Understanding the Equal Rights Amendment and its on-campus impact

Next Monday will mark the start of the 2022 Legislative Session in Minnesota. A group of students from CSB/SJU will be traveling to the capitol to participate in a rally that will advocate for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution.

It is little known and little realized that neither Minnesota nor the United States Constitution have an amendment that specifically provides protection under the law regardless of gender.

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

That is the text of the original Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which was passed by the United States Senate in 1972, then consequently sent to all 50 states to be ratified. Given a seven-year deadline, the ERA needed to be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become what then would have been the 27th amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the amendment was only ratified by 35 states, falling short of the necessary 38 and was effectively rejected. Minnesota was one of the 35 states that chose to ratify the ERA.

Since then, 26 states have passed state constitutional amendments from the original Equal Rights Amendment text, or their own version, ensuring that protection on the basis of gender is a reality in their respective states.

Minnesota is not one of those states.

In 2019, two versions of the Equal Rights Amendment passed through the Minnesota House, but neither reached the Minnesota Senate. In order for either bill to make it on the Minnesota ballot in 2022, it has to pass through the Senate this spring during the Minnesota Legislative session.

The reality that this protection doesn’t already exist in either the Minnesota or United States Constitution is embarrassing. Although the 14th Amendment includes the Equal Protection Clause, specific protection with regards to gender, rather than sex, is necessary.

The passing of such an amendment turned controversial in Minnesota when Republicans introduced a bill with the language of “sex” to counter the Democrats bill with the language of “gender.”

Not only is such an argument outdated, it also speaks to the blatant disregard of the needs and wants of Minnesotans by Republicans in the Minnesota Senate. When the version of the ERA specifically naming gender, rather than sex, passed through the Minnesota House in 2019, 55 members voted against it, a testament to polarization in the Minnesota Legislature.

Now is the time to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in Minnesota.

Although this conversation at the state capitol may seem far and distant for some students, the recent push for the Equal Rights Amendment to be added to the Minnesota Constitution raises questions critical to our own experiences at CSB/SJU.

Since the founding of each institution, there have been conversations surrounding the treatment, standards and expectations of Bennies compared to Johnnies for many years. These voices have rang continually louder in recent years, especially as the perspective that this is “one experience” has grown.

It is essential to understand that going forward, this dialogue will carry more weight.

This year, the schools will transition from a “Coordinate Relationship” to a system of “Stronger Integration,” highlighted by a joint-operating agreement (JOA) that will legally bring CSB and SJU closer than ever before. Though the schools are not fully merging, this strategic partnership seeks to combine some administrative aspects to operate more efficiently.

Next fall, we will have one President, one Board of Trustees, one General Counsel, one faculty, one academic curriculum and much more that is shared between the two schools. The Record Editorial Board’s 2011 question stating “Is a midnight bus essentially the only thing to remind students we aren’t truly joined?” is now more relevant than ever.

We have to be acutely aware of how the Equal Rights Amendment is relevant to our campuses.