The Truth and Questions about the Equal Rights for Women

There has been a recent push for a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) nearly passed enough legislatures a few decades ago to become part of the Constitution but just missed. Now, backers are pushing the Women's Equality Amendment (perhaps WEA is more persuasive than ERA?).

Now, I want to be clear about my position on this: I have no opposition to the concept of a Constitutional amendment on this issue. I'm certainly no Phyllis Schlafly and don't really buy into her belief that a bizarre set of unintended consequences (e.g. unisex bathrooms) would occur due to the amendment, though I acknowledge that at least some small ones could occur. The American court system has never held that any right is truly universal and absolute, and so I don't worry about the courts engaging in absurd interpretation of such an amendment.

A recent op-ed piece by Martha Burk and Eleanor Smeal attempts to make the argument for the amendment, but I was irritated by their entire article and was left unpersuaded. Specifically, they argue that, although women's rights are, for the most part, guaranteed through federal and state statutes, we still need a Constitutional amendment. In fact, the sub-headline to their op-ed piece reads, "The Gender Gap Runs Deep in American Law", suggesting that the "gender gap" is enshrined in our laws. So, they say, "Why is the amendment needed?" They then list the reasons and here are they are, with my comments in italics:

1. Twenty-three countries -- including Sri Lanka and Moldova -- have smaller gender gaps in education, politics and health than the United States, according to the World Economic Forum. This statement, while perhaps true, is rather vague. What is the "gap" in education? We have more women going to college than men and yet we have a gap that's negative for women? In terms of health, don't women live longer and isn't lifespan the ultimate measure of one's health (certainly, if one is dead, one cannot be "healthy"). Moreover, this complaint does not in any way implicate American laws as the cause of these "gaps", and I really don't see how an amendment could fix this.
   
2. We are 68th in the world in women's participation in national legislatures. What does this mean? What would be perfect? Exactly 50% of the legislature being women? While that may sound nice, the reality is that, in a democracy, people can vote for whomever they want and so it seems to me that our women's participation rate in Congress is NOT the fault of our laws but rather the fault of our people. How could an amendment fix this?
3. On average, a woman working full time and year-round still makes only 77 cents to a man's dollar. This is one of the most over-cited yet misunderstood statistics out there. This gap is almost entirely NOT due to discrimination (see here). More on this later, but again, how could an amendment fix this if discrimination isn't the problem?
4. Women hold 98 percent of the low-paying "women's" jobs and fewer than 15 percent of the board seats at major corporations. The first part of the sentence is circular logic. If something is defined as a "women's" job, it stands to reason that most of the people holding such jobs are women. Why call something a "women's" job if men held 75% of such jobs? The second part is, again, unrelated to anything in American law. So, how could an amendment fix either of these "problems"?
5. Because their private pensions -- if they have them at all -- are lower and because Social Security puts working women at a disadvantage and grants no credit for years spent at home caring for children or aging parents, three-quarters of the elderly in poverty are women. Here, they might -- MIGHT -- have a point, though I don't understand the intricacies of Social Security enough to say for sure. However, my understanding is that Social Security law is based on years worked -- not gender. While perhaps unfair to stay-at-home women, this could only be fixed by statute and not, in my opinion, by amendment.
6. And in every state except Montana, women still pay higher rates than similarly situated men for almost all kinds of insurance. Huh? Really? They must not mean car insurance, which is just the reverse. Homeowner's insurance has nothing to do with your sex. Health insurance, at least through group plans, is exactly the same for each sex. Life insurance? Long-term disability or care insurance? Perhaps they mean individual health plans? It's not clear. I'm not sure whether an amendment could "fix" this.

They end their litany of criticism with: "All that could change if we put equal rights for women in our Constitution." I doubt it. Their statement is massively at odds with their litany. That list of problems never once criticizes American law for enshrining discrimination against women. So, how an amendment could "fix" our "women's participation rate" in Congress is unclear to me. I could go through each point on the list and tear it apart for paragraph after paragraph, but suffice it to say, I think it's clear that these two women are very upset about perceived "gaps" between men and women and, for some bizarre reason, think a Constitutional amendment could suddenly fix such gaps.

Their thinking is rooted in the same philosophy as that of Communists. Specifically, these women believe in the equality of "sameness" rather than the equality of opportunity. Communism, in theory, fought for the idea that all workers were the same and should be given the same of everything. American values, however, have traditionally held that everyone should be given equal opportunity, though each person may end up achieving different amounts. This amendment would clearly fall into the latter category as it is simply guaranteeing the same opportunities already afforded men. Therefore, it is unclear how such an amendment could possibly create these women's utopia of sameness for all.

