appropriate role behavior based on sex beyond the purely biological is already biased.

Aside from the pervasive and promiscuous bias among researchers in terms of sex role stereotyping in expectations and analyses is the failure to accurately distinguish between sexual behavior and sex role behavior.

Moving up the phylogenetic ladder, sexual behaviors themselves become less stereotyped and more a product of learning. On the other hand, sex role behaviors are entirely learned and dependent on cultural conditioning and societal expectations.

A role is an ascribed status not an inherent characteristic.

One trusts the sophisticated attention of the Commission to sex discrimination would extinguish questions like the following which are not research questions.

If women and men were given the same opportunities and incentives would their accomplishments differ?

As with other minority groups, to ask that question in a time when this culture is so slanted toward men with women unprepared (not unable) for achievement is to ignore, with insensitivity the real present disadvantages to personhood of being brought up female in our culture.

As a matter of fact, one real and immediate value to the Commission's study of and publicity about sex discrimination would be to qualify more women for training and education programs for the disadvantaged under various manpower training projects. In fact it might prompt a change in name from manpower to personnel or human resources and remove one more way our language and thus our thought excludes women as over one-half of our adult population.

The proposed legislation is needed specifically to remove the barriers to development and recognition of the talents of women. Its contributions to the real needs of men cannot be ignored. The often fragile male ego must be strengthened to accept the experience and reality of women as generally equal persons often with talents superior

to men.

The traditional male-oriented value system that sanctions violence as the final assertion of mankind, synonymous with nationhood, must be eradicated as dysfunctional and anachronistic.

There are alternatives to the adversary system of human relations. Winning a game or a war or even initiating either is not so laudable as attention to superbowls and patriotism so narrowly conceived and defined mandates.

Indeed national honor on analysis becomes a euphemism for perpetuation of chauvinism.

The proposed legislation in section 805 of H.R. 16098 is no panacea but offers significant potential to facilitate the emergence of the voice and authentic image of women as people.

The Nation and males need that voice and reality. The hand that has rocked the cradle must now rock the boat and guide the ship of state in significant numbers and healthier ways.

The only pertinent questions are: Are men really brave enough to care and do women care enough to bravely assert these imperatives? As responsible legislators, you can do no less than effect this legislation in the national interest.

I would respectfully request to add some additional statements for the record on H.R. 16098, section 805, and I thank you very kindly for the opportunity to testify and for your attention.

Mrs. GREEN. Without any objection, the additional statements will be made part of the record.

(The documents referred to follow :)

TESTIMONY ADVOCATING H.R. 16098, SECTION 805 IN THE 91ST CONGRESS BY COMMISSIONER WILMA SCOTT HEIDE, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, JUNE 17, 1970

Thank you, Mrs. Green.

I am pleased to be here especially for the significance of the proposed legislation. For identification, I am Commissioner Wilma Scott Heide of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and also an Associate Research Scientist with the American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences. Additionally, I am Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women, Inc., NOW. NOW is ably represented by President Aileen Hernandez. It is on my experiences as commissioner and insight as Behavioral Scientist that I would like to draw for special attention to the need and potential of certain portions of the proposed legislation.

Although I will focus on specific facts and their implications, my remarks recognize a social context of time, circumstance, and growing imperatives. The context of the legislation H.R. 16098, Section 805 must be seen in the light of today's needs and forseen as changes vital to our future. Laws based on yesterday are anachronisms that deserve to be repealed or amended. There are several compelling imperatives that the proposed legislation recognizes implicitly if not explicitly.

Overpopulation and its consequences in the United States, threatens the quality of people and our total environment. Contraceptions, modified migration patterns, coercive family limitation and other superimposed methodology do not get to the heart of the problem. Unless women have, from the moment of birth, socialization for, expectations of, and preparation for viable significant alternatives to motherhood as their chief adult occupation, women will continue to want and reproduce too many children instead of producing ideas, art, literature, leadership, inventions, and healthier social relationships. Motivational change will be necessary no matter how safe, effective or universally available are any contraceptive devices for women and men.

The second imperative for changed laws and practices is the women's rights/ liberation movement. Compared to other social movements of humankind, this may be the most profound social movement the world has ever know. It poses a fundamental challenge to attitudes and frank mythologies about sex caste divisions of labor and the subservient status of women. It demands basic structural changes in all of our social institutions in ways that are affecting every woman, man, girl and boy. It promises the eradication of sexism, the creation of an androgynous society to replace our androcentric culture and finally a viable democracy to replace male supremacy values.

