ERA rubric

Does the United States need to pass a new version of the Equal Rights Amendment?
Explain.
The following are a list of questions you should consider answering in your essay.
*Explain why Phyllis Schlafly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.
*Explain whether or not pornography should be considered a form of hate speech that is used to keep women
in their place.
*Determine whether or not all women should be afforded minority group status.
*Based on your opinion, experience and evidence (No 1st person) to what extent have women achieved
equality in contemporary America.
*Use examples and quotes from the readings and websites
*Be sure to include a works cited page and parenthetical citations.
You do not need to use any other outside sources other than those given and may use no more than two.

Rubric:
18/20 Essay describes the intent of the Equal Rights Amendment and explains why it was never amended to the
Constitution. Essay explains why Schlafly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment. Use short quotes and examples.
20/20 Answers two of three- Essay establishes a well-supported position on the status of women today in
comparison to 40 years ago using evidence to support your claim. Essay determines whether or not pornography
should be considered hate speech used to degrade women as a group by using examples and quotations to support
ideas. Or essay explains why women should be or not be offered minority status.
20/20 Essay includes a position oriented thesis statement, a conclusion that restates and extends the thesis,
paragraphs centered around a single idea conceptually linked to the thesis, appropriate mechanics, varied syntax,
parenthetical citations and a works cited page. It should be no longer than 2 pages double spaced and must be
submitted to Turnitin.com

In 1923, Alice Paul authored the Equal Rights Amendment and proposed that it be passed by
Congress. Between 1923 and 1972, the ERA is proposed in every session of Congress (now.org). The
intent of the ERA was to continue the feminist movement by bringing equal justice under law to all
citizens (equalrightsamendment.org). When the ERA emerged with full backing from women across
America in 1972, political activist Phyllis Schlafly organized to defeat its seemingly inevitable
ratification. On Schlaflys conservative interest group, Eagle Forums, Schlafly argues that the ERA
would take away legal rights that women possessed - not confer any new rights on women
(eagleforum.org). Schlafly was fervently against the ERA because it would get rid of womens military
exemption, and would strip wives of the benefits traditionally given to women who are wives and mothers
under the law. Though Schlafly was shamed by many radical feminists of the 1970s, the campaign to stop
the ratification of the ERA succeeded and no such amendment exists today. Even though women still face
challenges in present day society, the United States Congress does not need to pass a new version of the
Equal Rights Amendment because women are already protected under the 14th Amendment, women
should not be considered as a minority, and women have made incredible advances in the past forty years.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, ratified fully in 1868, says that No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State (U.S.
Constitution). The 14th Amendment also states: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property (U.S. Constitution). A citizen of the United States is defined as any person who by place of
birth, nationality of one or both parents has sworn loyalty to a nation (thefreedictionary.com). Only
citizens of the United States are subject to protections offered by the Constitution, so because women
born in the U.S. are subject to the 14th Amendment, these citizens are already equally protected under the
law. Passing and ratifying a new version of the Equal Rights Amendment is a redundancy because the
14th Amendment already contains language protecting women. Women do not need an ERA because
women are already protected by the 14th Amendment.
The U.S. Congress should not pass a new ERA because women should not be considered as a
minority. Affirmative action programs, which exist in the United States today, are designed as temporary

measures to increase the employment and educational opportunities available to qualified women and
minorities by giving them preference in hiring, promotion, and admission (legacy.scu.edu). Women do
not need the ERA because women already receive the benefit of being awarded special treatment when
applying for colleges or jobs. Furthermore, advances in the wage gap and education have shown that
affirmative action programs are becoming obsolete for women. The Pew Research Center found that
young women are earning ninety-three percent on a mans dollar, a sixteen percent bump since 1980. Pew
also found that young women are starting careers better educated than male counterparts, and that young
women with four-year college degrees have increased by twenty-six percent since 1970. Due to increases
in economic opportunities, women should not be awarded minority status because women have no need
for it. Also, due to the growth in womens education and the narrowing of the pay gap, women have no
need for a constitutionally redundant Equal Rights Amendment.
Over the past four decades, since the ERA failed to be ratified by thirty-eight states, women have
stunning advances in education and economics. Women are now more likely than men to get a bachelors
degree (nytimes.com). Women make up nearly sixty percent of the college students. In the words of one
student, Women here are on fire (nytimes.com). Aforementioned in the previous paragraph, women
are making huge gains economically. While earning just sixty-seven percent on a mans dollar in 1980,
women now earn ninety-three percent on a mans dollar (Pew Research Center). Because women have
been making great progress over the past four decades, and have done so without an ERA, the U.S.
Congress should not pass a new version of the ERA.

Works Cited
Andre, Claire, Manuel Velasquez, and Tim Mazur. "Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of
Controversy." Santa Clara University. 5th ed. Vers. 2. Markkula Center for Applied
Ethics, n.d. Web. 16 May 2016.
<https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html>.
"Chronology of the Equal Rights Amendment, 1923-1996." National Organization for Women.
NOW, n.d. Web. 15 May 2016.
<http://now.org/resource/chronology-of-the-equal-rights-amendment-1923-1996/>.
"Citizen." Def. 1. The Free Dictionary. N.p.: n.p., n.d. The Free Dictionary. Web. 16 May 2016.
<http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/citizen>.
"The Equal Rights Amendment." ERA. Ed. Roberta W. Francis. Alice Paul Institute, n.d. Web. 15
May 2016. <http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/>.
Lewin, Tamar. "At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust." The New York Times. New
York Times, 9 July 2006. Web. 16 May 2016.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html>.
"A Short History of the ERA." Eagle Forum. eagleforum, n.d. Web. 15 May 2016.
<https://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html>.
"10 Findings about Women in the Workplace." Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, 11
Dec. 2013. Web. 16 May 2016.
<http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/12/10-findings-about-women-in-the-workplace/>.