Jennifer Jess PS 375 – Prof. Clark 29 July 2010 Backlash to Brown, ERA, and Moral Decay The popular phrase that history is written by the “victors” is evident in that so many know the famous speeches of Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., the names of the women who fought for suffrage, the rock ‘n roll “devil music” artists, and the general acceptance of sex and violence in all mediums. But the opposition to these movements is not as well scrutinized by the general public. The three documents discussed here are responses to three social movements. Each document states what they perceive to be the problem, why it’s a problem, and a rallying cry for a counterattack. ‘The Southern Manifesto’ is a statement supported by about a hundred congressmen who represent eleven southern states principally affected by Brown v. Board of Ed. Their main grievances are the violation of states’ rights, the infringement on the southern culture, and the use of judicial activism as all previous laws reinforced ‘separate but equal’. This document is an example of how two years after Brown was decided the southern representatives felt the pressure from their electorate to declare to the United States that they did not appreciate “outside meddlers” creating an “explosive and dangerous condition.” The statement ends by commending those who have lawfully resisted integration, request that people refrain from disorder and provocation, appeal to the greater public to recognize that there may be a time when they “may be the victims of judicial encroachment,” and that they will use all lawful means to reverse this decision. ‘What’s Wrong with Equal Rights for Women?’ is Phyllis Schlafly’s response to the Equal Rights Amendment, along with the overall women’s liberation movement. A conservative political activist and lawyer, Schlafly’s main argument is summed up by, “Why should we lower ourselves to “equal rights” when we already have that status of special privilege?” Her claim of special privilege comes first because she believes that the United States holds the family as the basic unit of society and as such women are at an advantage to men. Secondly, in western society, the tradition of chivalry demands women receive special respect. And finally that technology has lifted backbreaking work off the shoulders of women. She believes that the Equal Rights movement is unrepresentative of women and is intentionally trying to make wives and mothers unhappy with their career. She ends with a rally to get the message to Senators, television, and radio stations to not allow “women’s libbers [to] deprive wives and mothers of the rights we now posses.” 'Rise Up Against the Tide of Permissiveness and Moral Decay’ is part of a book Jerry Falwell wrote to criticize the changing culture of the United States. He believed that it had moved away from conventional gender roles, conservative Christian traditions, and who’s government redistributed wealth through social programs. The main weapons of this “war against the family” are the “cult of the playboy” – which rewarded swingers rather than a committed family man, and the feminist revolution – which was a reaction to the playboys, but are prioritizing self‐satisfaction over the needs of the family. Falwell’s conclusion is that it is the responsibility of the Christian public to reverse these trends, that husbands must retake their role as godly leader of their Christian family, and that, “We as a nation must take a Bible position on morality and begin to teach it everywhere, beginning in our homes, in our schoolrooms, in our communities, and in our states.” 'The Southern Manifesto,' (Southern Congressional Delegation, 3/12/56) These are the grounds that Southern Congressmen felt justified for supporting “lawful” resistance to the realization of Brown; for seeking support from the greater American public for “justice”; and for seeking a reversal through the courts and/or Congress. Southern Congressional Points of Issue: ¾ Judicial Activism: The Supreme Court’s decision was one of judicial activism which goes against the system of checks and balances. o The Supreme Court abused its judicial power when it fell to whims of “temporary popular passion or… personal predilections…” ¾ Precedent: Plessy distinguished that separate but equal was legal for states to enforce. o Neither the Constitution nor any of its amendments address education and the intent of the 14th Amendment’s framers can be seen in that they had “provided for segregated schools in the District of Columbia.” ¾ States’ Rights: The constitutional doctrine of separate but equal originated in the North and spread throughout the United States "…until they, exercising their rights as states through the constitutional processes of local self‐government, changed their school systems." o Precedent in Lum v. Rice that the "separate but equal" principle is "within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools…" ¾ Southern Society: The society in the South was told for the past hundred years that the interpretation and legal principle of “separate but equal” was practical. They adopted it into their culture and Brown has caused disorder. o "[Brown] is creating chaos and confusion… destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races… It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding. 'Rise Up Against the Tide of Permissiveness and Moral Decay' (Jerry Falwell, 1980­­#33 in MacLean) •
