KTLA News: "California ratifies the Equal Rights Amendment" (1972)

Description:

The KTLA newsfilm collection at the UCLA Film & Television Archive consists of cut and unedited stories, outtakes and fill footage, originally shot on 16mm reversal film stock with magnetic soundtrack. Some footage, particularly material not used for broadcast, may be without sound.

Title: “California ratifies the Equal Rights Amendment.” Date: November 14, 1972.

Summary: At a press conference, an unidentified man states California is the 22nd state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which was designed to guarantee protection against sexual discrimination for women under the law. He talks about how the amendment will be a positive addition to the country, how the problems with systemic discrimination in the Constitution can be changed with amendments, and elaborates on the limited legal status of women at the time the Constitution was written. He and one of the women at the table discuss the issue of women serving in the military and respond to questions from the press. Footage includes some silent footage of reporters and speakers.

Learn more about this UCLA Film & Television Archive project: ucla.in/1SONCuw

© 2023 The Regents of the University of California

Complete Record: The KTLA newsfilm collection at the UCLA Film & Television Archive consists of cut and unedited stories, outtakes and fill footage, originally shot on 16mm reversal film stock with magnetic soundtrack. Some footage, particularly material not used for broadcast, may be without sound. Title: “California ratifies the Equal Rights Amendment.” Date: November 14, 1972. Summary: At a press conference, an unidentified man states California is the 22nd state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which was designed to guarantee protection against sexual discrimination for women under the law. He talks about how the amendment will be a positive addition to the country, how the problems with systemic discrimination in the Constitution can be changed with amendments, and elaborates on the limited legal status of women at the time the Constitution was written. He and one of the women at the table discuss the issue of women serving in the military and respond to questions from the press. Footage includes some silent footage of reporters and speakers. Learn more about this UCLA Film & Television Archive project: ucla.in/1SONCuw © 2023 The Regents of the University of California

Transcription

I don't think we need to be frightened about sweeping sexual changes and all of these scare words that are used by the people who've opposed this amendment in California all it does is simply uh do for the United States Constitution uh what should have been done at the beginning makes it clear that we don't discriminate in this country on the basis of sex and I think it would be a very positive addition to to uh our country of course this is only the 22nd state and we need a total of 38 States so some work continues to be done but it's important that California didn't come in being drugged by the heels uh but at least got in somewhere in the middle of the this fight Dr Mas you know Tony Frank from women in Communications well I think I get to just make a statement taking the high road here the ladies May uh take the Lower Road but U uh about the philosophy of equality um this as this is an idea whose time has come as you know when the Constitution was written we had some very serious problems because there was systematic discrimination against all people except the white adult males who had certain property rights uh this is not to be critical of the framers of the Constitution because they made no pretense at Perfection and they did build into the Constitution an amending capacity it and we've amended 26 times uh this will be the 27th Amendment to the Constitution it is long overdue women not only had no legal rights at the time the Constitution was written they were the property of their husbands or their fathers they were thought to be inferior intellectually and physically and socially uh they had no career options they but uh this is not a thing of the Antiquated past it wasn't until 1920 that when women even had the right to vote in the country and the systematic discrimination especially economic discrimination continues down to the present time uh I have some figures that are coming from the telephone booth from my office which are the latest figures of the Civil uh Service uh categories the six Civil Service categories which show that in the last or the sixth category women are overwhelming uh the numbers of workers uh something like in the 80th percentile in the first two categories they're not to be found at all and they haven't been given the opportunities by the government uh they where they are given jobs they have to be twice as good as a man to be paid as much as a man is paid and I think the government simply simp uh symbolizes the systematic economic discrimination and so uh those who fear the amendment we've seen all these dire predictions what would happen if the pass Stan I would say that freedom is always a great risk it's a risk in this country for people to be free to drive Automobiles and we have accidents it's a great risk to allow people the right to own and bear arms because they shoot presidents and all of the other uh uh risks uh that accompany freedom and there may be some disadvantages that women will inherit as a result of losing the protective veil of of a special category I I think that could be possibly very likely but uh the alternative to Freedom is uh is less attractive and uh I think many of the fears the so-called fears that are enumerated by the opponents uh to this uh are elusory and I think at the bottom of those charges has been a rather unseemly Coalition between big business and big Labor uh to uh to try to to try to avoid the the economic impact of giving equality to women so I don't think we'll be sharing the same restrooms for a while why did you bring that up I think that women may be drafted I was in Israel and they serve and are drafted and maybe women should serve uh uh maybe all citizens should serve a couple of years in some aspect of government Service uh there may be some changes in the divorce laws and property ownership but I think for every uh disadvantage that the woman incurs by reason of gaining equality and giving up her superiority that she will find a stronger footing so uh uh that may be a general answer but I think we'll see when this thing passes that there will not be the sweeping sociological changes which many people describe Mr Frank what do you think about women being draft oh I'm sitting here boiling because I I've heard that so often when there were other basic things to talk about when the things to talk about were really human rights the things to talk about were really what it means to be a person under the law and then the question is well you know would you like your little children to go off to go to war would you like your daughters to be out there on the battlefield why is it better for men to be killed this is this is a question you know we're all in this together we're all human beings and I would rather see no one killed and I think that women have never hung back from serving their country I think they have always joined the armed forces and I think they have done beautifully and I don't think that they would be I don't think that they would be put on on the battle line I think that they would be chosen for their particular strengths does that answer I think we sometimes forget the uh rights that won games campaign sponsor


1 user has this film:
UCLA Film & Television Archive


No related films.