What's Wrong with the Equal Rights Amendment? How to achieve equality for those with special problems, special needs B y BILLIE PO R TN O W CCT^QUAL” is defined by Webster -*‫ ^־־‬as “ like in value, status, quality, or position.” For persons or groups to achieve equality not only of opportunity but of status or position, however, it is often necessary to provide more to one group to make it equal to another, because the former had been more deprived and started out with less than the latter. That is why we have head start program s and compensatory education for underprivileged children. (In the state of Israel, incidentally, there is a program whereby increasing num bers of the children of North African and Asian Jews are given special schooling to help them become equal to the more culturally and educationally privileged children of European Jews.) That is why industry, which has for generations discrim inated against non-whites, is now being asked to train and employ them. And when some construction unions object on the ground that this would be instituting a quota system, they ignore the fact that they have had their own brand of quota system, which tacitly M rs. B i l l i e P o rtn o w of Flushing, N. Y. wrote the article, “50 Years of W om ans S u f f r a g e i n our Sept., 1970 issue. 4 barred non-whites from the industry. To ask them now to give preference in training to blacks is to ask them to right a wrong by helping those formerly discriminated against to improve the “quality” and “value” of their work so they can achieve equal “ status” and “position.” It is in this light that the equalrights-for-women amendment must be regarded. Does this amendment, which has been introduced in every session of Congress for the past 47 years, improve the status and position of women and enhance the quality of their lives? The amendment states simply: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.” This innocuous-sounding proposal has touched off a heated debate in Congress that has reverberated throughout the land and finds women on both sides of the issue. Inherent in this seemingly benign amendment lies the potential danger of placing in jeopardy the hard-won protective legislation for working women. This protective legislation has already been sorely undermined by Title V II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in conditions of employment but has no regard for the special needs of J e w is h C u r r e n t s women. This Act was further weakened by the interpretation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1969 to mean that all state labor laws in conflict with Title VII, including, therefore, protective legislation for women, will be disregarded. This legislation includes state labor laws on such matters as weight-lifting limitations and maximum working hours for women. Adherents of the Equal Rights Amendment maintain that maximum hour restrictions prevent women from earning overtime pay. But Myra K. Wolfgang, Vice-President of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union AFL, in her testimony on the Equal Rights Amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee Sept. 9, 1970, replied: “ . . . the passage of an hours limitation law for women provided them with a shield against obligatory overtime to perm it them to carry on their life at home as wives and mothers. While all overtime should be optional for both men and women, it is absolutely m andatory that overtime for women be regulated because of her dual role in our society” (italics ad d ed ). Many union contracts do provide for voluntary overtime for both men and women. However, since about 80 per cent of working women are unorganized, the policy resolution on women adopted by the 8th Constitutional Convention of the AFL-CIO Oct., 1969 declared that protective laws are necessary for “those women workers for whom alternate forms of protection either by public law or union contract are not available. Until adequate protection for all workers can be secured under general legislation, reasonable legal safeguards should be available for those women J u l y -A u g u st , 1 9 7 1 who are most in need of them.” This resolution also expressed opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment “because of its potentially destructive impact on women’s labor legislation.” The state of Michigan in 1968 provided us with an example of what happens when protective legislation is discarded, when it repealed the 10‫־‬ hour-day, 54-hour-week work law for women. Women in the auto industry were thereafter required to work up to 69 hours a week in seven days or risk the loss of employment! When the State Attorney General sought to reinstate the 54‫־‬hour‫־‬week this was, strangely, opposed as discrim inatory even by the W omen’s D epartm ent of the UAW. This mechanical position fortunately was challenged by other unions and m ajor women’s groups (including the National Council of Jewish W om en), which fought for and won the reinstatem ent of protective legislation for women. Their victory, however, was short-lived since this legislation was again repealed in Dec., 1969 by a legislature that based itself on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation, cited above, that in effect nullified state protective legislation. In other states, moreover, Title V II was also used to invalidate protective laws among female telephone and paperm ill workers, the latter having been made to work double shift without tim e and a half overtime and to lift heavy weights. In one mill the lunch hour was eliminated and replaced by three 10 minute breaks. In some plants of Bell Telephone and Fibreboard Corp. (paper m ills), notices have been posted inform ing women that their protective laws have been invalidated because of Title V II of Civil Rights Act of 1964. More recently, a Federal District Court M arch 27 voided sections of an Ohio law p ro 5 viding for special consideration for women’s special needs, with General M otors and two union locals protesting the protection of women. day and spend the remaining half with his or her children and share in the housework. Certainly the children at home or in the child-care centers can profit from the care, love and The m istake m ade by pro p o n en ts wisdom of adults of both sexes. of the Equal Rights Amendment is in Provisions should also be made assuming that sameness of treatm ent of for adequate tax deductions for different groups results in equality. child-care expenses