of racism from professional accountability. She acknowledges the prejudice in Marie Malone’s directive but insists Ruth’s alleged negligence—not systemic bias—is the true legal issue. Using her McDonald’s analogy, Odette argues Ruth failed to maintain professionalism (unlike Odette herself in her youth). She paints Ruth as equally “filled with hate” as Turk Bauer by citing Ruth’s emotional testimony about the baby, while dismissing Kennedy’s arguments as a “dog and pony show.” This redirects attention from institutional racism to individual culpability.3. What internal conflict does Ruth grapple with after the closing arguments, and what does this reveal about her character development?
Answer:
Ruth wrestles with the tension between moral vindication and legal consequences. While she values Kennedy’s truth-telling (“It was still worth hearing”), she recognizes the strategic risk—jurors may now perceive her as angry rather than wronged. Her reflection on jail time and the metaphor of being “forged in a crucible like steel” shows hardened resilience. Unlike her earlier naivety (referencing Liza Lott), Ruth now understands systemic injustice firsthand but refuses to be broken by it. This marks her transformation from a rule-following professional to someone who acknowledges complexity in justice.4. How does the chapter use juxtaposition to contrast Kennedy and Odette’s rhetorical approaches?
Answer:
The chapter contrasts the attorneys through their analogies and delivery. Kennedy uses visceral imagery (the “elephant” metaphor) to evoke empathy for Ruth’s lived experience, while Odette employs the McDonald’s story to emphasize cold professionalism. Kennedy’s tone is impassioned (“rousing cry for social justice”), whereas Odette’s is clinical (“not what we’re here for today”). Crucially, Odette mirrors Kennedy’s racial framing but subverts it—both use service-industry parallels, but Odette’s paints Ruth as unprofessional rather than victimized. This juxtaposition underscores how the same facts can be weaponized differently.5. Evaluate Ruth’s statement that “it was better for that baby to die than to grow up like his father.” How does this moment function in the narrative?
Answer:
This controversial line serves multiple purposes: 1) It provides Odette with ammunition to equate Ruth’s anger with Turk Bauer’s racism, weakening her “professional misconduct” defense; 2) It reveals Ruth’s raw humanity—unlike Odette’s polished McDonald’s anecdote, Ruth’s outburst shows unfiltered pain; 3) It crystallizes the novel’s central tension: Can systemic injustice justify individual moral compromises? The line haunts the jury precisely because it’s uncomfortably candid, contrasting with legal posturing. Ultimately, it challenges readers to sit with difficult questions about trauma, ethics, and redemption.
Quotes
1. “After months of telling me that race doesn’t belong in a court of law, Kennedy McQuarrie took the elephant in the room and paraded it in front of the judge. She squeezed it into the jury box, so that those men and women couldn’t help but feel the pinch.”
This quote marks a pivotal moment where Kennedy, Ruth’s lawyer, directly addresses racial bias in court—something she had previously avoided. It highlights the tension between legal strategy and moral truth.
2. “For the jurors to hear it, really hear it, it had to be said by one of their own.”
Ruth reflects on the painful reality that her lived experiences of racism carry more weight when voiced by a white ally (Kennedy). This underscores the systemic inequity in whose testimony is deemed credible.
3. “If you are going to say you are unnerved by how Turk Bauer is filled with hate, you must admit that Ruth, too, is filled with hate.”
The prosecutor’s rebuttal equates Ruth’s anger at systemic racism with Turk Bauer’s white supremacist ideology, revealing how racism flattens nuance and weaponizes marginalized people’s emotions against them.
4. “I have been forged in a crucible, like steel. And the miracle about steel is that you can hammer it so thin it’s stretched to its limit, but that doesn’t mean it will break.”
Ruth’s metaphor captures her transformation through trauma—acknowledging the violence of systemic oppression while asserting her unbroken resilience. This reflects the chapter’s theme of survival under pressure.
5. “‘It was still worth hearing,’ I tell Kennedy. She smiles a little. ‘It was worth saying.’”
This quiet exchange between Ruth and Kennedy affirms the value of truth-telling despite potential consequences. It bookends the chapter’s tension between pragmatism and principle.