The Equal Rights Amendment: Is A Century Enough?

By Tori Zucco, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

On July 21, 1923 – almost exactly one hundred years ago – the Equal Rights Amendment was unveiled in Seneca Falls, New York by Alice Paul. After the 19th Amendment had finally passed in 1920, Paul and other suffragettes wanted to take women’s rights a step further: they wanted gender equality to be explicit in the Constitution. So, they got together and authored a new amendment that would do just that. The Equal Rights Amendment as it was unveiled by Paul was simple. It read “Men and women shall have equal rights through the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.” This amendment was meant to be a huge step in giving women the rights and privileges that men have held since the founding of this nation. Unfortunately, a full century later, it is still not part of the Constitution. 

The ERA was introduced in Congress for the first time in December 1923. Unsurprisingly, it failed to pass and little progress was made over time. It was introduced in every session of Congress since 1923 and only made headway in the 1970s. After 49 years of rejection, the Equal Rights Amendment was passed by both chambers of Congress in 1972. By this time, the ERA had been revised and the new text read: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on the account of sex.” 

The next necessary step to becoming an amendment is for the text to be ratified by 38 states. Congress placed a seven year deadline on the ratification process and left the states to do their thing. Things got off to an optimistic start: 30 of the necessary 38 states had ratified the ERA within a year. However, momentum slowed. By the end of the seven years, it had only been ratified by 35 states. Congress voted to extend the deadline by an additional three years, but the proposed amendment was not ratified by a single additional state in that time period. In fact, opinions had shifted so heavily that five states voted to rescind their ratification of the ERA. By the time they reached the extended 1982 deadline, many people had considered the Equal Rights Amendment a lost cause. 

The ERA remained sidelined until 2017 when, 35 years after the extended deadline, it was ratified by Nevada. The resurgence of attention on the ERA was likely due to the increase of women’s activism and women-centric social movements such as the Women’s March on Washington and the #MeToo Movement. Illinois followed Nevada in 2018 and Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the amendment in 2020. Virginia’s ratification should’ve satisfied the final requirements for the ERA to become an official part of the Constitution. However, it has faced roadblocks that continue to stand in the way of its adoption.

There are a few issues stopping the ERA from being validated. The main hurdles are conflicting legal opinions and lack of precedent. Some believe that Virginia is not actually the 38th state to ratify the ERA. Given that Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Idaho rescinded their ratifications, some conservative lawmakers and legal scholars believe that the proposed amendment must be ratified by five more states. However, unratification has not stopped previous amendments from being adopted. Several states rescinded their ratification of the 14th and 15th Amendments after the Civil War but Congress disregarded these rescissions and declared the amendments ratified. The same should be done for the ERA. 

Those who feel the ERA’s adoption would be invalid also blame the blown deadline. Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia were late to the game. Some – mainly Republican – lawmakers and legal scholars believe that these states’ ratifications are null and void because they did not occur within the set timeline. Other scholars, however, believe that if Congress has the power to impose a deadline, they also have the power to dissolve it. It’s important to mention that the deadline is included in the resolution argument proposing the amendment, not in the text of the amendment itself. Because of this, many legal scholars argue that Congress has the power to dissolve the deadline. 

With all of these roadblocks, the ERA remains in limbo. It’s stuck in this strange phase where it’s satisfied all of the requirements to be an amendment but hasn’t officially been adopted as part of the Constitution. Efforts have been made to validate the ERA but they have unfortunately been unsuccessful. The text of the amendment states that it would go into effect two years after being ratified. If things had gone accordingly after Virginia’s ratification, gender equality would have become a constitutional right in 2022. If the ERA had gone into effect, the Supreme Court likely would not have been able to overturn Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision last summer. The ERA would also support expanding protections provided by the Violence Against Women Act, close loopholes that subtly permit wage discrimination, and strengthen legal cases related to TItle IX. Without it, we only have rights to lose.

No one is harmed by the Equal Rights Amendment. Yet it is stuck at a standstill because of antiquated processes and conservatives who seek to block initiatives that undo power structures they benefit from. How much longer will it take? It’s already been a hundred years, will it take a hundred more? How many rights will we lose in the meantime?

References

[1] Baker, Carrie N. “Fifty Years Later, the Equal Rights Amendment Is Ratified. Now What?” Ms. Magazine. February 10, 2022. https://msmagazine.com/2022/02/10/equal-rights-amendment-ratified/ 

[2] Bleiweis, Robin. “The Equal Rights Amendment: What You Need To Know.” Center for American Progress. January 29, 2020. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/equal-rights-amendment-need-know/

[3] Cohen, Alex and Wilfred U. Codrington III. “The Equal Rights Amendment Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice. January 23, 2020. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/equal-rights-amendment-explained

[4] Dismore, David M. “Today in Feminist History: Suffrage Is Not Sufficient, The Lucretia Mott Amendment (July 21, 1923).” Ms. Magazine. July 21, 2020. https://msmagazine.com/2020/07/21/feminist-history-july-21/ 

[5] Kurtzleben, Danielle. “House Votes To Revive Equal Rights Amendment, Removing Ratification Deadline.” NPR. February 13, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/805647054/house-votes-to-revive-equal-rights-amendment-removing-ratification-deadline 
[6] Puckett-Pope, Lauren. “The Equal Rights Amendment Could Still Pass Today – Here’s How You Can Support It.” Harper’s Bazaar. August 26, 2020. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a32175363/what-is-the-equal-rights-amendment-today/

Tori Zucco is a rising senior at Wheaton College Massachusetts majoring in Sociology with a minor in Women’s and Gender Studies. She is interested in social justice, reproductive justice, and writing. On campus, Tori works as a Peer Writing Tutor.

