but, when it is only a cop, his gun and an armed suspect, it damn well better be the right gun. >> two officers are in the building. >> you are watching american history tv, all weekend every weekend on c-span 3. to join the conversation like us on facebook @c-span history. up next on history tv, the national archives host a panel of scholars discussing the equal rights amendment. introduced in 1923, the constitutional amendment was not passed until 1972, but it fell three states short of the 38 it needed by ratification by the 1982 deadline. this looks at the history of the

e.r.a., and the possibility of the passage of it in the future. >> this year is not only the centennial of the national park service, it is the centennial of the national woman's party. we did not plan it that way, but that is the way it worked out. almost 100 years ago this month, women met in chicago and began to talk about organizing the national woman's party. founded as a party representing women's interest with a single issue platform, the woman's party organized and franchised women from westerns states to show their strength at the voting booth and stand together to only vote for candidates who supported the suffrage amendment. we all know suffrage was one in 1920, but today we are here to talk about what happened after suffrage.

by the summer 1923, alice paul had written the original equal rights amendment, and it had already introduced the first time i took congress. and wp lobby to see the equal rights amendment introduced, and continued to fight for the passage and ratification for more than 70 years. our speakers tonight will share their thoughts on the long and often disputed campaign for the equal rights amendment. before i introduce our speakers, i want to thank susan clifton and the rest of the staff of the national archives. they have been a long-standing partner of ours, and we are excited to be here as part of their exhibit, "amending america." let me introduce our esteemed panelists. the president and ceo of the national congress of black women incorporated. a professor of history at the university of maryland. the chair of history at illinois state university. and the director of programs at the alice paul institute. please help me welcome them to the stage.

>> thank you all for being here tonight. this is going to be a fantastic conversation. over the last few weeks as we have been planning this event, phone conversations. i know that each of the esteemed panelists brings something very impressive to this particular program. i think we will start off with a couple of general remarks from each of you, and then i have some questions, and i'm hoping the conversation will evolve from there, and we can go back and forth. you are all experts in your field. i know you'd all be very gregarious. i am hoping it is a good conversation. >> i am delighted to be here tonight.

the equal rights amendment is alice paul's dream. she wanted women to have the right to vote, and she saw that happen in 1920. but one thing she did not get to see happen was her e.r.a., which she had worked for as soon as the women got to write -- the right to vote. she said there's nothing complicated about ordinary equality. with men do with their rights and what women do is up to them as long as they have them. that is why we are gathered here today. we do carry on that vision where i work at the alice paul institute at alice paul's home in mount laurel, new jersey, not too far out of philadelphia. we carry on with the history program, and the ultimate emphasis is on the concept of ordinary equality. i think it's alice paul were here today, she would stop the panel where it is, and say, everyone go out and work for the e.r.a. i'm glad we are here talking

about it, and continuing the discussion of the equal rights amendment, and her ultimate vision of the concept of ordinary equality. thank you. page: amazing. dr. kyle. dr. kyle: i don't think everyone would agree with alice paul. one of the things i find interesting about the equal rights amendment is that it is so contested. that it has been so debated. it has been since inception in 1923. it ultimately did not get ratified. 38 states were needed for the ratification. 35 were needed. five of those -- i don't think you use the word reneged. rescinded. they decided it wasn't for their state. the 14th amendment they believed

provided the necessary rights for all of the individuals. as we go on in the program tonight, i have some quotes from one of the most adamant of the antifeminists of the 1970's, who is still very active today. [laughter] she is so fun to talk about. maybe i will just kind of throw some out, some pearls of wisdom throughout the evening. i want us to think about this other organization. i just want to read a quote, to spark a little bit of thought, that is perhaps a way to think about the equal rights amendment a little bit differently than alice paul did. there is an organization.

in the women's studies quarterly in 2015, they argued the e.r.a., "endorses equal treatment as same treatment, and was conceived at a time when families, and the people inhabiting them, were rendered in particular terms. terms that have since drastically changed and shifted. not only the institutions like marriage or the work base, our very bodies." i'm still quoting from them. "what does it mean to support women, when the very category of women is contested?" i want us to think about what it means for the e.r.a. to have been crafted in a time when the heterosexual family was the only family that was considered appropriate.

and when woman had a very distinct definition. we are far more fluid. not everybody accepts that fluidity. i think that is one of the reasons why it is contested. i will throw out some stuff later. page: thank you. >> i'm delighted to be here and glad to talk about the e.r.a.. what i am most interested in as a historian and activist now, is the progressive opposition to the e.r.a. my students are always shocked to learn when alice paul penned the e.r.a., the overwhelming majority of feminist, progressive feminists, opposed the e.r.a. because it would undermine protective legislation for women. that is what i would like to talk about later. page: excellent. dr. williams. dr. williams: when alice publishing about this, we were thinking about being recognized

as human beings. one of the things in our community we always say is that we support the equal rights amendment. our organization is one of the lead organizations, but we hope our systems will recognize it is not the only issue in our community that we have to be concerned about. we have criminal justice issues, poverty issues, voter suppression issues. we have so many. our time is so divided. we would hope that our sisters are there for us also as we are on the issues like the equal rights amendment. page: excellent. let me start with you, kris. can you tell us a little more about the original equal rights amendment, and alice's intention when she put it out? what do you think she got the reaction of it was going to be?

kris: i think when we got the right to vote, alice is already thinking about the next step. she had started doing legal research. she was working with great legal minds of the time. there were several drafts, at least 35 drafts of an amendment that she will make much simpler in its form, and called the lucretia mott amendment. that is the first version she introduces officially in 1923. she did not tell her party, though, that she had already made the decision to work on this. it was decided behind the scenes. in 1923, there is this great gathering at seneca falls, new york. she said to her party members, "what is the next step for women?" at that point, she has already decided what she was going to do. she had already come up with basic dress for the equal rights amendment. but i think she thought women would be very receptive to it, and i think she thought that the

united states would be receptive to it, in some way. particularly, i think originally she might have felt that women that work in the labor forces would be receptive to it. many of them were suffragists. i think it probably suppressor initially that women in the labor forces and women in work and unions immediately opposed the equal rights amendment, because it would eliminate those protective pieces of legislation. i think her intent was good, and she thought it would be received very well, but right away, right in 1921, she realizes that she has a key opponent in florence kelly, who is working for labor unions specifically for women. and once protective legislation for women to help them in the workplace, to make sure they are

not being overworked or underpaid. that is going to be one of the initial fights within the early part of the movement. page: ok. you talked about the difference between protective legislation versus blanket legislation. maybe you could give us a little more of an explanation of both of those. kris: sure. it is hard to explain. the protective legislation, the idea behind it was that women would have special restrictions in the workplace that would help them. for example, they would -- a lot of protective legislation would fight for an eight hour work day, which was the key goal. four restrictions on how much you would have to list -- lift, or the right to have bathroom breaks. not to work at night. there was protective legislation to protect women from working at night. these are very helpful to women workers. however, alice paul is