>> I'm Margaret Hoover.

What is next for the #Me Too Movement, the resurrection of the Equal Rights Amendment, and even new rules for Miss America?

Today on "Firing Line."

♪♪ >> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Women's voices are being heard today like never before.

Women are standing up against workplace harassment and have turned to my guest for inspiration.

Gretchen Carlson is a journalist and a former Fox News anchor whose sexual-harassment lawsuit against her boss helped ignite a brushfire across the country.

No longer friends with Fox, Gretchen's impact has spread across the Internet, amplifying the already burgeoning #Me Too Movement.

Much like that hashtag which remains forever present on social media, Gretchen, too, continues to trend.

She has taken her harrowing experiences with workplace harassment -- at least we presume they were harrowing, though her settlement terms prohibit her from discussing it, and turn them into legislative goals with the introduction of the bipartisan bill Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act.

Surely the laws cannot change our underlying culture overnight, but since "Firing Line" has no gag order, she will discuss how her bill in Congress can help.

>> [ Chuckles ] >> She is a New York Times best-selling author, one of TIME 100's Most Influential People, a former Miss America representing the great state of Minnesota, and now Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Miss America Organization, which she just announced has dropped the lifestyle and fitness portion of the pageant, formerly known as the swimsuit competition, and she has transformed it into a contest that rewards talent and accomplishment.

Gretchen Carlson, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> I've known you for forever.

We should make sure your viewers know that.

>> We have known each other for about a decade, and we knew each other even during that time that you were on Fox, and that's exactly where I want to begin, because what you did at Fox News by beginning a lawsuit and going through a process that actually ended up fairly favorably for you.

I know you can't talk about the details, but what we can say is, through that process, you identified a problem with the system.

You identified that there is a larger set of forces that were forcing women into silence, and instead of going quietly into the night with a paycheck, you've devoted your time since then as an activist to fix the system.

>> I'm thinking about so many emotions, like the courage it takes to come forward by yourself before there's a #Me Too Movement, before there's a Time's Up pin, before there's anything -- just me taking on one of the most powerful men in the world.

So courage, first of all, is not something that you just switch on like a light switch.

It takes years and years, and why is that, especially with this issue?

Because women are so maligned when they do come forward.

So as much as you say that things worked out okay for me, not really at the beginning when I had no idea what was going to happen from moment to moment.

>> Well, and part of the reason it took so much courage is because you were forced into silence.

>> Right.

So, this is the way that society has deemed to settle sexual-harassment situations... until now -- either settlements, which is what happened to me.

>> Uh-huh.

>> Then I can never tell you any of the details of my case, although my lawyers had a strategy in which to make my case public.

So you can go online and you can read everything that you want to read about it, but I can't say, for example, on July 6, 2010, here's what he said to me -- something like that.

But the other way in which we've chosen to solve these issues is through arbitration, and usually when I say that to big groups of people, there's this glaze factor.

Because nobody knows what "arbitration" means, although 60 million Americans have arbitration clauses in their employment contract, so they should.

>> Arbitration in and of itself on its face isn't something so terrible, right?

I mean, the idea of arbitration on its face is to unclutter the court systems, unclutter civil courts, create a more streamlined process for both sides, both parties to come together and resolve disputes.

>> Right, and so it was originally intended when the Supreme Court ruled on it 20-plus years ago to do just that -- to unclog the courts and to settle small-business disputes that really didn't need to go through the whole jury process.

But what's happened in the workplace is since the Anita Hill hearings, a lot of companies figured out to use arbitration in a way of keeping their dirty laundry private.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Because one of the stipulations of arbitration is that it's a secret chamber.

>> Right.

>> Now, they'll say to you, "It's a really good option for you because it's cheaper for you."

Well, not really, because it's not cheap.

You have to pay these people about $1,000 an hour just to sit there and hear your case, and, also, they'll say, "Well, maybe you don't want the whole world to know what's happening to you."

Well, I think what we've seen over the last two years is that the world has been taken advantage of, and that's why I think the movement has continued so vociferously is because people were angry when they found out that there had been this big secret.

>> Well, the issue isn't arbitration of itself, it's forced arbitration, and you say 60 million Americans are involved in forced arbitration.