Sarah Stankorb's Per-Sister Speaker Series Talk

Sarah Stankorb via sarahstankorb.com

We want to extend our deepest gratitude to Sarah Stankorb for participating in our Per-Sister Speaker Series!

Sarah Stankorb graduated from Westminster College with honors in Philosophy and World Religions, as well as the University of Chicago Divinity School with a master’s degree focused on ethics and South Asian religion and history. She boasts an impressive background as an award-winning writer with work featured in The New York Times, Washington Post, Vogue, The Atlantic, and other acclaimed publications. She has directed the communications of multiple nonprofits focused on environmental advocacy, conservation, and education, and currently serves as the Vice Mayor of the Wyoming City Council.

During her talk, Stankorb shared insights into her upcoming book Disobedient Women (to be published August 8th) which describes the stories of women who utilized the internet to speak out about the abuse they experienced in their American Christian churches and communities, despite being taught not to threaten or question the men in their communities. In her talk, Stankorb explained how she became aware of the concept of Christian patriarchy and her years of research on the topic, which her book will encompass.

Another highlight from her talk was Stankorb’s stories of acting on the Wyoming City Council. Among these stories, Stankorb shared the challenges of running and acting on the council, including being far younger than her colleagues and living with a speech impediment which she worried could affect how people viewed her. She also shared many of her many achievements, such as raising 850,000 dollars to make a playground fully accessible to children and parents with disabilities.

Sarah Stankorb’s talk was extremely inspiring, with insights that the Power in Place interns can carry throughout their experiences in politics, in advocacy, and in facing prejudice.

Sylvie Richards is a rising Sophomore at Washington University in St. Louis where she is double majoring in Political Science and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies. Sylvie is passionate about youth civic engagement, social, reproductive, & racial justice, and LGBTQ+ rights. She is Senior Forum Editor of Student Life, WashU’s newspaper, and Action Council and Social Media Co-Chair of WashU’s Planned Parenthood Generation Action. In her free time, she likes to read, bake cookies, and listen to music.

Why We Need More Women in Medical Leadership

By Kate Vavra, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

For the first time in history, there are actually more women than men in United States medical schools. Despite this, significantly less women hold medical leadership positions than men. “Overall, women make up only 34 percent of physicians in the U.S., and gender parity is still not reflected in medical leadership. Women account for only 18 percent of hospital CEOs and 16 percent of all deans and department chairs in the U.S.—positions that typically direct the mission and control the resources at medical centers” [1]. There are various explanations on why female doctors are not advanced at the same rate as their male colleagues. On average, women receive less grant money and less institutional funding to publicize their work. They struggle more to find sponsors and mentors that may aid them in developing their research. There is also a lack of policies that protect the recommended six months of paid maternity leave, which often leaves new mothers struggling to excel at work, making them more likely to leave the medical field. Additionally, there is an unconscious bias against women in medicine, which affects their ability to be hired or promoted. These patterns lead to an overall disparity between male and female doctors in medical leadership roles. 

These actions hurt not only female doctors, but all women receiving healthcare in the United States, as medical practices are being increasingly influenced by the political world. “Lawmakers increasingly intrude into the realm of medical practice, often to satisfy political agendas without regard to established, evidence- based guidelines for care” [2]. Especially because large aspects of women's healthcare has more recently turned into political controversy, there are a multitude of bad medicine laws that are preventing women from receiving fair care. Some of these include biased counseling laws, ultrasounds requirements, mandatory delays, medical abortion restrictions, and targeted regulations of abortion providers. 

The first step to recover from the attacks on women’s healthcare is to uplift female doctors to positions in leadership. Many studies have even shown that female physicians provide better care compared to their male counterparts. These women can use their knowledge to help figure out courses of action to properly deal with legal restrictions while protecting their patients and doctors alike. 

References 

[1] Mangurian, Christina. “What’s Holding Women in Medicine Back from Leadership.” Harvard Business Review. June 19, 2018. https://hbr.org/2018/06/whats-holding-women-in-medicine-back-from-leadership#:~:text=Women%20account%20for%20only%2018,%25)

[2] Ness, Debra. “Bad Medicine: How a Political Agenda Is Undermining Abortion Care and Access.” National Partnerships. March, 2018. https://nationalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/bad-medicine-third-edition.pdf 

[3] Searing, Linda. “The Big Number: Women now outnumber men in medical schools.” The Washington Post. December 23, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/the-big-number-women-now-outnumber-men-in-medical-schools/2019/12/20/8b9eddea-2277-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

Kate Vavra is a rising sophomore at Mount Holyoke College and is double majoring in International Relations and French. On campus, Kate plays varsity tennis and serves as the Community Service Subcommittee Chair on the Student Athlete Advisory Committee. After graduation, Kate hopes to go to law school and become an attorney.

Why Is Feminism So Cringe?