of working mothers Where prior inequities exist, identity as well as for adequate paid m aternity of treatm ent can never result in leave. Rep. Edward I. Koch (D-N.Y.) equality. Aside from physical-biologi- has introduced legislation for adequate cal differences, the inequities stem tax deductions. from woman’s dual role in our society. In the m atter of child-care centers Of 30,000,000 women in the labor and vocational training for women, force, 60 per cent of them are m arried we might well take a leaf from Pioneer and 38 per cent have children, most Women, whose sister organization in of whom are minors. Freedom from, Israel, Moetzet Hapoalet, one half or a reduction of, housework, there- million strong, is concerned with the fore, is a precondition for equal job status of women and children (their opportunity for women. main emphasis is on working and To unburden herself of some of underprivileged women) and espouses the duties imposed upon her by this their equality of rights. To fulfill the unequal set-up, a woman needs: needs of working women, the W orking 1) a more equitable division of Women’s Council of H istadrut has labor in the home and an extensive been formed, which instituted daynetwork of 24-hour-a-day child-care care centers and provided funds for centers (24 hours so that women them. They have set up a number of working evening and night shifts can nurseries for deprived youngsters and also avail themselves of this service vocational training programs for as can women who become ill and women. Arab women and children are have no one to care for their chil- also included in these services. It is d re n ). Congresswoman Bella S. Abzug regrettable that with such considerable (D-N.Y.) is sponsoring a bill (H.R. experience in this field, Pioneer 8402, now in the Education and Women does not parallel these activiLabor Committee) which would allot ties in our country, where the need is at least $10 billion by the end of this also great. Fortunately this function decade to provide such centers. In- has been assumed by the National dustry, too, should provide such Council of Jewish Women, which at facilities to its employees. These its last convention, March, 1971, centers should have as m any qualified reported on its 50 child-care centers males caring for the children as throughout the country. These cut females. If child-rearing is the most across socio-economic and social lines. satisfying and rew arding of experi2) the right of abortion. So long ences, why, therefore, should not the as sex-education and birth-control devices are not free and readily availmale parent share in this experience? Women’s Libers are calling for the able to all segments of the population, restructuring of society so that each the right of a woman to terminate an parent can work half of a working unwanted pregnancy is basic. An ex 6 J e w is h C u r r en ts ample of the intensity of feeling cation for opposition to the proposed among women on this issue was the Equal Rights Amendment, the question grass roots movement that developed still rem ains: does existing legislation at the Nov., 1970 convention of the negate the necessity for some kind of National Women’s League (Conserva- Equal Rights Amendment? The 5th tive Sisterhoods) and caused the fol- and 11th Amendments for example, lowing resolution to be adopted decree that no one shall be deprived unanimously: “The National Women’s of life, liberty and property without League of the USA believes that in- due process of law and that all shall herent in the civil rights of women is have equal protection of the law, and the freedom of choice as to birth the 19th Amendment gives the vote control and abortion. We believe that to women. Also, the Equal Pay Act of all laws infringing on these rights 1963 provides for equal pay for should be repealed.” These services equal work regardless of sex. Yet it required the vigilance of the trade should be freely available. 3) full opportunities for vocational, union movement to include a clause in technical and professional training this Act which prohibits an employer and education and equal opportunities from reducing wages in order to comin employment on all levels of busi- ply with it. (Contrast this with the ness and government. Society as a proposed Equal Rights Amendment whole suffers when it is denied the which has no provisions fo r prohibitspecial talents of any particular group. ing the reduction of wages, benefits, “ W hat,” wonders Shana Alexander etc. in order to comply with its (in Feb. McCall’s ), “has the absence standard of equality.) Finally, under of women meant to the practice of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 discrimilaw, to the design and m arketing of nation by employers and unions is consumer products, in city planning, prohibited and an Equal Employment in educational reform, in the character Opportunity Commission is set up. Despite these safeguards, some of of our police and correction and parole system, or our use of foundation the worst abuses are still perm itted to funds, or our concepts and adminis- exist, particularly as they affect martration of w elfare?” And Mrs. Vir- ried women. In 42 states, income and ginia Snitow, president of the Women’s property acquired by each spouse durremains separately Division of the American Jewish Con- ing m arriage gress and co-chairman of AJC Govern- owned. Since the wife does not have ing Council, has said that the United much opportunity for such acquisition, States was “beset by so many troubling she is disadvantaged. The rem aining and complex problems that we need eight states apply the communitythe fullest talents of every citizen, re- property principal whereby all acquisigardless of race, creed, national origin tions during m arriage are jointly owned. However, in seven of these — or sex.” eight states the husband has the exIf these legitim ate 9 specific de - elusive right to control and manage mands of women are not met, equal the estate. In order to open up a busiright clauses now on our statue books ness in some states, wives must prove and generalized calls for equal rights their fitness although single women per se are meaningless— for women and widows, as well as men, must not. must be given “m ore” to be “equal.” In New Mexico, upon the death of his Although there is ample justifi wife, the husband receives all her J u l y -A u g u s t , 1971 7 property but not so the wife who outlives her husband. No wonder a leading women’s