Oftentimes, they agree to it without really understanding or knowing because it's in all sorts of contracts that have nothing to do -- It's really pervasive.

>> It's everywhere, and so for a cellphone contract, maybe we don't think that's that big of a deal, but when it's your employment, and it's a reason that you have to sign on the dotted line or you don't work there, that is not correct.

>> Uh-huh.

>> There are a lot of really, really smart people out there who don't realize they have these clauses in their contracts until they get to a situation, hypothetically, like mine, and then they're like, "Oh, my gosh.

I have no recourse."

>> So, is your dispute with forced arbitration generally or forced arbitration in the specific cases of sexual harassment?

>> So my bill in front of Congress, bipartisan, as you mentioned, which is a huge accomplishment in the House and the Senate, is very narrow in scope because I want it to pass.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And in this hyper-partisan time that we live in, not much passes in a bipartisan fashion.

So it's only for sexual harassment.

>> So that's the pragmatic, but just on a philosophical level before we get to the details of your bill, do you have a problem with forced arbitration generally?

>> So I generally do have a problem with it for almost every argument because I've learned so much from the process of being involved so intimately in these discussions and learning more about these laws.

So I don't really feel that it's fair to force anybody into those situations because, in many cases, there are tons of people who don't have the resources that I had or the national platform to make my story public.

>> Right.

>> So there are probably thousands of stories out there of people who have not been given their just due because they've been forced into the secret chamber.

>> So your bill, Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act, which, in this case, you have Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House who have dropped a bill specifically to address this issue.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And I know for a fact, because I know you, that this didn't happen by itself.

This is what you did.

You went and found the sponsors, both Democrats and Republicans, for this bill.

This is Gretchen Carlson's bill.

>> Well, thank you, Margaret.

Yes, it was a tremendous amount of work.

What I've learned now, though, is that I have so much work to do to actually get it passed.

So, I mean, I spent about 18 months walking the hallways of Congress and meeting -- >> Are you registered as a federal lobbyist?

>> Not yet, but here's what I would say to the members of Congress.

Do you want to be on the right side of history or the wrong side of history?

And do you have daughters?

And do you have any woman in your life that matters anything to you at all?

And they would all -- mainly the men would start telling me stories about their wives who had faced harassment, their daughters, their nieces, and so, then I would say to them, well, then don't you want to be a part of fixing this?

Because this issue is truly apolitical.

Let's take it out of the shadows.

You know, let's deal with it.

Because when you do that, you empower more women to know that they're not by themselves.

>> And what's important is that the sponsors of your bill are not just women.

>> No.

>> They're men and women.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And Lindsey Graham, a Republican man in the Senate, is one of the sponsors in the Senate.

>> And he is pounding the pavement for me.

Let me tell you.

He got Microsoft to take out arbitration clauses in their employment contracts two weeks after we announced the bill in December without needing federal legislation to mandate that they do it.

>> And it's important to notice that there are companies like Microsoft, like Uber, like Lyft who are voluntarily changing their corporate policies to prevent forced arbitration.

Even though they still have forced arbitration, they make an exception for sexual-harassment lawsuits.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> So you're already making a difference.

>> Well, I hope so, but listen.

We have a lot of work to do, and I would just encourage people to call their members of Congress to say that they want to support my bill, because as you know, as well as I do, the more people you get on board before you actually have a vote or hearings, the better chance you have of passing it.

>> Right.

And you have to get leadership to pass it on the floor... >> You do.

And then it goes to the President's desk.

So, you know, there's strategies all along the way to try and make sure that this passes, but in the end, you really just have to look in the mirror, whether you're a man or a woman in Congress, and say, "What's right for our future generation of young women?

Do we want them to face the same injustices that someone like myself has had to face?"

And my answer to that is "no."

>> One of the really harrowing circumstances of the process of this bill is that one of your early sponsors was Al Franken.

>> Yeah.

>> And Al Franken had his own stumble with the #Me Too Movement, and he was the champion of this bill.

I mean, he supported it.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Do you think that he was unfairly or too precipitously removed from the Senate or that there might have been a fairer process to adjudicate his...stumbles?

>> I think that if his stumbles had been revealed right now, there may have been a different reaction.

I think we were so much in the heat of what was happening with Harvey Weinstein, et cetera, that it was like any person that came forward, you know, they automatically had to resign or whatever the case was.