Moreover, the writers argue that, although we already have statutes in place to prevent discrimination, these could easily be overturned (yeah, I'd like to see THAT happen!) and, therefore, such rights must be enshrined in the Constitution. Of course, if women are already protected by these statutes, how could their list of complaints possibly be true? Or, better yet, how could an amendment, which just enshrines the foundation of these statutes into the Constitution, possibly accomplish what these statutes have NOT accomplished? Ah, if only these writers understood that enshrining rights into the Constitution does not suddenly make everyone EXACTLY the same.

A Column by Colbert King

I just read a fascinating and enlightening column by Colbert King. Actually, the main purpose of the column was not enlightening because I already knew about the major issue. The main purpose was to drive home a point about Hillary Clinton's accepting $800,000 in money through a fundraiser held by Timbaland, a rap/hip-hop producer. Clinton decried Don Imus's remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team but has no problem accepting money raised by a hip-hop producer who has no problem using the same and even worse words as those used by Imus. I couldn't agree more with King about the hypocrisy of this move. He also should have mentioned that Bararck Obama has met with Ludacris, another purveyor of offensive rap lyrics (though I don't think Obama has raised money through his association with Ludacris).

What IS both fascinating and enlightening is the list of excerpts of responses that King got following last week's column about Don Imus. To read such insulting and racist messages is to know that the worst kind of racism still exists in this country. And, no, such racists are not ignorant and living in some backwater area, at least based on the Post's readership. They are, most likely, at least somewhat educated and, more important, well informed about the world. They are well read and do not get by on just reading racist rags. They try to stay well informed enought that they even read Op-Ed pieces by Colbert King -- they're not just looking for the sports and comics. In other words, they're anything but "ignorant". It's just disturbing on so many levels to know that such people still exist and are willing to spew out their vitriole.

The Forgetful Administration

What has become clear from the hearings with Attorney-General Gonzales is that the man is an amnesiac. During the hearing, someone in the audience was keeping score on a little sign for the number of times Gonzales said, "I don't recall". Overall, it added up to 70+ times (according to NBC Nightly News).

And of course, the particularly strange thing about his lack of memory is that his amnesia has not been for small, trivial things such as the exact words someone used during a conversation. Rather, he initially claimed he wasn't involved in the firings. Now that his subordinates have even contradicted that, as well as emails, he admits he was involved. Nonetheless, at his hearing, he still couldn't remember much about what he had done in the past few months. And it's not as if firing 8 U.S. Attorneys were some minor trivial action. It was quite important and, in fact, 7 of those firings had been stewing for a year. The eighth (Julio Iglesias of New Mexico) was added after Iglesias refused to bring indictments against Democrats in New Mexico despite Sen. Pete Domenici's and Rep. Heather Wilson's phone calls to him. (Domenici then called the DOJ and, two weeks later, Iglesias's name was added to the list).

Amnesia appears to be a serious problem for this administration. Gonzales is certainly not the first to have trouble remembering important facts. Perhaps they should check the water in D.C. Of course, it's also possible that Gonzales is lying, but we know that a good guy like George Bush would never put up with the nation's top cop lying in such serious ways. And, as Bush is, in fact, putting up with Gonzales, we must reasonably conclude that Gonzales is an amnesiac.

Therefore, we have to ask: Would you want your Attorney-General to be an amnesiac? It seems to me that, if I were president, I'd like the nation's top cop to have some memories. I think that such things as memories are tremendously useful when doing one's job. So, thus, if Bush actually believed in the DOJ doing a good job, he would fire Gonzales right now simply for having no memory. But what's the chance that Bush would fire an incompetent guy? It only took 6 years to realize that Rumsfeld wasn't any good. Gonzales has only been Attorney-General for a little over 2 years.

Sued If You Do, Sued If You Don't

In the wake of the VA Tech shootings, people are questioning whether the university did the right thing in responding to the various complaints about the shooter's behavior in the preceding years at the college. Apparently, he engaged in inappropriate contact with two girls, wrote disturbing plays, and was generally regarded as a problematic guy in one of his English classes. However, if you look at the details of these complaints, it becomes clear that none of them met a particular threshold that warranted stronger action. At one point, he became suicidal and, with the aid of a roommate and police, voluntarily went to a mental institution but he denied having suicidal thoughts and the doctor and judge released him.

