Phyllis Schlafly is at it again. In her recent editorial for the World News Daily, Schlafly expressed her opinion about the ratio of women to men on college campuses. In recent years, women have become more likely to go to college, and Schlafly cited the statistic from the New York Times that said women made up around 57 percent of enrollment since 2000. Schlafly went on to describe the detrimental aspect of this occurrence, such as women competing “for men on men’s terms”, “casual hook-ups”, and “various sex scandals” that have plagued college campuses in recent years. In order to halt the rise of women enrolled in college, Schlafly suggested that colleges admit half male and half female candidates. She also recommended the abolishing of college loans, “thereby forcing students to take jobs to pay for their tuition and eliminate time for parties, perhaps even wiping out time for fraternities and sororities”, and cutting back on Title IX, a law instituted in 1972 allowing women to compete in sports in public schools, in order to draw more young men to college. The editorial sparked backlash against Schlafly and her views. Many claimed that it was victim-blaming and anti-feminist to claim that the reason more rape occurs on college campus is that there are more women present than men.

This isn’t her first time speaking harshly against feminism, however. During the 1960’s and 70’s, women’s rights activists supported the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed addition to the Constitution. It was introduced to Congress in 1923 by Alice Paul, a devout women’s rights activists who would support the amendment until her death in 1977. The Equal Rights Amendment simply states: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” It also goes on to say that Congress has the ability to enforce this law, and that, if ratified, the amendment should take effect in two years’ time. Women’s rights activists wanted this amendment to be ratified because there was no clear-cut statement prohibiting equal rights on account of sex. Phyllis Schlafly thought otherwise. A St. Louis native and aunt-by-marriage to brewery founder Tom Schlafly, Phyllis Schlafly became a visible figure in the fight against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly claimed that ratification of the ERA would abolish privileges women had during that time. Schlafly claimed that protective laws against sexual assault, being drafted, and even single-sex bathrooms would be eliminated due to the amendment. Schlafly’s followers bore stop signs labeled “STOP THE ERA”, with STOP standing for “Stop Taking Our Privileges.” They also hung signs on infant girls with the slogan “Don’t Draft Me.” Thirty-eight states needed to ratify the amendment in order for it to take effect; due to Schlafly’s campaign, the Equal Rights Amendment expired in 1982 with the approval of thirty-five states, three short of the total. In 2015, there is no explicit statement in the Constitution guaranteeing equal rights for women.

Nerinx students, upon reading the editorial, expressed their frustration. Beatrice Connaghan, a Senior, had a strong opinion about the issue. “I absolutely hate the article and the non sequitur logic,” says Connaghan. “She’s being demeaning to both men and women in her stance. Apparently all men want in college is to play a sport, and all women want is to find a man. I plan to use college as an extension of my education and not a prime opportunity to seek a male mate. Also, not all women act in accordance with men’s tastes. As a woman preparing to go to college, I’m disgusted by this article and the ideas presented.” Gabbie Hogan, also a Senior, expresses a similar viewpoint. “The claims made by Schlafly in this editorial are nothing short of ludicrous and only serve to further encourage rape,” Hogan remarks, saying further that “Schlafly is perhaps one of the most frustrating public figures in regards to women’s issues that I think I have ever seen, and all claims she makes are absolutely ridiculous, idiotic, and serve only to increase the need for the feminism she so defiantly opposes.”