Was Phyllis Schlafly right?
Zietlow, Rebecca E.
RZietlo at UTNet.UToledo.Edu
Tue Mar 15 06:08:53 PST 2005
It's true that Howard Smith proposed the amendment to Title VII in an attempt to kill the 1964 Act, but it is also true that a number of women in the House of Representatives immediately jumped up and spoke strongly in favor of the amendment, and that one (Rep. Martha Griffiths D-MI) later told reporters that she had planned to introduce the amendment herself but held off when she heard that Smith planned to do so because that would increase the likelihood of success. So, the legislative history is a little more complicated than the below account suggests. For a great discussion of this history, see Robert Loevy, To End All Segregation at 125.
Rebecca E. Zietlow
Charles W. Fornoff Professor of Law and Values
University of Toledo College of Law
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of AAsch at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 11:58 PM
To: Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Was Phyllis Schlafly right?
In a message dated 3/14/2005 4:02:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, A Asch writes:
I also recall an example from studying this issue in my jurisprudence class in law school involving the Civil Rights Act. Apparently, the word "sex" was added to prohibit discrimination based on sex by those hoping to kill the Act.
CORRECTION OF MYSELF: The saga of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was detailed in the first 30+ pages of William N. Eskridge, Jr., and Philip P. Frickey, Cases and Materials on Legislation: Statutes and the Creation of Public Policy (1st ed.1987), the textbook from my legislation course, not my jurisprudence course. The specific reference to Congressman (and Judge) Howard Worth Smith's addition of the word "sex" to Title VII in an attempt to prevent its passage is at p. 17.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof