Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!usenet
From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Lost Messages (Re: AA / ERA)
Message-ID: <1989Oct24.121901.4704@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 89 19:19:02 GMT
References: <1989Oct18.013043.15864@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Reply-To: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Organization: University of California, Irvine: ICS Department
Lines: 31
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

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.