By Madeleine Broussard, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Where feminism once was the driving force behind energized young activists’ fight for social equality stands a jaded generation of politically aware nihilists. We have self-identified leftists who conservatively appreciate feminism for its intersections with other, more important class analyses, and those who have taken the “black pill” and chosen immovable pessimism as a response to the plight of women. Both are slightly embarrassed of feminism, the language of which is too easily co-opted by market demands associated with neoliberalism.

Unfortunately, even embarrassment cannot stop the ever-flowing tide of sneaky pop feminism. As Caitlín Doherty smartly discusses in her recent article, “A Feminist Style”, feminists lately have taken to the atomized snapshot of a woman’s suffering as a representation of “cool” feminism. Exhuming influential writers of the past, such as Andrea Dworkin, proves to be convenient: her highly personal prose distracts us just enough from mulling over the theory she authored. We are also under significantly less pressure to engage critically with authors who do not benefit from our monetary support. Even better, Dworkin is dead.

As the last decade’s trend of nostalgia continues to pump through the veins of fashion and culture, the lingering relevance of second-wave feminism proves to be functional not as a means of mobilizing, but of fashioning a new aesthetic. Make no mistake: if Dworkin walked onto the political stage right now and breathed life back into her radical analysis of intercourse from the eighties, she would be socially lobotomized. The outstanding feminist writer of the second wave is a dead, safe legend. And unlike any previous decade of feminism, no singular female writer or advocate stands out as having adequately described women’s “situation” in the current moment — the ones that try are too alive, and thereby too difficult to iconify. 

Women in politics face much of the anger we harbor towards women assuming any systemic power. Elizabeth Warren's claim to indigenous ancestry eclipsed her 2020 presidential platform in the news, rightfully inciting more than a few flinches and prompting her to apologize. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s campaign success soared as he racistly nicknamed Warren “Pocahontas”. A few years earlier, the internet obscured Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid with her infamously grimace-inducing “Pokémon Go to the polls” line. In light of the hair-raising “locker room” attacks on female dignity that her opponent got away with, it is an utter disappointment to see netizens joke that Clinton’s cringe factor cost her the presidency. 

Yet, the girlboss archetype represented by most prominent women in politics activating our frustrations with neoliberal feminism — despite the punch that both women’s campaigns took in response to their scandals and cringey moments highlighting the disadvantages of even wealthy, white, cisgender womanhood — was a perfect match for the right’s unapologetic woman-hating. Their lovechild is the undue power of cringe. 

The undue power of cringe is enough to catapult a woman’s mistakes and non-mistakes alike to the forefront of her image, dominating Google search suggestions and further sterilizing the puritanism that we currently call feminism. Meanwhile, Trump’s countless sexual misconduct allegations sit behind him scot-free, and his high-profile crimes do little to deter his fiercely loyal fanbase from tearing their loving gazes away from him. Men are expected to be gross. Women dare not commit the crime of being cringe. When we place our nostalgia for the feminism of the past under a microscope, it begins to make a little more sense: empathy is harder to have for women who dare to take up space in the same room as us.

It is a funny coincidence that the age of nostalgia in fashion has ushered in a side-by-side, age-appropriate era of regression in politics. In addition to women’s severe electoral handicap, leading up to and following Dobbs v. Jackson in the summer of 2022 was bad gender politics from both mainstream sides. Conservatives who believe children should be forced to give birth and liberals who spent a disproportionate amount of time correcting the language of other liberals to fighting the human rights violation at hand dominated the debate. (The shrill voices of those in power nearly drowned out those of the most deeply-affected low-income women of color.) Currently, nationwide book bans threaten free speech, anti-LGBTQ privacy laws in schools strip students of their freedom to safely come out of the closet, and moral panics reminiscent of years past shape our increasingly hostile political culture. We need mean, nasty feminism now that every day is a throwback, in a climate that pushes radical change to the back. When we neglect the second wave’s resonance in exchange for its fashionability, we risk watering it down to the very thing we hate: an aesthetic, a tool of capitalism.

In our yearning to relive a time we weren’t even alive to see, we unknowingly trade reading and relating to one dead woman’s stories about suffering for listening to each other’s. Consciousness is impossible where conversation does not flow. Fashionable nostalgia, which glamorizes the past and dreads the present, has defanged modern feminism. Neoliberal feminism continues to individualize feminist action as a matter of personal choice, and women and other gender minorities are deeply divided. Where does that leave those of us charged with the burden of doing something about it?

We were alive to watch the neoliberal system appropriate our most effective language for nefarious, “cringe” ends. This moment is our opportunity to reclaim the second wave’s best ideas and apply them to our current situation. Our foremothers called cultural misogyny into question; as it persists, we can do the same by rejecting fashion feminism, raising consciousness, prioritizing solidarity, having empathy, and voting for women.

References

[1] Doherty, Caitlín. “A Feminist Style.” New Left Review. July 7, 2023. https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/a-feminist-style

[2] Fraser, Nancy. Fortunes of Feminism: From State Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis, p. 472. Verso Books. 2013.

[3] Kaplan, Thomas. “Elizabeth Warren Apologizes at Native American Forum: ‘I Have Listened and I Have Learned.’” The New York Times. August 19, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american.html 
[4] Powell, Michael. “A Vanishing Word in Abortion Debate: ‘Women’.” The New York Times. June 8, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/women-gender-aclu-abortion.html

Madeleine Broussard is an English major at Mount Holyoke College. She is an editor for an on-campus pop culture publication and serves on a Student Government Association committee. Outside of school, Madeleine enjoys reality TV, poetry, writing Yelp reviews, and deep-fried food.