The issue of what colleges should do with such students is far more complicated than it would seem. Following the shootings, people are asking why the college didn't do more -- e.g. kick him out of school. However, as this article makes clear, colleges have absolutely no guidance as to their role in dealing with students who have mental health issues. The article cites the case of GW University which was sued because it asked a student who had become severely depressed to leave. On the other hand, MIT was sued when a student there committed suicide.

Moreover, the colleges' hands are tied by a variety of laws, including those dealing with privacy and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, just this spring, Virginia's legislature passed a law preventing public colleges from expelling suicidal students. Schools cannot summarily kick students out -- the students must have their "due process". The current state of affairs screams out for better guidance from the government as to what schools can and should do.

However, on a bigger scale, what this whole situation REALLY screams for is a society that doesn't constantly look to place blame on greater authorities for individuals' actions -- and better yet, courts that do not tolerate absurd lawsuits that hold universities responsible for individuals' suicides (e.g. MIT's case). Once again, as with the MySpace lawsuit that I blogged about earlier, if MIT is responsible for not preventing someone's suicide (what should they do? Put video cameras on every student 24/7?), then aren't the parents even MORE responsible? Shouldn't the parents be even MORE knowledgeable about their kids than the colleges? So, doesn't it seem a little absurd that the parents get to sue MIT for this?

The problem with our society's attitude toward colleges, and even, to some degree, pre-college schools, is that we send mixed signals. We don't want schools to act in loco parentis -- except when we do -- and we only know when we want them to AFTER the fact. Thus, GWU's actions were wrong because they weren't treating the student like an adult, whereas MIT's actions were wrong because they WERE treating the student like an adult.

Personally, I would prefer that schools NOT act in loco parentis and that we acknowledge that students are, in fact, adults and, therefore, are responsible for their own actions. But, regardless of which way we go, it's wrong for society not to choose. I suppose now all we have to do is wait and see how long it takes before someone sues VA Tech for not "doing something" about the shooter, as if all bad or criminal actions were preventable.

Freedom of Speech and What It Really Means

Don Imus, radio "shock jock", has recently gotten in trouble for his racist remarks regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team. Although this is not his first offensive set of statements made (see here), these remarks have certainly garnered him the most negative attention. Moreover, they have led to some punishments by his employers as well as forced him to recant, apologize, and do the usual mea culpa walk.

What I have found particularly interesting has been the ensuing discussion about "freedom of speech". I find this rather odd because, if any of the idiots talking about freedom of speech actually knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't have raised it in the first place. The 1st Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". As Congress has yet to weigh in on Imus or try to pass a law regarding his kind of speech, I see no relationship between the freedom of speech discussions and Imus's comments.

I have read several columns in which the writer starts off by saying that they believe in free speech. Then, depending on the writer's eventual conclusion, they argue that Imus is free to say whatever he wants and should (not) be fired. That both sides of the debate cite free speech and support free speech should make it clear that the issue of the freedom of speech has nothing to do with this debate as to whether he should be fired.

Case in point: A column by Michael Meyers appearing in the Washington Post. In this column, Meyers argues that those who want Imus fired or want the advertisers to pull their support are wrong and are violating our "free speech culture". I'm not going to argue as to whether Imus should be fired, but I take strong issue with the idea that Imus should not fired because we have freedom of speech in this country. This freedom is merely freedom from the government's ability to restrict my (or your) speech. The 1st Amendment does not, however, in any way, demand that a business permit any and all speech (when its business is, of course, speech). Or, for that matter, that a company could not pull its advertisements for a show that it finds offensive. Or, for that matter, that people can't call for someone else to be fired or for advertisers to pull their support.

Meyers calls those he disagrees with censorious pressure groups. However, the groups cannot be censorious as they do not actually control the airwaves. If any of these groups call for FCC action (as Meyers asserts Al Sharpton is doing), then I would disagree with that course of action. However, I have yet to read anyone's opinions calling for that.

In fact, what makes freedom of speech work in this country so well (and much better than countries like Britain and France, where there are restrictions on speech and yet where they have serious racism problems that racial issues look simple and easy in comparison) is that, when we hear speech we don't like, we can work to end such speech. I don't mean that in some 1984 manner. Rather, I mean that we can use the powers of the marketplace and mass opinion to force change.

