Page 4 Opinion University Daily Kansan, February 16, 1981 Dawn of a new ERA If you'd told most members of Congress back in 1972 that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which they'd just sent to the states, would remain unratified nine years later, they'd probably have laughed in disbelief. Yet these nine years later, in 1981, the proposed amendment remains just that—proposed. And that's no laughing matter. This past weekend marked the anniversary of the birth of suffragette Susan B. Anthony. On the page today, an issue Anthony would have been proud of—the passage of the ERA-is debated. She would no doubt have been prouder, however, if the page could have been devoted to a review of how the ERA became the 27th amendment back in 1972 or '73. It should be history, not a contemporary issue. So what's kept it from passage? First of all, apathy; the amendment's still alive and kicking, but it isn't receiving too much attention. Another reason, perhaps, is that even the sandest of ideas are bound to receive opposition from somebody. But what does this amendment say to keep it from being ratified? That 'equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex'? Gad, what a revolutionary idea—women are people, too! It's easy to see why such a radical proposal can't be accepted. Why, there hasn't been a revolutionary idea like that since they declared that the blacks were people . . . or, at least, that's the reasoning of some people. The ERA, revolutionary though it may be, is just the next step in a logical progression in the advancement of women's rights, and human rights in general. First came the battle over the right to vote; then came the realization that women could be doctors and lawyers as well as housewives and secretaries. What's the next step after ERA? Probably a woman president. It says something about this society's commitment to democracy when it is willing to constitutionally guarantee equal rights on the basis of skin color but not on the basis of gender. The lack of a comprehensive rights amendment hurts both men and women, for the ERA is as much a women's rights amendment as it is a women's. Both sexes have been discriminated against, and that discrimination should be stopped. Ultimately, when you strip aside all the arguments against ratifying the amendment, you'll find that the only real reason to actively oppose its passage is if you sincerely believe that women are not equal to men. And if you believe that, that's your prerogative; but don't hold back the other 220 million Americans because of your Dark Ages philosophy. Clearly, the ERA is not dead. Separating it from obscurity and national law are three states. Efforts must be made this year in the holdback states to ratify the ERA- or else, nine more years from now, people might still be speculating about "what might have been." Letters to the Editor Negative press coverage may ruin college athletics To the editor: Feb. 8's Kansan made me feel as though I were reading Sports Illustrated. Obviously, there seems to be an ever-growing concern about all the recent "scandal" in college athletic programs. The Kansas City Times is just one of the newspapers in the press world creating hot stories about the chaos in college athletics. Mass coverage of supposed scandals is telling us that there has got to be a change in the outlay of college sports if there is going to college athletics in the future. How many Watergates of sport can any of us use? Perhaps the NCAA needs to hire a full-time undercover sports force to make sure the laws of collegiate sports are followed, with the guidance of trained coaches. Some selfish and winning-hungry coaches couldn't thwart the situation, either. I have two possible solutions to help cure all this chaos; abish college athletics or create all-out professionalism. College is supposedly a stepping stone to the major leagues, so why not put all that money on the table instead of handing it out from below? I'm not saying these are the ultimate solutions, but they may be the only ones. As always, the college athlete seemingly is the one who seems to meet" among over-valued athletic officials. Maybe now after all this negative press coverage, more of us bystanders will realize that collegiate athletics is not a bed of beautiful roses. Valerie E. Block Lawrence freshmar Athletes trying hard You finish your article (Feb. 11) by telling us that relief should not be spoiled W-N-W. Now To the editor: try to tell us that your goal in life is not to succeed. Any human being has his ups and downs, his tendency to give in to life's pressures, and to try to take the easy way out. David Lewis, if you would like to coach, try it. You are "armchair" coaching the student athlete. You glorify yourself and your job future by pointing out the athlete's intentions from the William Allen White School of Journalism. Will you try to tell us you, or people close to you, what you're doing? Is there another or another? The percentage troubled or dropout student athletes is not any higher than that of the journalism school. Shall we in the athletic department conduct an investigation into the journalism question? The student athlete is a special person because of the amount of time and sacrifice that he painfully endures. He has a larger lighthouse than climb to M. Oread. Think of all the things you would like to accomplish, make room for four hours of physical and mental strain. Think of traveling to different cities each weekend to compete with your whole heart and soul. Think about having a teammate who knows how to know right off the bat that you are not special." Then think again about all the things you would like to accomplish. I have trouble finding the focal point of your article, which I think lacks depth. As a matter of fact, why don't you go ahead and write about the late Ella Grasso or Garwood or that murdered boy in Atlanta? If you want to write about the student athletes, check into the GPA. Wo in the athletic department do not claim to be superhuman, but we try. Rick Jenkins Omaha, Neb., junior Assistant swim coach KANSAN (SUPS 605-640) Published at the University of Kannan May August through May and Monday and Thursday (SUPS 605-640), www.kannan.edu. Subscriptions pay Lawrence, Kansas $6.00. