The names should sound familiar. Catharine MacKinnon is a law prof at University of Michigan, and she was, in a very real sense, the godmother of the current Title IX sex policing on campus, deliberate in its construction to sacrifice male students to secure the feelings of female students at any cost.

The co-author is Kimberlé Crenshaw, who coined the term “intersectionality,” constructing the victim hierarchy based on identity. Gay trumps straight. Gay black trumps gay. Gay black unidexter trumps . . . well, you get it.

[I]ntersectionality functions as kind of caste system, in which people are judged according to how much their particular caste has suffered throughout history. Victimhood, in the intersectional way of seeing the world, is akin to sainthood; power and privilege are profane.

Together, MacKinnon and Crenshaw offer a polemic to justify a new constitutional amendment that conforms to their critical theory worldview.

The Equality Amendment

Whereas all women, and men of color, were historically excluded as equals, intentionally and functionally, from the Constitution of the United States, subordinating these groups structurally and systemically; and

Whereas prior constitutional amendments have allowed extreme inequalities of race and/or sex and/or like grounds of subordination to continue without effective legal remedy, and have even been used to entrench such inequalities; and

Whereas this country aspires to be a democracy of, by, and for all of its people, and to treat all people of the world in accordance with human rights principles;

Therefore be it enacted that—

Section 1. Women in all their diversity shall have equal rights in the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.

Section 2. Equality of rights shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex (including pregnancy, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity), and/or race (including ethnicity, national origin, or color), and/or like grounds of subordination (such as disability or faith). No law or its interpretation shall give force to common law disadvantages that exist on the ground(s) enumerated in this Amendment.

Section 3. To fully realize the rights guaranteed under this Amendment, Congress and the several States shall take legislative and other measures to prevent or redress any disadvantage suffered by individuals or groups because of past and/or present inequality as prohibited by this Amendment, and shall take all steps requisite and effective to abolish prior laws, policies, or constitutional provisions that impede equal political representation.

Section 4. Nothing in Section 2 shall invalidate a law, program, or activity that is protected or required under Section 1 or 3.

What does this mean? That’s hard to say, as it’s an aggregation of aspirational vagaries that goes in many directions at once, and with certain exceptions (such as requiring Congress and the states to “redress” past disadvantages, is an open-ended invitation to make up whatever one wants in favor of victims.

Didn’t we already have an equal protection clause?

Most Americans believe that the Constitution already guarantees equal rights.65 Unlike most constitutions in the world, it does not.66 It is the responsibility of “We, the People” to adapt the Constitution to the society we live in; to grow in our recognition of problems and potential solutions; to strengthen our democracy in an intimately interconnected world. Neither too vague nor too prescriptive, this proposal, offered as a beginning, aspires to sketch a path, to clear terrain to open a space for everyone to fill and, finally, to be heard.

Much as this approach might appear to be an absurd effort at institutionalizing the tyranny of the minority (or, more precisely, the “marginalized,” since women aren’t a minority even though one wouldn’t know it from their oppression rhetoric), it’s hardly as crazy as it might seem. After all, no one would have believed that a bureaucracy dedicated to sex policing would be established on campus to infantalize women under the guise of pseudo-feminism. Yet, MacKinnon managed to pull it off.

As for Crenshaw’s intersectionality, it’s impossible to miss the victim hierarchy that entitles any person higher up to demand obsequious obedience from any person lower down, no matter how vulnerable they may be relative to the bottom rung, white cis males, whose duty it is to serve the causes of all other identities.

The equality paradigm proposed here recognizes the failures of what is, turns away from language and interpretive canons rooted in an unjust past, and imagines a fully functioning democracy as the inheritance of future generations. This proposal reenvisions constitutional equality from the ground up: it centers on rectifying the founding acts and omissions of race and sex, separately and together, and incorporates similar but distinct inequalities.2

It is informed by prior efforts to integrate equality into the constitutional landscape that have been decimated by political reversals and doctrinal backlash. It aggregates the insights, aspirations, and critiques of many thinkers and actors who have seized this moment to breathe new life into the nation’s reckoning with inequality.

It neither looks back to celebrate amendments whose transformative possibilities have been defeated nor participates in contemporary hand-wringing over equality’s jurisprudential limitations. It seeks to make equality real and to matter now. We argue that a new equality paradigm is necessary and present one form it could take.

Amending the Constitution is hard, particularly with something as meaningless, facially contradictory and poorly-written as this tripe. But if you wonder what’s really in the “headspace” of your social justice leaders, the new paradigm of critical theory, the progressive agenda, this is it.

There may be no chance that this constitutional amendment will succeed as such, but there is a very good chance that many of its goals will manifest themselves in legislation should Congress and the presidency end up in the hands of the same party, or in bureaucratic commands if only the latter winds up in woke hands. creating the new paradigm where the most “marginalized” will be supreme.