The logic (or illogic) of Meyers's argument is that, if someone is not allowed to broadcast their messages over the radio, that person's "freedom of speech" has been violated and their thoughts have been censored. I assume, therefore, that this means that my freedom of speech has been violated, as I do not have a radio show. It seems that Meyers believes not only are we all allowed to have our soapbox for us to proclaim our ideas, but that we all are entitled to a business providing that soapbox for us. This is absolutely absurd, and I'm getting really tired of people's defense of others' statements being centered on free speech. Freedom of speech only works as a defense when the government is trying to restrict it. The people are free to work their own power through whatever (legal) means excluding the government they want.

Gingrich's Comments on Citizenship and English

In a recent speech, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lambasted bilingual education and the use of non-English languages for printing of government documents, specifically election ballots. His criticisms, however, were WAY off the mark and were, in fact, based on an incorrect understanding of the laws of this country.

His first criticism suggested that bilingual education was teaching the "language of living in the ghetto." I assume that he must be referring to Spanish speakers and the use of Spanish and English in the education of children who only speak Spanish because I know English-speaking children who attend foreign-language immersion school and only learn English for the sake of English (i.e. not learning history in English but in the foreign language). And I don't think he's referring to French as the "language of living in the ghetto". So, already, there appears to be some sort of nationalistic and anti-Spanish streak in his talk.

However, the main problem with his criticism of bilingual education is that he suggests that immersion is better than bilingual education. The pro-bilingual people, however, argue that bilingual education does a better job because the students learn English but don't fall behind in their basic academics. One might think that this is a pedagogical issue worthy of study and informed debate, but Gingrich uses this as a way to blast bilingual eduation as a sort of anti-English force, when nothing could be further from the truth. All immigrants want to learn English and, in particular, want their kids to learn English because they know that English is the key to success (one point Gingrich did get right). To suggest that bilingual education is trying to devalue the place of English in our country is just plain wrong. Interestingly, the immigrants I know are divided on this issue, although, from my days in psychology, I remember reading that studies had suggested that bilingual education works better than immersion for non-English speaking children. So, I assume that it is on the basis of such studies that educators have concluded that bilingual education is the best way to mainstream such students. Of course, it should be noted that schools do not usually intend the students to remain in bilingual education forever -- just until their English is sufficient.

The nationalistic intent of Gingrich's speech is clear from the fact that he also blasts the printing of ballots in languages other than English. To support his argument, he states that citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English (I don't know whether he addressed the issue of immigrants have semi-fluency but not having enough fluency to get through some of the crazy ballot measures that are put on the voting ballots -- frankly, I have trouble sometimes deciphering the meaning, intent, and impact of the measures).

However, he could not be more wrong. I am a citizen and I have never had to take a test in order to achieve citizenship. In fact, I doubt he had to take a citizenship test either. Moreover, I have voted and never had to prove I could read English. How could this be? Oh wait, that's right: Newt doesn't know what he's talking about. There are many ways to become a citizen of this country, only of which (the naturalization process) requires a citizenship test. You could also be born on American soil (which includes American military bases and embassies in foreign countries, as well as the numerous territories and commonwealths, such as Puerto Rico, of the U.S.). Also, you could be born to an American parent. These do not require passing a citizenship test and, therefore, it is entirely possible that you have not learned English. Your American parent could have taken you overseas and never taught you English. Who knows?

In fact, the original reason for the federal laws requiring ballots in languages other than English stems from the Hispanics who lived in the Southwest and the Native Americans in a variety of states who did not speak English (or at least, not well). These were people who lived on land in the U.S. prior to the U.S. owning the land (or, I should say, their ancestors lived on the land). These people were often discriminated against and, generally speaking, were alienated from much of society. However, they were (and are) citizens of our country and, based on our laws, have the right to vote. To disenfranchise such people is simply wrong and against the kind of values we have developed over our country's history. Most important, many of these people, especially Native Americans, may still not have good English.

Gingrich also said that bilingualism poses long-term dangers for our country. Huh? What are you talking about, Newt? Have you talked to the Bush administration about the fact that so few people in this country know foreign languages fluently? Have you asked them how much it hurts our abilities to fight terrorists, fight international organized crime, or simply engage in the world? Have you talked to the county sheriffs in Tennessee who are battling Mexican methamphetamine smugglers but are facing serious hurdles simply because none of them know Spanish (I was just reading about this problem)? Clearly, the man doesn't know what he's talking about.

Again, some of his comments might be interesting were they given in an academic manner, but mostly, Gingrich's goal for his speech seemed to be to throw red meat to his audience and rouse their nationalistic tendencies while engaging in subtle anti-Hispanic racism.