For the Equal Rights Amendment

“Legal expression of prejudice on the grounds of religious or political belief has become a minor problem in our society. Prejudice on the basis of race is, at least, under systematic attack. There is reason for optimism that it will start to die with the present, older generation.”

Chisholm draws on examples of religious, political, and racial discrimination to show the progress American society has made in equality for these underrepresented groups. She says that racial prejudice is “under systemic attack,” meaning the laws and systems of the United States are working to eliminate this type of discrimination, even if it has not been completely eradicated yet. This is an example of logos, or an appeal to the logic of her audience. By highlighting how continued sexist discrimination is at odds with US Congresspersons’ efforts to ensure equality in other areas, Chisholm motivates them to take similar action on gender discrimination.

“It is time we act to assure full equality of opportunity to those citizens who, although in a majority, suffer the restrictions that are commonly imposed on minorities, to women.”

Chisholm points out the irony that although women make up more of the United States population than men, they are still being discriminated against. She draws on earlier examples of discrimination against minorities to argue that it is time to also address the prejudice faced by women on the basis of sex.

“The amendment is necessary to clarify countless ambiguities and inconsistencies in our legal system. For instance, the Constitution guarantees due process of law, in the 5th and 14th amendments. But the applicability of due process of sex distinctions is not clear: Women are excluded from some State colleges and universities.”

In this example, Chisholm argues for the necessity of the ERA to clarify inconsistencies that exist in Constitutional law. She provides an example of how existing law is applied unfairly and inconsistently—while the 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee equal protection for all people, there are clear cases, such as in university admission, where these laws are not being applied consistently to women. Chisholm also alludes to these existing laws to anticipate and refute counterarguments that equality is already legally guaranteed.

“There has never been any doubt that they worked a hardship on women who need or want to work overtime and on women who need or want better paying jobs; and there has been no persuasive evidence as to how many women benefit from the archaic policy of the laws. After the Delaware hours law was repealed in 1966, there were no complaints from women to any of the State agencies that might have been approached.”

Here, Chisholm provides an example of a state that repealed employment restrictions for women with much success. When women expressed a desire to work overtime, Delaware repealed laws limiting working hours for women. Chisholm offers this example as a success story and a model for the rest of the country if the ERA were to be enacted.

“Since October 1966, 246,000 young men who did not meet the normal mental or physical requirements have been given opportunities for training and correcting physical problems. This opportunity is not open to their sisters.”

Chisholm uses this example to point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency in military policies when it comes to recruiting and training men and women. Though some opponents to the Equal Rights Amendment worried about women being drafted into the military, Chisholm points out that hundreds of thousands of men do not meet military requirements. Instead of being dismissed, they are trained and supported by the military.

“Each sex, I believe, should be liable when necessary to serve and defend this country. Each has a responsibility for the support of children.”

Here, Chisholm shifts from a pragmatic argument to a moral one. She explains that the rights and responsibilities of defending the country in the military and supporting and raising children are roles that should fall to men and women equally. Along with practical considerations, she points to these moral imperatives as support for passing the ERA.

“There are objections raised to wiping out laws protecting women workers. No one would condone exploitation. But what does sex have to do with it.”

Some opponents to the Equal Rights Amendment expressed concerns that it would open the door to exploiting women in the workplace. Chisholm addresses this concern by stating that protections for workers should not be applied unequally on the basis of sex—both men and women should be given equal opportunities in the workplace, as well as equal protection against exploitation.

“Laws setting employment limitations on the basis of sex are irrational, and the proof of this is their inconsistency from State to State. The physical characteristics of men and women are not fixed, but cover two wide spans that have a great deal of overlap. It is obvious, I think, that a robust woman could be more fit for physical labor than a weak man.”

Chisholm uses this example to critique the hypocrisy of workplace limitations based entirely on sex. It does not make sense, she explains, to arbitrarily restrict workplace roles on the basis of sex, with the assumption that women are less physically capable than their male colleagues.

“Legal discrimination between the sexes is, in almost every instance, founded on outmoded views of society and the pre-scientific beliefs about psychology and physiology. It is time to sweep away these relics of the past and set future generations free of them.”

Here, Chisholm directly challenges the basis for sex discrimination laws, calling them outdated and unscientific. She calls them “relics of the past,” calling on her audience to look ahead into a future that is not restricted by these outdated policies. She urges her colleagues to change the law so that their future generations are not restricted by old ways of thinking.

“The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1963 Equal Pay Act are not enough; they are limited in their coverage—for instance, one excludes teachers, and the other leaves out administrative and professional women. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has not proven to be an adequate device, with its power limited to investigation, conciliation, and recommendation to the Justice Department.”

Chisholm builds a strong case for why a constitutional amendment is necessary to guarantee gender equality by pointing to the ways current laws do not go far enough to protect women. She offers the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1963 Equal Pay Act as examples of laws that make progress toward gender equality but leave out significant groups that still require legal protection.

“Evidence of discrimination on the basis of sex should hardly have to be cited here. It is in the Labor Department’s employment and salary figures for anyone who is still in doubt.”

Chisholm claims that sex discrimination is so obvious that it hardly requires additional evidence or proof. Documented, publicly available records of employment and salaries will prove that women are given fewer opportunities in the workplace and are paid less than men on a consistent, measurable basis.

“The Constitution [the Founding Fathers] wrote was designed to protect the rights of white, male citizens. As there were no black Founding Fathers, there were no founding mothers—a great pity, on both counts. It is not too late to complete the work they left undone.”

Here, Chisholm emphasizes the fact that the Constitution, as originally written, was a document created exclusively by white men and, therefore, often disregards or discriminates against other groups of people. If women or Black people had been involved in the original drafting of the law, Chisholm claims, these changes may not even be necessary. She calls on her colleagues to right the errors of the original Founding Fathers and make the Constitution's protections applicable to all people, including women.

“In closing, I would like to make one point: Social and psychological effects will be initially more important than legal or economic results.”

Chisholm’s final point is that the Equal Rights Amendment would not only have an economic impact, but also a psychological effect. She offers equal value and weight to the impact the new law would have on the state of mind of American citizens as it would on the US economy.