The Feminist Legal Theory Blog, organized by Professor Lisa Pruitt at UC Davis School of Law, directed me to this article in the ABA Journal's online edition. The article, based in part on a recent Time magazine feature, characterizes Michelle Obama's career choices as "savvy sacrifices":

Working as an associate at a powerhouse international law firm based in Chicago, Michelle Obama had what many would have considered a dream job for a lawyer.

But she gave up the Sidley Austin job to pursue a public interest career. This "savvy sacrifice" has provided her husband, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, the platform he needed to run for public office, reports Time magazine.

Here is Professor Pruitt's response:

First, I am certain that many (of you!) would agree that being an associate at a powerhouse firm is not a "dream job." It may represent a great opportunity right out of law school, but the attrition rate at large law firms is very high, and everyone knows it -- partners, associates, legal educators, other legal employers, etc. In short, it is not unusual for very talented lawyers to leave these jobs within a few years of taking them. Second, it is also not that unusual for those leaving big firms to take lower paying jobs when they go. Lawyers leave for opportunities with better, i.e., more sane, long-term prospects. That 's what Michelle Obama did. Much has been made in the media of her efforts to achieve work-life balance, so perhaps that influenced her, too. To call it a "savvy sacrifice" suggests that this was all part of a long-term strategy by the Obamas to further his political ambitions. Maybe it was -- but if so, aren't we supposed to look down on such behavior? How often have we heard Hillary criticized for being strategic and instrumentalist in her career? But then, she is most recently the candidate herself, not merely the supporting spouse.

On a related note, the "savvy sacrifice" term irritated me because it plays into gendered stereotypes that expect such sacrifice from women. Again, maybe that is how the Obamas saw it -- or maybe they were just making decisions that made sense for them at the time. Michelle Obama's career trajectory looks normal in this day and age. It also looks laudable -- but I wouldn't say sacrificial.

It seems to me that the ABA and Time may have missed the mark, at least in part, in exclusively considering what Michelle has given up up--while largely failing to consider what she is gaining. In fact, in an interview with Vanity Fair, Michelle Obama maintains that she, personally, is committed to a "bigger goal":

Barack has never asked me to stop doing my job; as far as he was concerned, ‘You have to do whatever makes you feel comfortable.’ But, for me, it was: How can I not be part of this? How can I go to work every day, when we’re trying to do something I believe in? If I really felt it was more important for me to be vice president of community and external affairs full-time [at University of Chicago Medical Center], I would do that....For what I’m trying to do at the hospital, getting him elected is a better way for me to reach that goal.