cOpinion


Page 6

Thursday; June 17, 1982.

The Michigan Daily

i

The Michigan Daily
Vol. XCII, No. 31-S
Ninety-two Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students
at the University of Michigan
Free expression
T HE ONLY AVENUE citizens of this state
have to directly change or propose a law is
to initiate a petition among the registered
voters. Now that right has been severely ham-
pered by a Washtenaw County Circuit judge's
ruling.
Last week, Judge Ross Campbell issued a
restraining order barring a group from collec-
ting signatures at Briarwood shopping mall. At
issue was whether citizens have the same right
to free expression on private property as they
do on publicly-owned property.
In effect, the ruling nullifies free speech
rights on private property. Judge Campbell has
said that the courts only can intercede when
free speech rights are being infringed upon on
public property. The owners of Briarwood,
however, have created a public forum, yet they
restrict the public's use of it.
While the U.& Supreme Court has ruled that
freedom of expression on private property is
not guaranteed by the Constitution, it also has
said that states have the authority to go beyond
federal law and mandate more liberal citizen
rights if they see fit. The high court also has
ruled that California's constitution gives
petitioners right of access to privately-owned
shopping malls.
Of course, this state should not necessarily
follow California's lead, but the wording of the
section of Michigan's constitution that covers
freedom of expression rights is almost identical
to that of California. And since petitioning is the
only way citizens can directly effect state law,
Michigan should grant greater leeway for such
initiatives to encourage citizens to actively par-
ticipate in the democratic process.-
Briarwood claims that it should have an "at-
tractive" atmosphere, and that precludes
people soliciting signatures for popular
referendums. But clearly, a few petitioners
would not damage the atmosphere of a shop-
ping mall covering more than 170 acres with 128
stores enough to discourage business. Petition
groups, however, could suffer considerably
from restricted access to such malls.
No one is suggesting that Briarwood should
open its doors to 500 petitioners, but the
management could set reasonable restrictions
that allow groups to petition at set times in set
numbers.
Judge Campbell erred in his ruling, but a
similar case in Grand Rapids is being appealed
to the state appellate courts. Until the courts
reverse his decision and those of several other
court judges around the state, shopping malls
will continue to infringe upon citizens'
legitimate rights to assemble, express, and
petition freely.

Celebrate with Phyllis:
The death of the ERA

4

By David Spak
Amendment XX VII (Proposed)
Section 1. Equality of rights under
the law shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or any state on
account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have
the power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this ar-
ticle.
Section 3. This amendment shall
take effect two years after the date of
ratification.
It's party time for Phyllis
Schafly and her fellow Stop
ERAers. Time to pop the corks on
several bottles of champagne and
celebrate the death of the Equal
Rights Amendment.
Ain't ita cryin' shame.
It's a cryin' shame that
something so basic as the
guarantee of equalarights regar-
dless of a person's sex failed to
pass in even one state, let alone in
fifteen.
And it has always amazed me
that the basic argument against
the amendment is that it will for-
ce women into combat roles in
the armed forces in the event of a
draft, and subsequent war. It
amazes me because I cannot see
how that threat (who knows if it
would become a reality?) has
caused the defeat of the amen-
dment.
THE REAL reason, behind all
the rhetoric and all the shouting,
is plain old-fashioned male
chauvinism spurred and suppor-
ted by Schafly and her com-
panions.
Think about it. When was the
last time you heard an argument
against the ERA other than the
women-in-the-armed-forces stuff?
I, for one, can't think of a logical,
or even half-decent illogical
argument against the ERA. No,
the unisex bathroom argument
does not count as alogical or even
half-decent illogical stance
against the amendment.
After watching the local news
in Chicago a few weeks ago, and
listening to reports about the
women in Illinois who are on a
hunger strike on behalf of the
amendment, Schafly's banter
against them, and the efforts in
the state legislature to even vote
on the legislation, I turned to my
father and we started discussing
the absolutely absurd goings on.
I LAUGHED IN disgust and
said, "I really can't believe tis
whole thing. It is so basic it's
ridiculous!"
I then proceeded to curse
Schafly and her arguments.
My father then gave me the
standard wohlen-sn-the-army

4

4

Phyllis Schafly and the Stop ERA poster child

argument: "Do you want your
sister (she's 23) to fight in a
war?"
I explained to him that the
amendment would only prevent
the infringement of a person's
rights on the basis of sex and
makes no reference whatsoever
to women being forced to serve
next to men in the army.
I CONTINUED to briefly say
how muddled and confused the
entire question has become,
mired in rhetoric on both sides
that completely ignores the only
real question involved: Should
the United States Constitution
guarantee a person's rights
without consideration of the per-
son's gender?
When confronted with that
question, my father simply said,
"Well.. . "
Which, when you get past the
rhetoric, is the answer you'll get
from Schafly and any other anti-
ERA person.
There are no good reasons to
vote against the amendment. No
good reasons other than to keep
women "in their place." Cer-
tainly no one is going to say that
unless he is an absolute fool.
BUT WHY else would an
Illinois legislator change his
mind and decide to vote against a
key rules change in that state. He
said his decision was in protest of
the hunger strikers, that they
were not going about persuading
people in the "right" way.
The issue has become so mud-
died in Illinois that the recent
battles there were not over the
amendment itself, but on whether
passing the ERA in both houses of
the legislature would require a

simple majority or a three-fifths
majority. That vote has yet to
come, up due to some nifty
parliamentary maneuvering by
ERA opponents, all but killing the
amendment in the state con-
sidered one of the last hopes for
passage before the June 30
deadline. Illinois is the only
major state that requires
anything more than a simple
majority to ratify this amen-
dment.
But I must give Schafly credit
for defeating the amendment by
using excellent tactics: Don't
argue about the principle of equal
rights; threaten people by saying
the ERA will destroy the family
and by telling women they'll have
to fight in wars; and let the men
handle the voting in the state
legislature.
You know, when you can't win
the argument, change the
argument.
mSo now, as time runs out on the
Equal Rights Amendment it ap-
pears that for the first time in our
history, the several of the United
States have failed to pass an
amendment to our constitution
that, would have truly expanded
individual rights, breaking a
tradition that began with the Bill
of Rights itself almost 200 years
ago. We went t* war with our-
selves in the lSmnd the 1960s to
give blacks those rights.
But now, after a similar battle,
those who would deny an equal
guarantee of those rights for
women have won.
Hoorah for regressivism and
pass the champagne.
Spakis aDaily staff writer.

4

4

4