Resurrecting the ERA

[Annie]

Wow, I thought the Dems won?

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-26-2007/0004553665&EDATE=

Senators Kennedy & Boxer, Reps. Maloney & Nadler Begin New Push for Women's Equality Amendment

Women Still Have No Guarantee of Equal Rights in the Constitution

WASHINGTON, March 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Senator Ted Kennedy (D-
MA), Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep.
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Ellie Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority
and strong leader on the fight for women's equality will announce the
reintroduction of the Women's Equality Amendment on Tuesday. An amendment
to guarantee equal rights to women has still never been ratified and added
to the U.S. Constitution, even though it was first introduced in 1923. The
ERA passed Congress in 1972 but lapsed in 1982 when it fell three states
short of ratification. This year, there are more than 190 original
co-sponsors of the Women's Equality Amendment (ERA).
The Members will also announce the plans for forthcoming hearings on
the Women's Equality Amendment in the House Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Chaired
by Rep. Nadler.
The Senators and Members will be joined by leading women's rights
groups for the reintroduction with the hopes that in the 110th Congress,
women will finally achieve official equality in America.
WHAT: Announcement of the Women's Equality Amendment

WHO: Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-CA)
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Eleanor Smeal, Feminist Majority

WHEN: TUESDAY, March 27, 2:30 pm

WHERE: 485 Russell Senate Office Building (Indian Affairs hearing room)
Washington, DC
CONTACT: Laura Capps (Kennedy), +1-202-224-2633 or Joe Soldevere
(Maloney), +1-202-225-7944 or Amy Rutkin (Nadler), +1-212-367-7350.


SOURCE Office of Senator Ted Kennedy

 

[Annie]

Wow, I thought the Dems won?

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-26-2007/0004553665&EDATE=

Someone needs to explain the purpose to me. Opportunities?

http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=HENA&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=17251

College Enrollment Gender Gap Widens for White and Hispanic Students, but Race and Income Disparities Still Most Significant New ACE Report Finds
July 11, 2006

The gender gap in higher education is widening among certain student populations, but is most striking among white and Hispanic traditional-age undergraduates, a new gender equity study conducted by the American Council on Education (ACE) concludes. The gap is due primarily to a larger female share among low-income whites and Hispanics which has led to an overall decline in the male share of traditional-age students (age 24 or younger) from 48 percent in 1995–96 to 45 percent in 2003–04.

Gender Equity in Higher Education: 2006 is a follow up to ACE’s 2000 study Gender Equity in Higher Education: Are Male Students at a Disadvantage? A short update was published in 2003.

Among the 2006 Highlights:

* Women outnumber men by almost two to one among the 40 percent of undergraduates who are age 25 or older.
* Despite continued growth in the percentage of female undergraduates, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to men is on the rise, as it is for women.

“Women are making gains in college participation and degree attainment, but their gains have not come at the expense of men,” stated Jacqueline E. King, director of ACE’s Center for Policy Analysis and author of the study.

“The number of men enrolled in college has increased, but not fast enough to narrow what is now a 57 percent female majority in total enrollment.”

College Enrollment

At the graduate level, men make up 42 percent of total enrollment. Men are still the majority in MBA, noneducation doctorate, law and master’s of science programs, but women have made strides in several traditionally male fields. Women now have a slight majority in enrollment in medicine (51 percent), and other health science professional programs (53 percent).

At the undergraduate level, the percentage of students who are male has dropped from 44 percent in 1995–96 to 42 percent in 2003–04. Since the 2000 study, women have maintained a 60 to 62 percent majority among the 40 percent of undergraduates who are age 25 and older. In the case of undergraduates, race/ethnicity, age and income are important variables.

Trends Among Traditional-age Undergraduates (Age 24 or Younger)

* Among whites, a clear female majority has emerged since 1995–96, with the male share of undergraduates dropping from 49 percent in 1995–96 to 46 percent in 2003–04. This change is due to a decline in the share of low-income white students who are male, from 48 percent in 1995–96 to 44 percent in 2003–04.
* Among Hispanics, the percent of students age 24 or younger who are male fell from 45 percent to 43 percent, due primarily to a drop in the share of low-income students who are male.
* African-American males saw some progress with their share of enrollment rising from 37 percent in 1995-96 to 40 percent in 2003-04, but the gender gap is still largest in this racial group.
* Asian-American men are now at parity with their female peers after having been in the majority in 1995–96.
* Data for American Indian undergraduates are incomplete due to low sample size.

