This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. STATEMENT ON THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT United States Commission on Civil Rights Clearinghouse Publication 56 December 1978 4. Summary and Conclusion Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment continues to be essential to the attainment of equal rights for women and men under the law. In Federal statutes alone, the Commission has identified over 800 sections of the U.S. Code containing examples of substantive sex bias or sex-based terminology that are inconsistent with a national commitment to equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities. State laws are replete with provisions that assign women, on the basis of their sex, to an inferior role. Measured by any standard, women continue to be disadvantaged by gender-based laws and practices, despite the enactment of equal opportunity laws. As workers, they are victims of an earnings gap that is even wider today than it was in 1956. As wives, they are still subject to laws that deny them an equal partnership in marriage. As students, they are often steered away from both the education needed to break into the better paying jobs dominated by men and the sports programs that have been traditional training grounds for leadership and the route to a college education through athletic scholarships. Further, women endure a criminal justice system that too often judges them by their sex and not by the acts they commit or by which they are victimized. This reality must dispel the myth that women have achieved equality under law. It is clear that existing constitutional guarantees will not mandate the changes that are needed. Judicial interpretation of these guarantees has allowed sex bias to survive. The Supreme Court has persisted in its view that sex-biased laws and classifications are more easily justified under the Constitution than are race-biased laws. As Justice Powell recently explained in Regents of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court has never extended the full scrutiny of the 14th amendment to sex discrimination claims because the Court does not see such discrimination as inherently odious when compared to the lengthy and tragic history of race discrimination. But such a comparison of victims surely is neither appropriate nor required. The treatment of challenges to sex-based discrimination under existing law reflects the perpetuation of stereotypes and myths about women in American society, as well as a failure to recognize and understand the lengthy struggle of women to secure equal rights under the law. Thus, the need for the Equal Rights Amendment to signal that sex discrimination is no longer acceptable in our Nation's laws, policies, and practices is even more clear today than it was in 1972 when Congress first approved the amendment and sent it to the States for ratification. Evidence also abounds that the ERA is an appropriate remedial measure to meet that need. Recent experiences under State equal rights provisions substantially similar to the Federal ERA have confirmed that it will prompt the changes necessary to provide men and women with status as equal persons under the law. These experiences show substantial strides toward equality of men and women under the law. For example, State ERA provisions have been relied on to develop legal standards for marital support and property rights that look to the actual needs and capabilities of each spouse, rather than merely to his or her sex. In applying these standards, recognition has been given under State ERAs to the economic value of the contribution provided by the homemaker spouse--an important step in securing legal and economic rights for the married woman who chooses to be a full-time homemaker. State ERAs have been successfully relied on to neutralize criminal laws so that individuals are treated according to their acts and not their gender. These State constitutional provisions also have helped to expand educational opportunities for females. Finally, the application of State ERAs to sex-based discrimination in employment has prompted changes to do away with gender-based presumptions and classifications. Notably, the different ways States have acted to neutralize sex-based provisions in State workers' compensation systems indicates the flexibility available for States to determine their own paths to equality. The orderly and nonchaotic way in which this progress has been made under State amendments is proof that the equal rights principle as a constitutional mandate can and does work in a way that strengthens our society. Although these State experiences also suggest that reform of the laws is possible on a State-by-State basis, such a route is both plodding and haphazard and offers no guarantees of ever reaching completion. As Congress recognized in 1972, "only a constitutional amendment can provide the legal and practical basis for the necessary changes." -1 The ERA will provide on a national basis an unmistakable mandate of the highest order for equal rights under law. It will give women a clear route to seek redress against sex bias, provide impetus for the enforcement of existing antidiscrimination laws and the completion of legislative reform, and give the courts a clear basis for dealing with sex-based discrimination. Reaffirming a position first taken in June 1973, the Commission believes that the Equal Rights Amendment should be ratified. Accordingly, we urge State legislatures that have not yet approved the ERA to consider it on its merits. We are confident that such consideration can only result in ratification and the long-awaited guarantee to women and men of equal justice under the law. NOTES 1. Senate Report, supra, at 11.