Anita Hill: From A Woman Scorned, A Voice is Born

By Gabriella Majeski, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

It’s 1991 on the Senate floor. Former coworker of Clarence Thomas takes the stand, testifying against him as she shares details regarding multiple inappropriate sexual advances that Thomas made onto her. Little did Anita Hill know that her testimony would polarize the United States as questions of gender equality, safety in the workplace, and survivor stories began to arise. Due to their publicity as well as the poor treatment Hill faced from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the hearings propelled a record number of women entering politics the following year, coining 1992 as the “Year of The Woman” (Senate.gov). The repercussions of the Thomas confirmation hearings still ripple into political discourse today, making them one of the most influential public displays of gender and racial inequality in the United States.

Anita Faye Hill was born on July 30, 1956, in rural Love Tree, Oklahoma. As the youngest of thirteen children, she spent most of her childhood working on her family farm and heavily indulging in her studies. After graduating high school as valedictorian, she went on to receive a degree in psychology from Oklahoma State University in 1977 (Blatty). Three years later, she earned a law degree from Yale Law School. Her success in education led her to a job at a law firm, which she soon quit for a position with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. She served as legal advisor to Clarence Thomas, the assistant secretary of civil rights at the time. It was during this time that Thomas made multiple unwanted sexual advances towards Hill before he was promoted to be Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982. Hill left her position with Thomas shortly after in 1983 and began teaching at Oral Roberts University. She joined The University of Oklahoma three years later as its first tenured Black Professor. During her time at The University of Oklahoma, she taught commerce and contract law. However, the projectile of her career would soon shift in 1991 once she took the stand in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On October 11, 1991, Anita Hill testified before an all-white, male Senate Judiciary Committee against her former coworker as he was set to be confirmed to join the Supreme Court. The televised hearings propelled her into the spotlight in front of millions of Americans across the country. As she began her testimony, Hill was met with multiple remarks from the Committee that seemed to attempt to undermine her experience and discredit her argument, deeming her an “unreliable source.” She was shamed by the Committee and the right-wing American public as she described her inappropriate experiences with Thomas in graphic detail. Clarence Thomas denied all of the accusations made by Hill, claiming that the matter was a “liberal concoction” that was meant to circumvent his appointment to the Supreme Court. To this day, Thomas still denies all of the claims, naming Hill his “most treacherous adversary” in his 2007 autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son (Stolberg).

It is important to note that Anita Hill did not stand alone with such allegations; multiple women requested to testify in front of the Committee as well, but were either dismissed or ignored. Ultimately, Clarence Thomas was confirmed on October 16, 1991, by a 52-48 vote, the smallest margin for any judge on the current Supreme Court.

The televised hearings divided American opinions on the matter: some agreed with the Senate Judiciary Committee, believing that Hill made her claims for publicity and national attention. Others were outraged as they watched her leave the courtroom without justice and found the Committee’s treatment of her degrading and sexist. Some even began to wear pins of solidarity that read “I believe Anita” (Bennett). Despite this polarization, one thing stood clear: the outrage caused by the hearings led to a historic number of women running for and winning political positions the following year, coining 1992 as the “Year of The Woman” (Senate.gov). Furthermore, Anita Hill’s testimony is often credited with raising awareness about gender-based violence and harassment in the workplace and served as an early spark to the ignition of the #MeToo movement.

Anita Hill left her position at The University of Oklahoma in 1996 after facing multiple threats to her personal safety, as well as public calls for her resignation. Two years later, she began working at Brandeis University as a visiting scholar. She later became a professor at the institution in 2015 (Tikkanen). She led a private life after being submerged in chaos following the hearings, often shying away from any article, documentary, interview, or publicity regarding her experience. But that all changed with the emergence of the #MeToo movement, as political tensions began to rise within topics of women’s rights, gender equality, and sexual assault awareness. After changing her career focus onto gender equality, she explained in a New York Times article (cite) how she hoped to help other women “find their voice” just as she did. The 20th anniversary of the hearings inspired her to step back into the public eye with her documentary “Anita” (2014). Since the documentary’s release, Hill has remained vocal in her advocacy for gender equality, as well as on the topic of her testimony. In 2019, she received a call from current President Joe Biden, who was a presidential candidate at the time. During the conversation, he apologized for his behavior during the hearings, but according to Anita Hill, sorry was not enough. Action had to be taken before she would accept any apology. In her own words:

“I will be satisfied when I know that there is real change and real accountability and real purpose” (Adams).

It is clear to see that although Anita Hill’s testimony may not have halted Clarence Thomas’ confirmation, her story led to a rise in awareness regarding issues of gender equality in the U.S. Since then, she has inspired thousands of women to find their voice, vocalize their survivor stories, and even join the male-dominated political field to incite positive change and action. With this in mind, it is even more apparent that Anita Hill’s agenda is far from finished if true change is to be made. It is vital that U.S. citizens remember and learn from her story in order to ensure that future objections will be met with inclusion, acceptance and justice.