Bachelor’s Degrees

Despite progress by African Americans and Hispanics, the gaps in educational attainment between these groups and whites are larger today than they were in the 1960s and 70s.

Significant gender gaps favoring women did not develop within each racial/ethnic group until the mid- to late-1990s. Since that time, the gap among whites has grown as the percentage of white women with bachelor’s degrees continues to increase while the percentage of similarly educated white men has remained essentially flat.

Over the longer term, however, the share of white men earning bachelor’s degrees has increased, rising during the early 1990s to exceed a previous peak achieved during the Vietnam War era.

Other Trends in Degree Completion

* Women earn the majority of both associate and bachelor’s degrees and have done so since 1980 at the associate level and 1990 at the bachelor’s level.
* The share of bachelor’s degrees earned by women of color has tripled, from 5 percent in 1976-77 to 15 percent in 2003–04. The share of degrees earned by minority men also rose, but not as rapidly, from 5 percent in 1976-77 to 9 percent in 2003–04.

“The gender gap is important and should be addressed by educators and policy makers, but it should not obscure the larger disparities that exist by income and race/ethnicity for students of both genders,” added King. “Likewise, the fact that the rate of degree attainment has risen over time for both women and men should remind everyone concerned about male achievement that education is not a zero-sum gain in which a woman’s success results in losses for men.”

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Someone needs to explain the purpose to me.

I'd think it would be to provide legal recourse for violation of civil liberties and gives them better footing and legal standing for glass ceiling cases and discrimination suits.

 

[maineman]

Someone needs to explain the purpose to me. Opportunities?

no different than the purpose of the civil rights act or voting rights act or americans with disabilities act.

 

[Annie]

no different than the purpose of the civil rights act or voting rights act or americans with disabilities act.

Right. American's with disabilities act is and was a joke. In neither case, disabilities or women, can one make a comparison with Civil Rights. Always was a joke.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

In neither case, disabilities or women, can one make a comparison with Civil Rights.

I agree with you there. But that still doesn't mean that discrimination against women isn't a problem. I'm sure you know the classic arguments of disparity in income between men and women so I'll spare you the figures.

But still, it's not like an Amendment stating that men and women are equal is going to ruin the spirit or language of the Constitution. I'd rather have that Amendment than, oh say, some other one I've heard proposed...

 

[Annie]

I agree with you there. But that still doesn't mean that discrimination against women isn't a problem. I'm sure you know the classic arguments of disparity in income between men and women so I'll spare you the figures.

But still, it's not like an Amendment stating that men and women are equal is going to ruin the spirit or language of the Constitution. I'd rather have that Amendment than, oh say, some other one I've heard proposed...

Actually I very much like the very few number of amendments we've had to our constitution. As a woman, I was accepted to NW University Law School in 1979. That I chose not to go, my bad. I've held positions in corporation that had previously been all male, but that was way back, but after the defeat of ERA.

Salary disparity? I'm sure it still exists, but what's not acknowledged is the accusation-correct for the most part-that women with choices, excercise theirs to take more time off and leaves than men. See, men can take time off for birth of a child/adoption/sick parents, as can women. Women excercise that option more. Seriously, when excercised, it is a choice, one I would make when necessary.

 

[boedicca]

I've worked in corporations for the past 20 years - and have exeperienced a great deal of sexism and discrimination. But, afiac, the best revenge is living well. I'm happy with my personal progress - and know that it is because of my own abilities.

I don't want to work with or for people who are forced to associate with me by law. Nor do I want to be seen as not having earned my position and pay because of some affirmative action abomination.

 

[Annie]

I've worked in corporations for the past 20 years - and have exeperienced a great deal of sexism and discrimination. But, afiac, the best revenge is living well. I'm happy with my personal progress - and know that it is because of my own abilities.

I don't want to work with or for people who are forced to associate with me by law. Nor do I want to be seen as not having earned my position and pay because of some affirmative action abomination.