Our country and people are neither healthy nor whole until the full personhood of women is fully realized. Now, to be specific about legislation. First, I would advocate that Section 805, parts (a), (b), (c) and (d) of H.R. 16098 be amended as proposed with one exception. Section 805(d) would remove the exemption of Executive, administrative and professional employees from Section 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that requires equal pay for equal work. I strongly favor that amendment. In addition, I unequivocally urge an additional amendment that would extend the coverage of the Fair Labor Standard Act, without any exceptions, to every job that can be influenced by federal legislation. This means those most in need, women in low-paid jobs would be paid not less than the Federal minimum wage. Even that modest step would leave most service workers impoverished but would be a step in the direction of recognizing women are seriously disadvantaged by relegation to service jobs. Indeed, over 60% of the poor children in this country are completely dependent on the earnings of women. Actually, the problems of poverty are the problems of women, their dependent children and older women who have had diminished, if any, paid employment opportunities.

Section 805(b) would appropriately remove the exemptions of educational institutions from the Employment Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It would seem one shouldn't need to argue for this coverage of educational institutions in 1964 or now. To exclude schools, which profoundly touch the lives of all children, from the opportunity and requirement to be models of egalitarian principles and practices seems almost inconceivable.

While most elementary teachers are women, 75% of elementary school principals are men. In junior high school, where the teacher ratio of men and women is more equally balanced, 96% of the principals are men.

Indeed, the older the population of students and the greater the prestige of the profession, the greater is the predominance of men and the lesser the opportunity for women. Women as administrators of higher education are virtually nonexistent. Now, this picture produces several untoward effects. It suggests and actually demonstrates to children that the teaching of younger children is for women but that leadership in education and teaching of older youth and adults is for men. We don't know precisely how much this contributes to a second class self image and self expectancies of girls and women and contributes to untrue male supremacy notions of boys and men.

"Female intellectual inferiority" is still implied and tragically believed by some females as well as males although the idea has no visible means of support. Actually, at Yale, which only recently admitted women to undergraduate schools, Yale women are outdoing men by every measure of academic achievement as reported in the forthcoming fortnightly Newsletter, Women, The Majority Report. This states that Yale University has released a study of undergraduate marks wherein 27.5% of the women and 22.9% of the men received Honors. This is true in spite of the predominance of men in a still male-oriented, male-administered institution within an androcentric culture.

Exclusion of the exemption of educational institutions from coverage of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act promises more role models of women in leadership roles and men and women in a diversity of roles that are individually not sex-determined. It is with enthusiasm that one must view the potential of egalitarian educational institutions to demythologize the sex role caste stereotyping in educational materials, especially textbooks. The educator role and student role in terms of compatible scheduling is a particularly viable model of the combination of the occupational-parental role for women and men. Parenthood and career need not be mutually exclusive choices for men or women when we need the talents of and options for both parents within and outside the home.

It is the responsibility of the Federal government to act when states have not done so. Only a couple states have or currently contemplate any prohibition of sex discrimination in educational institutions so the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) needs jurisdiction, in this regard, the need of the E.E.O.C. itself for enforcement powers is relevant here and I refer you to my testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Labor dated September 10, 1969, for a statement on the urgency of that Agency's mandate.

Finally, I want to focus especially on the potential of amending Section 104 of the 1957 Civil Rights Act as proposed in Section 805 (c) of H.R. 16098 so that discrimination based on sex will be the subject of study and research by the United States Civil Rights Commission. I want to emphasize first the reasons and then most importantly the potential of the research on sexism.

The price of sex bias is actually greater even than the tragic price of race bias in purely quantitative terms. The qualitative psychological and sociological consequences figuratively boggle the mind and literally escape precise numerical measurement both in individual and societal terms if even seen in all its dimensions. Present studies by other agencies require a teasing out of the relevant differentials by sex. For instance: the median earnings of white men employed year-round full-time is $7,396, of Black men-$4,777, of white women-$4,279, of Black women-$3,194. Women with some college education, both white and Black, earn less than Black men with 8 years of elementary education. Women are the economic heads of 1,723,000 impoverished families: Black males are the economic heads of 820,000 poor families. 14 of all families economically headed by white women, more than 1⁄2 of all Black families economically headed by Black males are in poverty. 7% of those families economically headed by white males are impoverished.