I think a really important point here is that there are different levels of harassment and assault, and we need to recognize that.

So if you have Al Franken and the allegations here of what happened, and you have Harvey Weinstein way up here, including alleged rape, that's a huge difference.

So I think we need to be cognizant of that and not try to lump men all together.

But I think it shows that this can be going on behind the scenes to any and all people, and one of the biggest myths about this issue is, "Oh, he's such a great guy.

He could never do that."

And that happened when my story came out.

"Well, I never heard about that.

She must be lying."

And I think we need to be very aware that there can be two sides to people, even when they're proponents of the very issue that they might be doing behind closed doors.

>> Yeah.

I mean, there are people who wish that the process, at least in his case, had been adjudicated more fairly, but what we've seen is, as you mentioned, it was in this heat of this moment with Harvey Weinstein, and the #Me Too Movement was sort of cresting in its influence, and in that circumstance, there is no judicious process in the court of public opinion.

There is no court.

It is just -- There is a mob mentality that takes a few prisoners and can get people who may be disproportionately punished because they get caught up on the wrong side of the movement.

>> I think what else I'd like to say about that is that it shows how apolitical this is.

Because we've seen -- We've seen titans from both sides fall, and what I think is incredibly disingenuous is when people actually bring politics into this discussion, because people will say, "Well, I don't believe those women because I really like the politician they're accusing," right -- and vice versa.

And that's really unfair to this whole movement to say that you don't believe some women just because you happen to want that politician to be elected, right?

>> In other words, Republicans haven't been held as accountable in the #Me Too Movement as Democrats have been.

>> Mm-hmm.

But we've seen -- you know, Trent Franks left office.

We saw Blake Farenthold leave office.

They're both Republicans.

>> And the elephant in the room is the President of the United States.

>> Of course.

That's the number-one question that I get asked at every event that I go to.

You know, well, how can that happen?

And the bottom line is that he doesn't work for a private corporation, he works for the people of America.

>> Right.

So it's up to the people of America.

>> It's up to the people of America.

>> There are still young women who are starting off their careers who are in their early 20s.

I think about my 20-year-old self taking my first job in a law firm and having a senior partner of a law firm come to me and say, "Would you like to come to my house this weekend and watch dirty movies with me?"

>> Ohh.

>> And I don't know even as the woman I am now who knows Gretchen Carlson, if I counseled my 20-year-old self, if that 20-year-old self would know what to do or how to go about it because I'm just 20, and he didn't actually do anything other than bother me psychologically.

I didn't get physically harmed, and I also wouldn't -- >> Same thing, though.

>> Right, but so this is what young women grapple with.

You know, they're in their early part of their career, they're starting their career, and they think, "Do I want to ruin my career or have to leave this company by calling out somebody much more powerful than me?"

>> Right.

>> And, of course, that takes a cultural change, but what do they do?

>> Mm-hmm.

So this is why fixing this issue is a tangled web.

It's not just changing the law.

It's not just me speaking up about it.

It's getting to our parents and the way in which they choose to raise their children with gender equality and respect for one another.

It's getting to our young people before they're really set in their ways.

It's why I really wanted to go on a college campus tour when my book came out last fall, "Be Fierce," because I understood that getting to our young people is essential so that they do have the voice to be able to speak up and so that the young men are not reared to treat women in the way in which you and I have been treated in our professional careers.

So that's where it really starts, but there are so many moving parts in trying to fix the issue, but I really believe that getting to our young people, and parenting is where it actually, truly begins in trying to make change.

>> Can I ask you what advice would you give to that 20-year-old version of me in the workplace right now?

>> That now is the time for you to also be empowered to know that if you come forward, you're not alone.

When I speak to young people, I always say to them, you know, "Don't feel that you're by yourself.

But you have to agree to do this together."

Because if we're just still going to have one-offs, then women are not going to do this.

Because look what happens when you do come forward.

So if we decide collectively, especially young people coming into the workforce, that we're going to stand together, and we're not going to stand for this, I think that is the way in which we start change, and it's power in numbers, you know.

You probably felt so alone in that situation.

I know in my 20s when I was assaulted in a car two times, I felt incredibly alone and never told anyone for 25 years because that shame is internalized in that young woman.

