tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (10/25/89)
I have a question for you folks. We're trying to determine how far and where some of the articles in here go. I'm interested in finding out how many people have seen the following article from Hillel Gazit already. He hasn't seen it posted, but at least one of the moderators thinks it was on the group. So, if you would, could you tell me if you saw this article? Please reply by email directly to me. Thanks! --Cindy Article by gazit@duke.cs.edu: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In article <1989Oct18.013043.15864@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> David Gross writes: >I've heard just the opposite: That once the ERA is passed, there will >be no constitutional basis for discriminating on the basis of sex -- >even for quotas or affirmative action. I heard it too, but I don't believe to everything I hear... >Is there a consensus of legal opinion on this? I quote from the book "Why We Lost the ERA": "Barbara A. Brown, Thomas I. Emerson, Gail Falk and Ann E. Freedman, "The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women," The Yale Law Journal 80 (1971):" .......................................................................... "and on page 904 an exception [legal under ERA H.G.] for affirmative action to make up for (specific acts of) past injustice." The bottom line is that ERA was not intended to prevent affirmative action.