magazine declares: 44In most states of the Union, the most sacrificial act a woman can perform is to get m arried. There are more than 1,000 state laws that discriminate against women’s right to property inheritance, guardianship, management of earnings and the control of a family’s wealth—and the married woman is their principal victim.” Other state laws that discim rinate on the basis of sex include discrim ination in bond-making, contracts, punishm ent in crim inal laws, educational opportunities, morals, right to sue, ownership of stocks and bonds and divorce. (On this latter issue, Dr. Trude WeissRosmarin, editor of the Jewish Spectator, strongly advocated in an article in the London Jewish Chronicle of Sept. 18, 1970, the redressing of the inequality in Orthodox Jewish law whereby only the husband has the right of divorce.) Equal Rights proponents, to whose ranks have recently been added, regrettably, the W omen’s Division of the American Jewish Congress, say that their amendment is directed against these and other abuses. Opponents say that all such discrim inatory practices can be dealt with by court action under our present constitution (particularly the 14th amendment) and through the enactment of specific legislation without destroying protective legislation and opening up a Pandora’s box of endless litigation. 44For the sake of a few legal discriminations, which can be eliminated by simple repeal, should we jeopardize a whole body of law dealing with complex personal and family relationships, m ilitary service, age of consent, etc.?” asked the N ational Council of Jewish Women in its statement in opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. The statement resolved “to endorse rneasures which establish the principles and equality of the legal status of women, while opposing any so-called 4Equal Rights’ amendment which may destroy protective legislation for women.” A t the last session o f Congress, Sen. Birch Bayh (D‫־‬Ind.) introduced a substitute amendment which would add 46on account of sex” to the provisions of the 14th Amendment. Sen. Sam J. Ervin (D-N.C.) also introduced an amendment which took into account the special needs of women. Both of these were opposed by the supporters of the original Equal Rights Amendment, who do not speak for the m ajority of American women. A more representative view was expressed by Gertrude Rubin Decker of the Emma Lazarus Federation of Jewish Women’s Clubs in her statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 44We . . . would support an equal rights amendment wbich would take into consideration the special requirements of women and which thereby would really guarantee full equality. . . .” It is noteworthy that the Nixon administration, unlike its predecessors, favored the objectionable Equal Rights Amendment. Pres. John F. Kennedy’s Commission on the Status of Women (1963), in rejecting this amendment, declared: 44Since the Commission is convinced that the U.S. Constitution now embodies equality of rights for men and women, we conclude that a constitutional amendment need not now be sought in order to establish this principle.” The differing positions can be explained by the fact that the Kennedy and Johnson Advisory Councils were composed of women from all walks of life and held public hearings, whereas the Nixon Advisory Council on the Status of Women is J e w is h C u r r en ts M ORE ON THE SOVIET TRIALS June 9— Since our statement in the June issue (p. 4 4 ), the Leningrad trial of nine Jews was completed and the Riga trial of four Jews was conducted, again with foreign correspondents excluded. The promise extended in Jan. to the French lawyer, A ndre Blumel, head of the French-Soviet Friendship Society, that he would be invited as an observer to further trials has not been kept. May 15 the Paris communist Neie Presse reported that MRAP, the French Movement against Fascism, Racism and Anti-Semitism, in which left-wingers are active, expressed its concern over the impending trials. May 14 the Neie Presse itself editorially deplored the exclusion of foreign correspondents from the trials. In Leningrad the sentences were: one of 10 years, one of 7, two of 5, one of 4, three of 3 and one of one year. In Riga the sentences were one of 3, one of 2 and two of one year. More trials are expected shortly in Odessa, Kishinev and perhaps Sverdlovsk. The Soviet authorities would be well advised to stop these trials and perm it those who wish to do so to emigrate to Israel, as all the defendants have declared their desire to be. Most of the charges in the Leningrad and Riga trials have dealt with the circulation by the defendants of “ anti-Soviet” or un-Soviet materials. Tass has not specified what these publications contained (beyond the characterization that they were all 44slanderous” ). From other sources we learn that among the materials illegally m imeographed and circulated were: excerpts from Dubnow’s great history of the Jews, excerpts from the Slovak commjunist Ladislas M niacko’s The Aggressor, rebutting the charge that Israel was the aggressor in June, 1967, and materials on em igration to Israel. Whatever laws may have been broken, it is hard to see such materials as criminal. composed almost solely of business and professional women, and held no public hearings. While these upper middle-class women reject protective legislation as discriminatory, women in the shop, in domestic service, etc. require more of it, not less. 44Protective legislation,” wrote Dr. Sara Feder of Pioneer Women in an article dedicated to International Women’s Day (Pioneer Woman, March, 1962), 44has been of tremendous importance to the working woman and mother. In lim iting hours of work, setting health standards, and eliminating abuses in home work, such legislation has secured for her im portant gains.” J u l y -A u g u s t , 1971 In the present session of Congress an equal rights amendment (House Judiciary Resolution 2 0 8 ), which jeopardizes protective legislation for women, has been introduced and it should be vigorously opposed. Efforts should be made to introduce a bill that takes into account the special needs of women a»d, if it is passed, an educational campaign should be instituted to guarantee full implementation. We have learned from the black experience that a change in status by fiat does not bring with it a change in attitudes. If this were not so, there would be no demand for a real equal rights amendment. Education and struggle go hand in hand. 9