So, as much as we can say, speak up, stand up, be brave, yeah, it's harder than you think, but if we decide to collectively do that together, especially our young people, then I think that that's a start.

>> And the energy that you've done -- what you've done is you have channeled energy and your experience towards a constructive legislative solution, and we've seen that happen with the #Me Too Movement across the country in a couple different ways.

Another way it's happened is that record numbers of women are running for public office, channeling that movement and that momentum and that inertia in a constructive way.

Another thing that has recently happened -- and I'd like to get your response to this -- is the Equal Rights Amendment, an amendment that was proposed to the Constitution in 1972 and passed in the years after that in 35 states.

Now, 38 are needed to ratify an amendment.

It passed in 35 states.

It has now come back into public discourse.

In the past two years, two more states have passed it.

Now, it languished for 45 years, and one of the reasons it languished is because conservatives really unified their voices against it.

One of the leading activists against it was a woman named Phyllis Schlafly, who was a repeated guest on this program "Firing Line," and I'd like to show you, Gretchen Carlson, and get your reaction to the argument she had against the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have codified equal rights for men and women in the Constitution.

Let's listen to her argument.

>> The proposed constitutional amendment, passed overwhelmingly by the Senate and the House, holds that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or bridged by the United States or any state on account of sex."

That doesn't sound particularly subversive, and I would, therefore, like to begin by asking Mrs. Schlafly to state her principal objection to ERA.

>> We find as we look into the matter that ERA won't give women anything which they haven't already got or have a way of getting, but on the other hand, it will take away from women some of the most important rights and benefits and exemptions we now have.

>> What would be an example of that?

>> Well, a great, glaring example on which there's full agreement between both the proponents and the opponents is the matter of the draft.

Women are exempt from the draft.

Selective Service says only young men of age 18 have to register, but the Equal Rights Amendment will positively make women subject to the draft and on an equal basis with men.

Nor could you have a system whereby the women would get all the nice, easy desk jobs and the men get all the fighting jobs.

It would have to be equal across the board in combat, on warships, and all up and down the line.

>> The argument against the Equal Rights Amendment was about the draft, which, by the way, we don't have anymore.

>> Right.

>> Oh, and, by the way, we have women in combat.

>> Right.

Willingly.

>> Willingly.

Women want to be in combat and are.

I mean, that wasn't, to be fair, the only argument against the Equal Rights Amendment, but that was one of them, and the Equal Rights Amendment has come back.

It passed in 2017 in Nevada, and then it passed just last month in May in Illinois.

Now the Equal Rights Amendment is one state away from the 38 needed to ratify an amendment.

Would you support a U.S. constitutional amendment that clarifies that men and women have equal rights under the law?

>> I think that's the easiest question you've asked me, Margaret -- yes.

>> [ Laughs ] >> I mean, listen.

I just don't understand who would be against this, quite honestly.

Like, if you're a father or a mother to a child, when they come into this world, do you look at them and say, "Boy, I hope you're not equal."

>> Yeah.

>> You know?

Luckily, I had a mom and a dad who, every night when they put me to bed, they said to me, "Gretchen, you know you can be anything in this world with hard work," right?

>> Yeah, right.

>> Now, I heard that every day.

It had a huge impact in the way in which I chose to live my life and what I chose to achieve and how I found that courage to do what I did two years ago.

All that is intermixed.

But it seems incredibly odd to me that anyone would be against the idea that the simple phrase "equal rights for men and women," that you'd be against that.

I don't get that.

>> It's pretty incredible that we're just one-state shy of doing this and that its codification in the Constitution would certainly be symbolic, but there would be downstream effects.

>> I think it's emblematic of the fact that this movement is so much bigger than just talking about #Me Too and sexual harassment.

You know, as I have been living inside of this movement -- and it's a very surreal experience, trust me -- you know, I've come to realize that things like that are a product of it, that talking, again, about the ERA, that we haven't talked about since 1973, is emblematic of this entire movement that we're experiencing.

So it's much more broad than just sexual harassment.

>> Let me ask you.

Does culture get reflected in the changes of law or does legislation change culture?

>> Both.

You know, I find myself sort of living in both worlds, and especially with this new role that I've taken on on a volunteer basis in being the Chairwoman of the Miss American Organization.

