For the Equal Rights Amendment

Shirley Chisholm’s speech, while brief, packs a punch. She utilizes powerful rhetorical strategies to convince her audience of the importance of supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. Chisholm draws on many concrete examples of sex discrimination to give her audience a clear picture of the problem at hand while also offering concrete ways the new law would improve the US economy and society. She addresses potential rebuttals of the ERA and disputes their claims, effectively reassuring anyone who may doubt or disagree with her stance. Finally, Shirley Chisholm ends her speech by expanding her argument to address greater issues of societal justice and Human Dignity, appealing to her fellow representatives’ morality and idealism. Together, these strategies work to present a clear defense of the Equal Rights Amendment and a compelling case to vote in support of it.

First, Chisholm lays out clear, concrete reasons why the Equal Rights Amendment is necessary and why it will improve women’s lives in the US for women. She lists example after example of legal discrimination on the basis of sex—in education, in the workplace, in the military, and in the home. In laying out these examples, Chisholm demonstrates the many ways that Gender Equality is not protected by United States law. Unlike discrimination based on religion, political ideology, or even race, Chisholm argues, discrimination on the basis of sex is legal and often deemed socially acceptable or even necessary. With these examples, she proves exactly why this amendment is needed and offers the necessary proof to support her claim.

Next, Chisholm also lays out direct, concrete examples of how the Equal Rights Amendment will improve life in America for women. She focuses largely on Economic Opportunity, knowing this is an issue that will appeal to her fellow US representatives. Just as it is a significant political issue in the modern day, the economy was of utmost concern to US citizens and their representatives in 1970. Chisholm argues:

The focusing of public attention on the gross legal, economic, and social discrimination against women by hearings and debates in the Federal and State legislatures would result in changes in attitudes of parents, educators, and employers that would be about substantial economic changes in the long run (Paragraph 16).

By bringing greater public attention to sex discrimination, Chisholm claims, greater opportunities would become available for women to contribute to the US economy. Giving women greater access to education, well-paid jobs, and opportunities in the military would help the United States become stronger economically.

Around the midpoint in her speech, Chisholm shifts gears to address potential rebuttals to her argument. Addressing disagreements is an effective rhetorical tool because it allows a writer (or, in this case, a speaker) to answer questions and alleviate doubts about their point of view, strengthening their overall argument and fixing potential problems before they arise. In Chisholm’s speech, she addresses the concerns of some opponents that this amendment would be confusing and would “result in much litigation to establish its meaning” (Paragraph 8). In response, she explains that much work has already taken place to prepare state and federal governments to adhere to the Equal Rights Amendment. Prior laws had already laid the groundwork for legal compliance with the Equal Rights Amendment. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) protected employees against discrimination based on color, race, national origin, or gender.  

Another opposing view addressed by Chisholm is the concern surrounding the Selective Service Act. With the passage of the ERA, women as well as men would be required to register with the Selective Service, therefore having the potential to be drafted into the military if the need arose. To alleviate concerns, Chisholm emphasizes the fact that both men and women would be tested for their ability to effectively serve in the military before being required to do so. In fact, the ERA would allow women to have the same support and training that men already receive from the military in order to be better-prepared for future service.

Chisholm cleverly alleviates the fear of some people that the Equal Rights Amendment, while perhaps helping women, would do so at the expense of the rights of men. Chisholm provides several examples of how, on the contrary, the ERA would benefit people of both sexes. She explains:

Sex prejudice cuts both ways. Men are oppressed by the requirements of the Selective Service Act, by enforced legal guardianship of minors, and by alimony laws. Each sex, I believe, should be liable when necessary to serve and defend this country. Each has the responsibility for the support of children (Paragraph 16).

By pointing out ways that the Equal Rights Amendment would improve the lives of both men and women, Chisholm expands the base of her supporters. While some might initially assume only women would support a women’s rights amendment, Chisholm establishes clear, compelling reasons why men should support the law as well.

As she concludes her speech, Chisholm shifts from concrete arguments and examples to broader philosophical ones. She addresses the social and psychological effects of this amendment, pointing out the ways it allows for a society that fully values Human Dignity above any other factor. She appeals to the greater ideals of her fellow Congressmen and women, urging them to strive for a society that is equal and fair for all its citizens. Chisholm alludes to the Founding Fathers, stating that while they certainly strove for equality of opportunity, “they did not assure it to their daughters, as they tried to do for their sons” (Paragraph 23). She implores her colleagues in Congress to fix this mistake, arguing that if Black people and women had been involved in writing the Constitution, these changes would not be necessary—because they would already be included.

Chisholm ends her speech with a quote from law professor Leo Kanowitz that demonstrates the importance of treating all people equally. She invokes Kanowitz’s words: “When men and women are prevented from recognizing one another’s essential humanity by sexual prejudices, nourished by legal as well as social institutions, society as a whole remains less than it could otherwise become” (Paragraph 27). Only when all people are treated equally under the law, Chisholm argues, will different members of society be able to fully see each other as fellow humans.