dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David Gross) (10/18/89)
Last year, I started a men's issues group at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. One of our activities this year has been to try to put together some sort of "MANifesto" about what our group stands for. Among the planks which I proposed was one in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. One of the group members objected to this on the grounds that such an amendment would codify a huge AA-enforcing, quota-generating bureaucracy. 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. Is there a consensus of legal opinion on this? When I proposed the plank, I was more concerned about issues such as the draft rather than AA, but now this intrigues me... --dgross@polyslo.calpoly.edu -- -- Dave Gross (dgross@polyslo.calpoly.edu) -- "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." -- Thomas Jefferson
trent@unix.SRI.COM (Ray Trent) (10/21/89)
In the referenced article, David Gross <dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> 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. > >Is there a consensus of legal opinion on this? When I proposed the >plank, I was more concerned about issues such as the draft rather than >AA, but now this intrigues me... What do *you* think? Did the Civil Rights Act (which amendment supposedly prohibited discrimination on the basis of race) prevent AA from coming about? Of course not...it was one of the major motivational forces (at least to many people's mind). As for what I'd rather have then AA, how about real enforcement of EEO? -- "When you're down, it's a long way up When you're up, it's a long way down It's all the same thing And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..