A call for conservative Christian insurgency for the sake of the republic to reverse the “trends of decay” that are enjoyed by liberals, pornographers, smut‐peddlers, and youth corruptors. o The republic must return to small government as it currently has absolute power. o “…we have exchanged freedom for security… dependence rather than liberty… brainwashed by television and textbooks to believe that it is the responsibility of government to take resources from some and bestow them upon others.” •
Falwell uses disagreeable changes in culture to spur his community from apathy towards action against social services, the ERA, and a liberal society. He uses an “Us vs. Them” tactic: •
The War Against the Family has the following weapons: o
the cult of the playboy ‐ the philosophy of swingers rather than committed family man o
the feminist revolution ‐ a counter cult to the playboy which contains: •
an immoral lifestyle •
the view of motherhood as "unrewarding, unfulfilling, and boring" •
a spiritual problem as, "many women have never accepted their God‐given roles" • “Women need to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and be under His Lordship. They need a man who knows Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and they need to be part of a home where their husband is a godly leader and where there is a Christian family. . .” 'What's Wrong with Equal Rights for Women?' (Phyllis Schlafly, 1972­­#24 in MacLean) Schlafly’s position is to support the norm. Her tactics are to convince the public and policy makers that “women’s libbers” are a minority and that ERA would harm women rather than help them. Women are privileged because: 1. Our civilization respects the family as the basic unit of society and as such women are privileged. • As women bear the physical cost children, men are legally and economically responsible • Children are a woman's best social security… old age pension, unemployment/workers’ comp, and sick leave. The family gives a woman the physical, financial and emotional security of the home‐ for all her life. 2. Financial benefits and special respect which dates from the Christian Age of Chivalry. • “In other civilizations, such as the African and the American Indian, the men strut around wearing feathers and beads and hunting and fishing…, while the women do all the hard, tiresome drudgery including the tilling of the soil…, the hewing of wood, the making of fires, the carrying of water, as well as the cooking, sewing and caring for babies.” 3. The real liberation of women is technology that releases us from grueling "women's work" The Fraud of the Equal Rights Movement • They claim to speak for all women. • “Women's libbers are trying to make wives and mothers unhappy with their career, make them feel that they are "second‐class citizens" and "abject slaves." Women's libbers are promoting free sex instead of the "slavery" of marriage. They are promoting Federal "day‐care centers" for babies instead of homes. They are promoting abortions instead of families. . .” So, what's wrong with Equal Rights? • The proposed Equal Rights Amendment states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." From “What the Equal Rights Amendment Means” (Alton, Ill.: STOP ERA, [mid­1970s], broadside). ERA will make every wife in the U.S. legally responsible to provide 50% of the financial support of her family. ERA will wipe out a woman’s present freedom of choice to take a paying job or be a fulltime wife and mother supported by her husband. ERA will make women subject to the draft. ERA will put women on warships and make them subject to combat duty on an equal basis with men regardless of whether we have a draft or not. ERA will eliminate the preferential Social Security benefits women now enjoy. ERA will wipe out many protective labor laws which benefit women. ERA will knock out present laws protecting women from sex crimes such as statutory rape and forced prostitution. ERA will integrate boys’ and girls’ physical education classes in high schools and colleges. ERA will jeopardize present lower life insurance rates for women. ERA could create havoc in prisons and reform schools by preventing segregation of the sexes. ERA will nullify thousands of present laws which protect women, and will transform every provision of law concerning women into a constitutional issue that will ultimately have to be resolved by the Supreme Court. ERA does not guarantee better paying jobs, promotions or better working conditions. The equal employment opportunity act and other laws already guarantee women “equal pay for equal work” and need only to be enforced to ensure women equal opportunity. Discussion Questions: What type or group of people did Jerry Falwell appeal to? Time ran an article (3/26/1956) about the implications of the Southern Manifesto stating, “Many signers regretted the manifesto and its party‐splitting implications. Said one Southern Senator: "Now, if these Northerners won't attack us and get mad and force us to close ranks, most of us will forget the whole thing and maybe we can pretty soon pretend it never happened." It was not that easy: during the week, a succession of Northern Democrats attacked the manifesto. Not a Southerner arose in reply.” So if many of the Senators did not write the document believing that they could gain sympathies from the North (as claimed), who was their real audience? What were Schlefly’s fears and concerns? Were her conclusions on the effect of the ERA realistic?