References

[1] Blatty, David. “Anita Hill''. Bibliography.com. March 30, 2021. https://www.biography.com/activists/anita-hill

[2] US Government. “Year of the Woman”. Senate.gov. 2023. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/year_of_the_woman.htm

[3] Pruitt, Sarah. “How Anita Hill’s Testimony Made America Cringe-And Change”. History. February 9, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/anita-hill-confirmation-hearings-impact

[4] Tikkanen, Amy. “Anita Hill”. Britannica. July 18, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anita-Hill

[5] Adams, Biba. “Anita Hill speaks on waiting nearly 30 years for Joe Biden apology”. Yahoo News. September 28, 2021. https://news.yahoo.com/anita-hill-speaks-waiting-nearly-141502687.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWNvc2lhLm9yZy8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABKi2mOEXd8MihkhCgAlZcLRdRRUCVNSvHkxn-8mJZ0b0kck8yxHp4xHMLXH6q-QlicvY9FW8VnZuXTdMLMIy443wFHdho_PqqfEGzADkF0zxU1cQTARKCywyee9dBPO7QCsIpqScCq2EHCgvoZbj9GkRjDDUbPwKql2N6ncqKoj

[6] Stolberg, Sheryl. Hulse, Carl. “Joe Biden Expresses Regret to Anita Hill, but She Says ‘I’m Sorry’ Is Not Enough”. The New York Times. April 25, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-anita-hill.html?module=inline

[7] Bennett, Jessica. “Anita Hill Has Some Perspective to Offer”. The New York Times. September 25, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/books/anita-hill-believing.html

[8] Moon, Jeenah. Bennett, Jessica. “How History Changed Anita Hill”. The New York Times. June 17, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/anita-hill-women-power.html

[9] Stolberg, Sheryl. “Standing by Her Story”. The New York Times. March 12, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/204/03/16/movies/anita-hill-is-celebrated-in-the-documentary-anita.html

[10] Bennett, Jessica. “The ‘Click’ Moment: How the Weinstein Scandal Unleashed a Tsunami”. The New York Times. November 5, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/sexual-harrasment-weinstein-trump.html

Gabriella Majeski is a rising sophomore at Brandeis University and intends to double major in politics and women, gender and sexuality studies, as well as a German and legal studies double minor. In addition to her commitment to community service and activism on and off campus, she competes for the Club Gymnastics Team and works as a tour guide. She hopes to attend law school and work in social media marketing for a political campaign after graduation. 

The Political Past and Present of Disability Pride Month

By Emma Quirk, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Disability Pride Month has been celebrated in the United States each July since 1990. Disabled people make up the largest marginalized group in the U.S., with about 26 percent of the population having a disability. That means about one in four Americans — of all genders, ethnicities, races, and classes — have at least one disability. Despite making up a significant portion of the country, disabled people and their lives, needs, and contributions are often overlooked and ignored. 

In 1990, the proposed Americans with Disabilities Act — which protects people with disabilities from discrimination — had been stalled in Congress, prompting disability rights advocates to protest at the Capitol and White House. On March 12, the Capitol Crawl, as it is now known, occurred. Members of the Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit or ADAPT, with about 1000 other protestors watching, began to crawl and climb the steps of the west Capitol entrance in order to visibility demonstrate the inaccessibility that disabled people face in the U.S.. This protest was successful, and the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990. 

Following this, the first Disability Pride Day was held in Boston, Massachusetts. Since then, other cities have followed suit, and Disability Pride celebrations and parades occur each year. 

In 2016, writer and activist Ann Magill started creating the Disability Pride Flag. As a woman with cerebral palsy and a member of the disability community herself, Magill wanted to create a flag of solidarity, pride, and acceptance. The original flag featured a black background with bright blue, yellow, white, red, and green zigzag stripes. “[I wanted] to represent how disabled people have to maneuver around all the barriers we face. We have to go this way, and then we have to go that way, and then we have to go this way and then we have to go that way. And that’s how we move through the world,” Magill said on an episode of The Accessible Stall podcast. In 2021, she redesigned the flag to be less visually overwhelming, after receiving suggestions from people with migraines, seizures, sensory sensitivities, and other conditions that can be visually triggered. To make the flag more accessible, the updated version features more muted colors and softer lines. 

Each color on the flag depicts an important aspect of the disability community. The charcoal black background represents the mourning of disabled people who have been lost or victimized by ableism-fueled violence. The diagonal band of colors metaphorically “cuts through” barriers that disabled people face; the green stripe signifies sensory disabilities including deafness, blindness, and other sensory conditions; the blue stripe signifies psychiatric disabilities, including depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders, the white stripe signifies invisible or undiagnosed disabilities; the yellow/gold stripe signifies cognitive and intellectual disabilities and other neurodivergence; and the red stripe signifies physical disabilities. These colors are the six standard international flag colors, meant to denote that the disability community exists throughout the world. 

While July has been recognized by some as Disability Pride Month since 1990, in 2022 Congresswoman Betty McCollum a Democrat from Minnesota, Congressman Ken Calvert a Republican from California, Senator Amy Klobuchar a Democrat from Minnesota, and Senator Rob Portman a Republican from Ohio, introduced a bipartisan, bicameral resolution recognizing July as Disability Pride Month, celebrating contributions of disabled Americans, and underscoring the importance of preventing exclusion and discrimination based on ability. “Though Disability Pride has long been celebrated each July within the disability community, it is not yet recognized on the federal level. That's why I am introducing a resolution with Congressman Calvert in the House, alongside Senators Klobuchar and Portman in the Senate, to mark this commemorative month and affirm that people with disabilities are valued and equal members of our communities and our society. Much more work remains to advance the rights of the disability community, stop stigma, and increase accessibility. Establishing Disability Pride Month will not only serve to raise awareness about this movement but will also shine a light on the community's many positive contributions to our nation's rich diversity,” McCollum said. Klobuchar noted that “By designating July as Disability Pride Month, this bipartisan resolution honors the many contributions Americans with disabilities have made to our country and acknowledges the need to continue the fight to address the barriers that Americans with disabilities face.” 