Exactly. It's what is at the bottom of what's wrong with affirmative action. Most minorities that rise are more than able, yet they must go beyond that, since it's 'assumed' they were 'put there' by AA.

 

[boedicca]

Affirmative Action is an insult to competency, imo. It is rather sad that the goal of being valued for ones character and abilities has been twisted into categorization by DNA.

 

[Annie]

Affirmative Action is an insult to competency, imo. It is rather sad that the goal of being valued for ones character and abilities has been twisted into categorization by DNA.

Agreed. More so ERA. Women have not had the walls that blacks, Asians, Native Americans have had to climb. Seriously, women for good cause have argued a return to position after years at home. However, is it fair for a guarantee? Aside, can one understand the salary discrepencies? My guess, it's not those that want to care for their children/parents screaming. It's those that don't.

 

[William Joyce]

I don't want to work with or for people who are forced to associate with me by law.

That's certainly adult of you. Sadly, many, many others are all too happy to take advantage of whatever they can.

An ERA would be nothing but a way to multiply the number of lawsuits in America by three. Great, just what we need. Besides, I think the women's rights thing is kind of passe, isn't it? I mean, banning women from voting, bad. But insisting they have equal pay to the man next to them even though he has twice the experiece? Silly. And the lawsuits would mostly be about the latter.

 

[Annie]

More to the point. Lots of links:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_25-2007_03_31.shtml#1175094025

[Eugene Volokh, March 28, 2007 at 11:00am] Trackbacks
The Equal Rights Amendment

has been reintroduced. My sense is that the public, even in relatively conservative states, is much more open to the core principle of the government's generally not discriminating based on sex than it was back when the ERA stalled a couple of decades ago.

On the other hand, I suspect that there'd be much less of a sense of need, given that the Supreme Court's sex equality jurisprudence is now itself decades old, and pretty clearly not going anywhere. The formal test is that sex classifications are constitutional only if the government shows an "exceedingly persuasive" justification, which consists of showing "at least that the [challenged] classification serves 'important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are 'substantially related to the achievement of those objectives,'" and that the justification "not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females." In practice, the test is very hard to meet, so it's hard to point to many sex classifications that are now constitutional but that the ERA would clearly or even likely ban.

What's more, those current sex classifications that are most vulnerable are also ones that many people -- including ones who are far from antifeminist -- may have qualms about invalidating:

1. Limits on Women in Combat: It's generally assumed that the Court would uphold such limits under the current "intermediate scrutiny" test, possibly on the theory that allowing women in combat would pose extremely high risk that captured women will be raped, and that this will not only hurt the women but lead to undue pressure not to surrender, or to launch even very risky rescues. Whether or not this theory is clearly correct, I expect that the Court would defer to the political branches' judgments on this score, even if the limits on women in combat are tightened back to what they were some years ago. Would most ERA backers support constitutionally invalidating these limits, as the ERA may well do, given its categorical language?

2. Sex-Based Affirmative Action Programs: Such programs are in many situations constitutional under the Court's current caselaw. But they would be clearly forbidden by the text of the ERA, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." And my guess is that the current Court's relatively strong focus on text, coupled with its relative hostility to affirmative action programs (compared to the views of the 1970s and early 1980s Court), would lead it to read the ERA as outlawing legal preferences either for women or men, whether or not the preferences are billed as "remedial."

3. Exclusion of Boys from Girls' Sports Teams: This too is generally seen as constitutional, and I suspect it's even more popular than affirmative action in other contexts. Yet the flat language of the ERA would likely ban it.

4. Limitation of Marriage to Opposite-Sex Couples: Many supporters of same-sex marriage, including those who challenge the opposite-sex-only rule as unconstitutional, argue that the opposite-sex-only rule discriminates based on sex. Some (though not most) state judges that have considered the question have indeed concluded that state constitutional ERA provisions mandate sex-blind marriage laws. It seems quite plausible (though not certain) that enactment of the ERA would increase the likelihood that courts would indeed mandate recognition of same-sex marriages. The arguments that the ERA would lead to such a result can no longer be dismissed, as it once was, as a "hysterical" "emotional scare tactic" "canards."

