Suchergebnisse

Despite its initial momentum, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) failed to gain a sufficient number of state ratifications for enactment. One possible explanation for this failure that has been overlooked is that the timing of a policy may determine its success or failure. The timing & the innovativeness with which the various states considered ratification are examined. Analysis suggests that the relative innovativeness of states, as exhibited on a wide range of other policies & amendments, accounts for the relative order in which they ratified the ERA. The defeat of the ERA was a matter of timing; the less innovative states were most vulnerable to the opposition efforts of ad hoc action groups. 5 Tables. Modified HA

In the early 1970s, fifty years after its first appearance in the U.S. Congress, the Equal Rights Amendment came the closest it ever would to ratification. The ERA declared: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." After sailing through Congress in 1972 with bipartisan support, the amendment went to the states for ratification. The response was positive and immediate: Hawaii approved the ERA the same day, twenty-one other states approved it before the end of the year, and eight more states the following year. Yet, by 1982 the amendment lay dead, having fallen three states short of the thirty-eight states needed for ratification.

Why the ERA failed to win approval despite its initial momentum; role of timing or "innovativeness" with which the states considered the ratification; based on conference paper.

In 2012 the Department of Education received a complaint claiming that the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association's ("MIAA") policy of allowing boys to try out for girls' field hockey constituted a violation of Title IX. This federal statute prohibits discrimination in educational institutions on the basis of sex. This Note looks at the common roots of Title IX and the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that allowed boys' participation in field hockey. It then examines Title IX as it applies to the MIAA field hockey policy and determines that the Massachusetts Policy does not, in and of itself, create a violation. This Note further suggests that even if the policy did violate Title IX, policy implications suggest that using Title IX to invalidate another provision designed to promote gender equality is unwise. Finally, this Note identifies a number of gender-neutral alternatives to deal with the legitimate problems posed by the participation of boys in what are traditionally girls' sports.

Catherine May signed this candidate's statement in support of the text of the equal rights amendment. Statements such as this one, which was distributed by the National Woman's Party, were common tools of political persuasion. May supported the ERA throughout her tenure, but the amendment was ultimately doomed to be introduced with each session of Congress to no avail.