This resolution was in partnership with 20 organizations, led by Gillette Children’s Hospital of St. Paul, Minnesota. These groups wrote a letter on July 5, 2022, urging for the recognition of Disability Pride Month. The letter states that “The ADA was only a starting point, and there remains significant room for progress towards a more equitable and inclusive country for all people living with a disability…There is still much work to be done…[Disability Pride Month] will provide opportunities for participation and education, and spread awareness of disability justice, inclusion, intersectionality, and accessibility and contribute to advocacy for the rights of children and adults who have disabilities as well as help confront ableism and systemic discrimination.” On July 26, Calvert and Klobuchar’s resolution was shared.

While disability justice has come a long way, there is still a lot of work to be done to achieve a truly inclusive society for all people, regardless of ability. Disabled people are underrepresented in positions of leadership, political and otherwise. It is important to listen to disabled people, hear their own experiences and stories directly from them, and fight for equality and equity always. 

References

[1] Devault, Nancy. “Here’s What the Disability Pride Flag Represents.” AmeriDisability. July 11, 2023. https://www.ameridisability.com/heres-what-the-disability-pride-flag-represents/.  

[2] “Disability Pride Month.” The Valuable 500. June 28, 2023. https://www.thevaluable500.com/spotlight/disability-pride-month. 

[2] “Disability Rights Activists Make ‘Capitol Crawl’ for the ADA.” The Zinn Education Project. https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/capitol-crawl-for-ADA/.  

[3] Gillette Children’s, et al. “Disability Pride Month Support Letter.” July 5, 2022. https://aahd.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DisabilityPrideMonthResolution-SenKlobucherRepMcCullum-GilletteChildrens-July5-supportletter.pdf. 

[4] “McCollum, Calvert, Klobuchar, Portman, Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Resolution Recognizing Disability Pride Month.” McCollum.House.gov. July 26, 2022. https://mccollum.house.gov/media/press-releases/mccollum-calvert-klobuchar-portman-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-resolution. 

Emma Quirk is a rising sophomore at Mount Holyoke College and is double majoring in English and Critical Social Thought. On campus, Emma is a staff writer and photos editor for Mount Holyoke News and works as a student fellow in the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Day of Action Speaker: Emma Dillon

By Gia Clarke, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Last week, Power in Place had the privilege of meeting Emma Dillon, the Vice President of Voter Engagement of Mission Control. Mission Control is a campaign company dedicated to promoting Democratic candidates primarily through mail-in voting. Dillon has had many accomplishments while she has been working with Mission Control. She helped execute the largest mobilization and voter registration initiatives worldwide.

Prior to her political work in campaigning, Dillon has always been passionate about politics since she was young. As her parents were foreign correspondents for the New York Times, Dillon was always aware of worldly politics. Dillon recalls her first impactful political act when she was just ten years old living in Mexico City, “It was the presidential election and a new party with a surging populist candidate won, and I was super engaged in that election…I just thought that it was really interesting.” Her passion for politics has guided her toward a BA in International Relations and Affairs with a minor in Women’s Studies from Tufts University.

Working at Mission Control, however, is not a cakewalk. There are many tribulations that come with the triumphs. Due to the main way of Mission Control’s engagement being mail-in voting, the Trump Administration convinced a lot of people that mail-in voting was not a great way to vote: “One of the things that happened in 2020, there was a huge surge in vote-by-mail through the pandemic, and the president started to target vote-by-mail, and so that was strategically challenging for us” Dillon says. Despite these challenges, however, Emma loves how rewarding her political work is, and how it feels as though she is making a difference in the world.

Power in Place also had the privilege of gaining valuable insight on how to execute our Day of Action initiatives from someone with Emma’s level of experience. Dillon gave us some great tips, such as ways to effectively message people who might be opposed to your initiative.

Dillon continues to be a powerful inspiration to many who also aspire to make a difference in the U.S. with the campaign work that she does, and she has definitely inspired all of us at Power in Place to make our own Day of Action initiatives as effective as possible.

Gia Clarke is a rising Sophomore at DePaul University. She is a journalism major with a minor in psychology. She is also passionate and heavily involved in advocacy work at DePaul, as she is the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion chair for DePaul’s Planned Parenthood Generation Action Committee. In her free time, she enjoys writing, playing electric guitar, crocheting, drawing, and reading. One day, she aspires to be a journalist that gets to travel and write about current events worldwide.

1992: The Year of the Woman

By Sean Skoog, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

The year 1992 holds a special place as the "Year of the Woman" in the United States Senate. It was a transformative time when women shattered glass ceilings and made their presence felt in the hallowed halls of Congress. In this blog, we will delve into the groundbreaking achievements and significant milestones that marked the extraordinary 1992 year for women in the US Senate.

Elections in 1992 saw an unprecedented wave of women succeeding in being elected to the US Senate. Inspired by the Anita Hill hearings and determined to bring about change, a record-breaking number of female candidates ran for office. This groundbreaking movement resulted in the election of four new women senators, tripling the number of women in the Senate from two to six. These trailblazers were Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who joined incumbent senators Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).

