Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!tittle From: trent@unix.SRI.COM (Ray Trent) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: AA / ERA Message-ID: <4812@unix.SRI.COM> Date: 21 Oct 89 02:47:15 GMT References: <1989Oct18.013043.15864@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) Reply-To: Ray Trent Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA Lines: 20 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu In the referenced article, 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. > >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\..