I mean, a lot of people would look at that and say, "Well, how could you possibly be one of the leaders of this movement for women's rights," right, "and then, on the other hand, decide that you're going to take on this job as Chair of Miss America?"

And the really interesting thing is that I'm the only person, pretty much, that's intertwined in both.

>> Well, that's precisely right.

I mean, isn't that where you're using your influence to change the culture?

I mean, in a way, you're changing legislation, certainly, but which is going to have a stronger impact on changing culture -- the laws you're working on or the cultural institutions like the Miss America Pageant, which, by the way, is no longer a pageant?

>> Listen.

I think that they both work together to make change happen.

I would like to think that, actually, culture is more important, because sometimes people feel like they have to follow the law, that they're mandated to follow the law, and they don't necessarily agree with it, but when things actually change in culture, that shows that the American people are behind it.

So, to me, I think cultural changes are more important, and it brings us back to a company like Microsoft or Uber or Lyft saying that they're going to do it on their own, right?

That's a cultural change, not because they're told that they have to do it.

>> The question about culture versus laws is a question that has also repeatedly been debated on "Firing Line" over the course of the years, and I want to show you a familiar face making an unfamiliar argument on a previous "Firing Line."

Let's take a look.

>> What I said is that the Women's Movement has constantly looked to government, especially to Washington and Federal Government, to provide solutions.

All the examples given here had to do with the Family Leave Act, with what Washington and the Federal Government did for child care, and what I'm saying is that the solutions are not going to be found there.

The solutions are going to be found in our neighborhoods, in our communities when all of us reach out and find ways to solve these major social problems.

[ Applause ] >> [ Chuckles ] >> I mean, that's just what you said.

You said we have to find a way in our communities to solve these problems, and so one of the ways that you're doing this in the culture is the Miss America Organization, which you are now the Chair of the Board of, is not a pageant anymore.

When you participated it, and you won the Miss America contest in 1989, not just for being beautiful and smart, but also for being an extraordinary classical violinist... >> Thank you.

>> ...it wasn't just a pageant then.

There was a talent component.

>> Right.

>> But it has transformed even more so, and we like talent in the United States.

We like competition, right?

We have "The Voice."

We have "American Idol."

We have "America's Got Talent."

Is that the direction your organization now goes in?

>> So we've been around almost 100 years.

There was a woman who used to run the organization by the name of Lenora Slaughter, who, 75 years ago, started the talent part of it.

She also started the scholarship aspect of Miss America.

So that's been around for a really long time, really separating us from other types of pageants.

We just have never messaged that in a good way.

So that's my first goal.

>> Does the word "pageant" hurt it?

>> Yeah.

So that's why -- Actually, we have called it a competition for the last several years, but officially we're now calling it a competition.

But it goes to show you that no one was paying attention to the fact that we changed it to a competition a couple years ago.

>> Right.

>> Why are they paying attention now?

Because we also decided to stop judging a woman who competes in the competition on her physical appearance.

So that meant the elimination of the swimsuit competition.

That also means the evening-gown competition stays -- however, two changes.

The candidate has a choice of what she feels more self-confident in with regard to eveningwear.

I mean, that could be a myriad of different things.

It doesn't have to be a gown, right -- whatever she feels best in.

And then, most importantly, we will be judging them on what they actually say -- you know, what their social-impact initiative might be, what their goals are in life.

>> So they won't be evaluated on their looks at all?

>> They're not going to be evaluated on their looks.

>> And does it mean there will be women who look different?

In other words -- because everybody still fits a very traditional idea of what beauty is.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And so will there be more variation in terms of the physical presentation, the body shapes and sizes?

>> Won't that be interesting to see?

Because, as we evolve, I have no idea, you know?

The rules go into effect September 9th, so the state competitors are operating under the older rules right now.

So I think we'll see slow evolution, but I'm really looking forward to seeing how it evolves, and I don't think this is the last change that you'll be seeing with regard to this organization.

>> Gretchen Carlson, thank you very much for your leadership and what you've done both in the legislation and in the culture for continuing to be an activist and for a real inspiration for a new generation of women.

>> Thank you.

And thank you for always supporting me.

It's meant the world to me.

Thank you.

>> Thank you for being on "Firing Line."

♪♪ >> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.