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $8 a year in Douglas County, Kansas. Subscription by phone is $9.95 per month for each year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the student activity fee. Subscriptions change of address to the University Daily Kannan, Flint Hall, The University of Kannan, Lawrence, KS. 60044 Editor David Lewis Managing Editor ELEMEN PARKMAN Editorial Editor Don Munday Art Director BOB BLOWDON Campus Editor SCOT FLAUNT Associate Campus Editor GENE MYERS Assistant Campus Editors RAY Formanek, Susan Schoehnaker Assistant Editors KATY GRUNNELL Sports Editor KARL KERBEL Associate Sports Editor TRACE HAMILTON Entertainment Editor SHAW McKAY Assistant Entertainment Editor BLANZ LIPPARD Business Manager Travel Fee Retail Sales Manager Larry Leibmanage National Sales Manager Barb Light Campus Sales Manager Kaye Winscup Production Manager Kewell Knox Classified Manager Amotte Coord Tear sheets Manager Jane Wenderoff Skiff artist Rink Skintkey Staff Photographer John Hammack Retail Sales Representatives Juliette Becler, Telicia Berry, Lady Cakdwell, Sally Cowden, Bill Groom, Donna Hammack, Ann Hornberger, Macron Jacobs, Terry Knobee, General Manager and News Advisor...Bick Munson Kanan Adviser...Cuck Chowlin Suddenly the creature gains new strength ERA offers comprehensive protection Not enough people care about the Equal Rights Amendment these days. A lot of people act like discussing the ERA is not only beating a horse, it is flaying it and roiling it in salt water as The ERA needs 38 states to ratify it for it to become law. It has 35 states. No more states show much likelihood of ratifying it, and three states have voted to rescind their ratification, although the Supreme Court does not recognize this procedure. The ERA seems to be a lost cause, and most people don't seem to want to waste the energy to fight for it. Like Farrah Fawcett and discus, the ERA is a weapon so much that it a relief lust to let it die quietly. But I have a weakness for "lost" cause. If I didn't, I'd leave Kansas every February. And this is one "lost" cause we shouldn't abandon without a fight. We need the ERA. Although I don't plan to take a saber and ceremoniously slit my throat if it's not ratified, I think we're fools for not ratifying it. Women are mostly to blame for its failure. They are not the only ones who opposed it, but it is their fight. They are the one who stand to gain if it passes. Congressmen who listened to Phyllis Walker and the group of women must think, well, if the women don't want the ERA, why bother with it? Opposition to the ERA from women is like elk demanding an all-year hunting season. Some women seem determined to make sure there are no legal safeguards for their rights. The basic purpose of the ERA is to provide legal recourse for women, or men, in cases of sex discrimination. Many people say a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because women already have all the rights the amendment would give them. State laws will provide equal pay, the argument runs, guard against job discrimination and in general make certain that women are not second class citizens. Fine. We almost didn't get a Bill of Rights, because the same argument was used when the Constitution was written in 1789. I personally do know why it wasn't written of a state legislature for mvirts and safety. States are capricious in the way they interpret laws. The way Mississippi sees its duties to JANE NEUFELD guard against sex discrimination is going to be different from the way New York sees its duty. Constitutional law would eliminate the discrepancies between states. The ERA would provide a blanket reference to sex discrimination cases. Court rulings on sex discrimination can be overturned; they can vary with public opinion or the opinion of different courts. But constitutional law is dependable. Only one amendment, Prohibition, has been repealed. Women could use a few legal safeguards. The last time I was in Hutchinson, a man wrote to the Hutchinson News saying how the country had gone to hell ever since women got the vote and because it was obvious that they were stupid and only voted on the basis of which candidate had a chance to win. We saw all our problems and put women back in the kitchen and bedroom where they belong. People can believe and say what they want. But every man or woman who has this view of women is a potential legal problem if he turns his beliefs into discriminatory action. With Phyllis Schlafly and the man from Hutchinson cut there somewhere, more people should be concerned for the future of the ERA. A constitutional amendment also strengthens a feminist's point in an argument. Instead of having to rely on a trite, "Get lost, chauvinist running dog," a feminist could crush an opponent with, "Shut your unpatriotic, unconstitutional face, gravy-sucking pig." Another argument frequently used against the ERA says that it is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous. Subscribers to this argument see ERA ratification as leading to same-sex marriages, women in combat and unisex restrooms. It will also destroy marriage, families and all enjoyable sex by making men and women identical. The ERA says, "Equality of rights under the United States or by any state account of such." Nowhere does the amendment advocate unisex bathrooms. People read ideas into the amendment, but it is not their responsibility to interpret the amendment. That