So it's not quite clear to me what will likely happen given all this (and given the other objections that might be raised, such as the perennial but nontrivial questions related to single-sex locker rooms and the like). Nor is it clear to me what people should do if they believe -- as I do -- that the government generally shouldn't discriminate based on sex, but that some narrow exceptions are proper.

On the one hand, enacting the ERA will cement the broad antidiscrimination principle, and perhaps defeating it might in some measure undermine the principle, among some members of the public or even among some judges; and it's possible that judges will carve out some sensible exceptions from the ERA's flat ban if the ERA is enacted. On the other, it seems highly likely that the constitutional nondiscrimination rule is here to stay, and maybe it's better for judges to continue developing exceptions from this rule when it's basically a judicially developed interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, rather than for judges to create exceptions from a categorical guarantee.

My preference would be for an ERA that has explicit exceptions for the few areas where exceptions seem necessary, but I doubt that this is a politically viable option. The question then is which is better -- the status quo, under which there is a broad but not securely textually anchored constitutional prohibition of most forms of sex discrimination, or an ERA that expressly bars sex discrimination but goes literally further than I think it should. My sense is that the status quo is probably good enough, because it seems so solidly entrenched; but it's not an open-and-shut matter, it seems to me.

Thanks to Bob Krumm for the pointer.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Affirmative Action is an insult to competency, imo. It is rather sad that the goal of being valued for ones character and abilities has been twisted into categorization by DNA.

Yeah.....in this-day-and-age....where's the need?

Gender Segregation
(Just the way God had intended.)

 

[Big Fitz]

Wow, I thought the Dems won?

Senators Kennedy & Boxer, Reps. Maloney & Nadler Begin New Push for Women's... -- re> WASHINGTON, March 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Senators Kennedy & Boxer, Reps. Maloney & Nadler Begin New Push for Women's Equality Amendment

Women Still Have No Guarantee of Equal Rights in the Constitution

WASHINGTON, March 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Senator Ted Kennedy (D-
MA), Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep.
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Ellie Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority
and strong leader on the fight for women's equality will announce the
reintroduction of the Women's Equality Amendment on Tuesday. An amendment
to guarantee equal rights to women has still never been ratified and added
to the U.S. Constitution, even though it was first introduced in 1923. The
ERA passed Congress in 1972 but lapsed in 1982 when it fell three states
short of ratification. This year, there are more than 190 original
co-sponsors of the Women's Equality Amendment (ERA).
The Members will also announce the plans for forthcoming hearings on
the Women's Equality Amendment in the House Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Chaired
by Rep. Nadler.
The Senators and Members will be joined by leading women's rights
groups for the reintroduction with the hopes that in the 110th Congress,
women will finally achieve official equality in America.
WHAT: Announcement of the Women's Equality Amendment

WHO: Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-CA)
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Eleanor Smeal, Feminist Majority

WHEN: TUESDAY, March 27, 2:30 pm

WHERE: 485 Russell Senate Office Building (Indian Affairs hearing room)
Washington, DC
CONTACT: Laura Capps (Kennedy), +1-202-224-2633 or Joe Soldevere
(Maloney), +1-202-225-7944 or Amy Rutkin (Nadler), +1-212-367-7350.


SOURCE Office of Senator Ted Kennedy

They're hoping Phyllis Schlafly won't be around to shut em down again.

 

[Wurlitzer28]

As a white American male, I can think of nothing better than to make only "Equal Protection under the law" the hard and fast rule of the land. This, if we actually followed laws would take all the "special" people laws and toss them in the garbage along with affirmative action racist schemes.

Make my day, pass and ENFORCE "Equal Protection" for all """""""CITIZENS""""""".

Such a law would make it more difficult for income redistribution as to steal money from producers and give it to the sloths of society would violate equal protection.

 

[Dragon]

How interesting. This may be yet another indicator that the Democrats are responding to the thunder on the left. I find that observation more intriguing than the possibility of the ERA itself being ratified.

 

[JoeB131]

The 14th Amendment already grants women all civil rights enjoyed by men and the 19th Amendment grants them all the political rights enjoyed by men.

an ERA would be constitutionally unnecessary, but it would be a litiginous nightmare.

It would make separate bathrooms for men and women unconstitutional.

It would make women eligible for combat.