The success of these formidable women senators not only marked a numerical increase in female representation but also brought diverse perspectives and priorities to the forefront of national policymaking. With their presence, previously marginalized issues such as healthcare, education, and women's rights gained prominence on the Senate agenda. These women spearheaded legislation that championed gender equality, economic justice and social progress.

The six women senators of 1992 recognized the historic nature of their success and fostered a sense of camaraderie and solidarity. They formed a bipartisan caucus known as the "Women's Senate Network" to support each other's efforts and advance policies benefiting women and families. By transcending party lines, they showcased the power of collaboration and created a supportive space for other women senators to join in the future.

The presence of these six women senators had an important impact on national legislation. They played instrumental roles in sponsoring and passing landmark bills, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provided job-protected leave for employees to care for family members. Additionally, they fought for the Violence Against Women Act, which addressed domestic violence and sexual assault, and made significant strides in improving access to healthcare, education, and environmental protections.

The 1992 Year of the Woman in the US Senate inspired countless women across the nation to pursue careers in politics and public service. The success of these trailblazing senators challenged traditional gender roles and encouraged young women to believe in their ability to effect change. Their legacy continues to resonate, as subsequent elections have seen a steady increase in female representation in the Senate, building upon the foundation laid by these pioneering women.

This monumental year in the US Senate was a transformative chapter in American history, as women shattered barriers and made their voices heard in the highest legislative body. The historic election of four new women senators and the subsequent increase in female representation brought fresh perspectives, diverse priorities, and a renewed focus on gender equality to the forefront of national policymaking. Their collective achievements continue to inspire future generations of women to break barriers, fight for justice, and reshape the political landscape for a more inclusive and equitable society.

References

[1] “Year of the Woman,” U.S. Senate. November 3, 1992. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/year_of_the_woman.htm.

Sean Skoog is a rising junior at the University of Michigan majoring in Political Science. In his free time, he enjoys discussing and analyzing politics, traveling, and spending time with friends and family. One day, he hopes to be a campaign strategist for a high profile campaign.

Politics and Parenting: The Absence of Family Leave

By Molly McNamara, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

The United States is notoriously known as the only developed country in the world without paid maternity leave. While this is a sad reality that affects millions of American women and birthing people, it is something that many do not realize affects female elected officials. Many women hold off their political careers until their children reach adulthood, but more and more women with young children are recently being elected. Women should not feel that they need to put their lives on hold in order to raise their children. By providing access to paid family leave, women can have access to the resources that they need to focus on their children. 

Maternity and paternity leave allows parents to spend quality time with their newborn child in the most formative weeks of their lives. Mothers and fathers can connect with their child in a way that would not be possible without the security of paid time off. But the US does not guarantee this security as paid maternity leave is not federal law. Only 11 states offer paid family leave, some of which are California, New York, and Washington. Parents should not be forced to worry about finances when taking time off to care for their newborn. Financial security is necessary for new parents to be successful, especially during a time that has many other stressors. 

Women who are in elected positions have their fair share of stress, especially if they have children at home waiting for them. But taking care of a family should not hinder women from pursuing a political career. Resources should be in place to allow women to do it all. But the public does not see it that way. A Pew Research Center study found that 51 percent believe that women should have children before her political career or early on in her career. 26 percent believe that women should wait to have children until her career is well established, and 19 percent believe that she should not have children at all. While these statistics are enlightening on public views of motherhood and politics, a woman’s career and a woman’s family planning timeline should be able to intertwine. The proper resources such as paid family leave should allow her to do that. 

Some elected officials find themselves in difficult situations when having a child during their term. Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow gave birth during her time in office and found that she did not qualify for paid time off. Michigan has 12 weeks of paid parental leave for state employees, but since McMorrow is not a state employee but rather an elected official, she found that there is no parental leave for state legislators. She is then also forced to miss out on votes in committee and on the floor, as there is no way to vote remotely or proxy vote. This forces new mothers to choose between time with their newborn child and their political career.

Parenting is challenging as it is, but managing a political career at the same time may be considered impossible. Thankfully, this new generation of female elected officials is proving otherwise. Women with young children are infiltrating the political world. They are proving that you can have your cake and eat it too, but paid parental leave would make that a whole lot sweeter. Paid family leave is a human right and millions of women across the US deserve to have that security. 

 References

 [1] Miller, Claire Cain. “The World ‘Has Found a Way to Do This’: The US Lags on Paid Leave.” The New York Times. October 25, 2021

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/upshot/paid-leave-democrats.html#:~:text=Besides%20the%20United%20States%2C%20the,Papua%20New%20Guinea%20and%20Tonga.

 [2] National Conference of State Legislatures. “State Family and Medical Leave Laws.” NCSL. Sept. 9, 2022

https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-employment/state-family-and-medical-leave-laws#:~:text=Paid%20Family%20Leave,paid%20family%20and%20medical%20leave.

