Several posts ago (here) I gave University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman a (much-deserved) hard time for advocating gender-based hiring and research (not preferences, but hiring, least in certain medical areas, actually limited to women).
Recently there has been a flurry of activity as women’s groups in several states have attempted to revive the Equal Rights Amendment., whose entire text follows:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
I wonder what President Coleman et.al. would do, however, if ERA should be adopted. Would the ERA tolerate the sex discrimination required to implement the “gender-specific” programs and policies they favor, such as Coleman’s argument that “women
You realize, of course, that the immediate effect of passage of the ERA would be a spate of court decisions ruling that “equality of rights” means “special rights for the favored group (women”, just as the non-discrimination language of the 14th Amendment and 1964 Civil Rights Act has been interpreted to mandate discrimination based upon race.
One is the point of any constitutional amendment if, at any time, the government can decide that it has a “compelling interest” in ignoring what the constitution. Remember, the State of Michigan argued that it should be able to discriminate based upon race because it had a compelling reason in doing so.
What you make anyone think that sex discrimination would be any different?
Would a modified ERA proposal that included the phrase ” … discrimination or preferences …” have any viability? I’d support that one.
I wonder if the renewed move for an ERA is an attempt to circumvent Prop 209 and an eventual MCRI, at least for gender? A federal amendment could arguably “require” preferences – although that’d be a hard stretch for race preferences, the ERA wording is substantially more nuanced (Congress shall have authority to implement…) than the Fourteenth Amendment.
Since I’ve never believed in “reverse” discrimination (something is either discrimination or it isn’t), in my view adding “or preferences” wouldn’t add anything. On the other hand, it probably couldn’t hurt to say “discrimiantion against or preferences for,” redundant though that may be to just “discrimination.”
Would anyone besides me support adding the words “and responsibilities” after the word “rights” in Section 1?
“, just as the non-discrimination language of the 14th Amendment and 1964 Civil Rights Act has been interpreted to mandate discrimination based upon race.”
it doesn’t mandate it. It allows it if it survives strict scrutiny.
Actus,
Where in any law does it say that you can’t discriminate unless you have a really good reason to discriminate?
Compelling Interest and strict scrutiny means the laws are meaningless.
If ERA passes, Congress will find a day to circumvent it, in concert with the senile and menopausal on the Supreme Court. If “McCain Feingold” can override the 1st Amendment, I am sure that a “Feinstein/Snowe” will overrride the ERA.
“Where in any law does it say that you can’t discriminate unless you have a really good reason to discriminate? ”
Its general constitutional doctrine. Pretty much always has been.
“Compelling Interest and strict scrutiny means the laws are meaningless.”
Not really. Plenty of laws have been overturned on strict scrutiny.
Actually, I suspect that the most immediate effect of ratifying the ERA would be to make same-sex marriage a constitutional right.
There actually is a significant distinction between the word “sex” and “gender,” although I don’t know whether the word sex can be extended to sexual orientation.
If recent court decisions tell us anything it is that laws mean whatever those who interpret them want them to mean. Since the majority of people in a position to interpret the proposed amendment/regulations (lawyers, government bureaucrats, institutional functionaries) are for race/gender preferences the only conclusion to reach is that any law passed content will increase race/gender preferences regardless of actual content.
Logical flow from intent is irrelevant.
The University uses a form that captures informamtion used in BLACKLISTING employees. This prevents them from working. The lists use the social security number the birth Day and Month. It appears on the Universities Self-Identification Form. Employees can be put on the Blacklist for any reason such as race, religion … Is the University using a Blacklist. Many Michigan temporary work Contract companies do. The University works with such companies.