job falls to the Supreme Court, and its interpretation is not likely to rip apart the fabric of American life. In addition, equal does not mean identical. I'm sure the ERA is not going to take away people's Mazola and rubber sheets. It is concerned with legal wrongs, not private lives. Cases on women in the draft and same-sex marriages are likely to work their way to the Supreme Court, regardless of the fate of the couple. We also don't have an alno before what we do to the Constitution. Nonetheless, the ERA has faltered on speculations of the terrible things that will happen if it becomes law, and women are more likely to vote in state legislatures and courts for their rights. Let's hope it isn't too late for the ERA. I'm hoping for a reawakening of public interest in it, a change of heart in the legislatures of three more states, or a miracle from God. ERA's not necessary to guarantee rights If the Equal Rights amendment were passed, there would be riots in the streets, havoc in the bathrooms and panic in the American family. Or at least one would think so after reading Stop ERA pamphlets that have been widely circulated. Or, to quote another brand of pamphlets, those who are against the amendment are doormats, evolutionary throwbacks and traitors to the cause of sexual equality. In reality, the truth about the ERA has little to do with name calling, or with the exaggerated foes of the ERA. Regardless of the assurances of many ERA supporters, the proposed amendment is not simple—in fact, its very brevity leaves it open to interpretation and its possible misuse. No one can predict the long-term consequences of a new amendment, not the pro-ERA forces, not anti-ERA forces, not even the current members of the Supreme Court. An openness to interpretation is both the strength and the weakness of every part of the Constitution. Because most of the rights that the proposed amendment would guarantee already exist, we should think twice before adding an amendment to the laws. It is no accident that most of the seqs. At best, the ERA seems redundant. In the 14th amendment, the rights of all citizens, including women, to life, liberty, property and equal protection of the laws, are guaranteed. Granted, that amendment has been twisted a few times since its ratification more than 100 years ago. For example, the Supreme Court used it about 80 years ago to deny women the right to vote. However, any amendment, even the proposed one, would not be able to support policies that are infevitable to women. Under the amendment, it is possible that the nation's Affirmative Action programs could be declared unconstitutional and so could lower life insurance rates to which many women are now entitled. Of course, some of the evils that anti-ERA propagates have foreseen will be easily avoided. Admittedly, some rules that supposedly protect from damage or discomfort饼干 discriminates against them. women from combat by imposing purposefully hefty height and weight requirements. However, if the military can indirectly discriminate between the sexes, why can't private industry? That problem exists today and it would still exist after ratification of the ERA. These rules have been known to protect women from the "dangers" of holding high-paying jobs. However, since the passage of the Equal VANESSA HERRON Employment and Equal Credit Opportunity acts only for education acts, most discriminatory acts and/or other misdemeanors. We don't need better laws, we need better law enforcement. On the other hand, the passage of the ERA would offer at least one clear advantage—it would threaten the "special privileges" that Phyllis Schlafly and her supporters have defended tooth and well-manicured nail to preserve. Perhaps the image that women have of themselves is the biggest barrier to their achieving equality. Studies have shown that women, not men, have been largely responsible for the movement that has stopped the ERA cold in the 15 remaining states. To them, a woman is a delicate, fragile creature, the bearer of babies and the keeper of the home fire. Women are protected from the harsher realities of the world, they say. Obviously, both the women and the men who hold this conception of women are deceiving and demeaning themselves. However, the image of the fragile, inferior woman is just that, an image. An image cannot be changed by a constitutional amendment. Contrary to the rhetoric found in pamphlets, the women who oppose the amendment are not traitors, or throwbacks to an earlier, more repressive time. And most of them are indulgent in their own stories of unisex bathrooms and 98-pound girls sent to the trenches of Afghanistan being However, for better or worse, many women have been frightened by the drastic changes in their lifestyles that ERA supporters glowingly predict. They are afraid of having to prove that they can be effective and make alimony, and the prospect of wives working to support their husbands, was frankly alarming. Those who are opposed to the ERA are not opposed to equal rights for women, just as those who opposed the proposed (and unratified) Child Labor Amendment in the early 20th century were not opposed to the protection of innocent children. The anti-ERA position can be summarized in this rather free adaptation of a common expression: We're all in favor of sexual equality but we don't need to make a federal case out of it. Opponents of the amendment simply think that women's rights are already guaranteed in other amendments and in state and federal laws. They recognize that equality can only be achieved by changing the way they view their sexual roles, not when they change the wording of the Constitution. Letters Policy The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is afield, the letter should include the writer's class at home or town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.