[3] Censky, Abigail. “With More Women in State Office, Family Leave Policies Have Not Caught Up.” NPR News. March 28, 2021

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/28/981730104/with-more-women-in-state-office-family-leave-policies-have-not-caught-up

[4] Igeilnik & Parker. “When should a woman have children if she’s thinking about running for office?” Pew Research. May 9, 2019

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/09/when-should-a-woman-have-children-if-shes-thinking-about-running-for-office/

Molly McNamara is a rising Junior at George Washington University. She is double majoring in Political Science and American Studies with a minor in Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. Molly is involved in the GW campus chapter of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and is interested in writing, mental health advocacy, and political engagement. After college she hopes to either enter the political realm or nonprofit work in hopes to create a more equitable society.

.

The Evolution of LGBTQ+ History and Rights in the United States

By Katerina Svoronos, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

In the news recently there has been a lot of discussion about the rights and freedoms that are protected for the LGBTQ+ community. There was a Supreme Court case in which a woman argued she had the right to deny making websites for people in the community. The case was called 303 Creative v. Elenis. She argued that making the website would be a violation of her first amendment right and her religious freedom. Unfortunately, the court ruled in her favor. This is unfortunate because it becomes a gateway for people to freely discriminate against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Even just yesterday a woman who owns a Michigan hair salon referred to trans and non-binary people as “pet groomers”, and told them to take their business elsewhere.  This is just the first case of many to come because of this ruling. However, not all decisions made by the government have harmed LGBTQ+ individuals. Some were positive. So let us take a look at the history of the community in the United States and the rights that they have so far. 

People of different sexualities and gender identities have existed since the start of time. There is evidence that gay and lesbian couples existed in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. However, those relationships were in a very different capacity to the way they are today. The first concrete example of support for this community was in 1924, when Henry Gerber founded the Society for Human Rights, the first gay rights organization. A large part of the next few decades was the attempt to integrate LGBTQ+ people into mainstream society, and to encourage people to not treat them like second class citizens. This was a difficult uphill battle, with lots of bumps in the road. In the early 1950s, many jobs were taken from LGBTQ+ people in an event known infamously as the lavender scare. Most of the jobs were in government service and it was known as the lavender scare because it mirrored the red scare in a lot of ways. People were afraid of communism and were also afraid of LGBTQ+ people. President Eisenhower signed an executive order that banned people in the community from working any government jobs. Homosexuality was declared a mental illness and the LGBTQ+ community was facing mass discrimination across the United States. 

In 1956, however, the LGBTQ+ community faced a massive turning point, which became a milestone in their history. A psychologist concluded that there were no real differences between a heterosexual person and a homosexual person besides who they were sexually attracted to. This caused some people to begin to reconsider their previous notions. Finally in 1962, Illinois was the first state to repeal their sodomy laws and the movement began to shift. Integration into society was still a large goal of the movement, but now people in the community started to feel that they could express themselves more freely than they were able to before. Then finally, what may be known as the most famous event in LGBTQ+ history in America, occurred: the Stonewall riots. The LGBTQ+ movement gained more traction as people began to feel fired up and angry about the discrimination and bad treatment they had faced. People within the movement started to band together to make a more material movement. One year after the Stonewall riots occurred, thousands of people gathered in the park to protest and also celebrate, which then became known as the first pride parade. In 1973, the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality as a mental illness from their manual, and thus began some open acceptance of the community. 

Unfortunately, there was a pretty severe turn in the 1980s when a lot of gay men contracted AIDS.  It reinforced homophobia and although sodomy laws were pretty much completely repealed, it made some people believe the laws should be reinstated. Former President Ronald Reagan, who was president during a large part of the epidemic, did not take AIDS seriously in any way. His staff and he pretty much laughed it off and made almost no efforts to solve it. Eventually he began to take it a bit more seriously and began to act on it, but many people died at his hands. The AIDS epidemic was a dark moment in history for the LGBTQ+ community, but they came out of it quite resilient. 

In 1993 the don’t ask, don't tell policy was put into place. This barred anyone hiring from discriminating against a job applicant based on their sexuality. While this policy was problematic, the intentions behind it changed a lot of things for the movement, mostly in a positive way. And while President Clinton signed a law into place stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, some states began to repeal their marriage laws, allowing homosexual couples to get married. Vermont was the first state to do so. Finally, in the landmark supreme court Obergefell v. Hodges, gay marriage was finally legalized in 2015. 

The LGBTQ+ community still faces many challenges today. From the Don’t Say Gay bill introduced in Florida by Governor Ron de Santis to the limits on health protection for transgender individuals, there are still many battles to be won. While people in the community are protected against acts of discrimination or hate, they are still treated as second class citizens in a variety of ways. The recent supreme court case is a testament to that. Voting and protesting are so important nowadays in order for these issues to change. Hopefully, with those two things in place the community will have a brighter future. 

References

Gresko, Jessica. “The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples.” AP News. June 30, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-website-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5

“Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement.” PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/stonewall-milestones-american-gay-rights-movement/

Boboltz, Sara. “This Michigan Hair Salon Owner Will Apparently Refuse Trans and Queer Clients.” Huffington Post. July 11, 2023. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michigan-hair-salon-lgbtq-discrimination_n_64adb6a6e4b03d308d97e287

Lopez, German. “The Reagan administration’s unbelievable response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.” Vox. December 1, 2016. 

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9828348/ronald-reagan-hiv-aids

Katerina Svoronos is a rising sophomore at Haverford College. She is an intended political science major with a concentration in international relations and law. She hopes to be a journalist one day and would love to work for the New York Times. In her free time she loves watching movies, hanging out with family and friends, and exploring new places.