The unemployment rate is higher among girls than boys, among women than men whether Black or white and even these figures do not include women on welfare who, like other women, want to be employed for pay. Diminished oppor

tunity and absence of child care facilities, precludes their actually bothering to seek work and only those actually unsuccessfully seeking work are included in the revealing figures. The unrest, resentment and sheer outrage of aware women cannot forever be ignored. For instance, from 39-50% of these who rebelled in Detroit, Watts and elsewhere were women. The recent significant Golden Jubilee Conference sponsored by the Labor Department's Women Bureau was attended by women leaders throughout the country with a theme of "American Women at the Crossroads: Directions for the Future". The President of the United States could not even be present to greet this great gathering of serious American women in the White House. The women were relegated to a punch and cookie party on the White House lawn to be greeted by Mrs. Nixon, forever gracious, but neither now nor forever representative of women who have our own identity and personhood independent of the men in our lives. Responsible women, representing millions of others either boycotted that reception in barely controlled outrage, actively considered a White House sit-in including handcuffing ourselves to some stabile accoutrement, or simply refused the charades of the reception line. Others were apparently grateful for even token recognition, but expressed keen disappointment at the President's continued cavalier ghettoizing the priority of the concerns of women as people. Indeed, only the respect for the office of the President and the White House as the symbol of authority prevented an activist dramatization of women's fury. Responsible women expect responsible leadership. The President saw non-voting Boy Scouts the day before.

Now, allow me to list without elaboration additional reasons for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to study sex discrimination. The commission's work would recognize, legitimatize and document the problem and potential solutions in ways current voluntary groups, victimized by sex discrimination, can't marshall very easily. It could provide the data base and the mandate to educate the public, hopefully in innovative ways, about the reality and seriousness of defacto patterns of sex discrimination, whatsoever the causes. The facts of institutional sex bias are not generally known but however blatant or subtle must be studied and revealed beginning with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission itself. Even agencies of government in past and current studies often obscure the differential data on men and women by only detailing data by race, by studying only males, or by subsuming the particular data on women by combining information on women and men.

The more sophisticated problem of research premises, design, methodology and interpretive analyses requires insightful national attention to sexism as it would influence the work of the Commission. The very questions which research asks often reflect researcher bias e.g.: the researcher always asks the woman why she works, the man is never asked. Any research that accepts the status quo as the given, the "natural" and full potential introduces a systematic bias into the research at this point in time. Indeed, any assumption that any behavior is either innately "feminine" or "masculine" contaminates research. Any assumption about appropriate role behavior based on sex beyond the purely biological is already biased.

Aside from the pervasive and promiscuous bias among researchers in terms of sex role stereotyping in expectations and analyses is the failure to accurately distinguish between sexual behaviors and sex role behaviors. Moving up the Phylogenetic ladder, sexual behaviors themselves become less streotyped and more a prod uct of learning. On the other hand, sex role behaviors are entirely learned and dependent on cultural conditioning and societal expectations. A role is an ascribed status not an inherent characteristic.

One trusts the sophisticated attention of the commission to sex discrimination would extinguish questions like the following which are not research questions. "If women and men were given the same opportunities and incentives would their accomplishments differ?" As with other minority groups, to ask that question in a time when this culture is so slanted toward men with women unprepared (not unable) for achievement is to ignore, with insensitivity, the present disadvantages to personhood of being brought up female in our culture. As a matter of fact, one real and immediate value to the commission's study of and publicity about sex discrimination would be to qualify more women for training and education programs for the disadvantaged under various Manpower training projects. In fact, it might prompt a change in name from Manpower to Personnel or Human Resources and remove one more way our language and thus our thought excludes women as over 1⁄2 of our adult population.

The proposed legislation is needed especially to remove the barriers to development and recognition of the talents of women. Its contributions to the real needs of men cannot be ignored. The often fragile male ego must be strengthened to accept the experience and reality of women as generally equal persons often with talents superior to men. The traditional male-oriented value system that sanetions violence as the final assertion of mankind (synonymous with nationhood) must be eradicated as dysfunctional and anachronistic. There are alternatives to the adversary system of human relations. Winning a game or a war or even initiating either is not so laudable as attention to super bowls and patriotism so narrowly conceived and defined mandates. Indeed, national honor on analysis becomes a euphemism for perpetuation of chauvinism.

The proposed legislation in Section 805 of H.R. 16098 is no panacea but offers significant potential to facilitate the emergence of the voice and authentic image of women as people. The nation and males need that voice and reality. The hand that has rocked the cradle must now rock the boat and guide the ship of state in significant numbers and healthier ways. The only pertinent questions are: are men really brave enough to care and do women care enough to bravely assert these imperatives? As responsible legislators, you can do no less than effect this legislation in the national interest.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ENFORCEMENT ACT-HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, U.S. SENATE 91ST CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION ON S. 2453-To FURTHER PROMOTE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR AMERICAN WORKERS, AUG. 11, 12, SEPT. 10 AND 16, 1969

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILMA SCOTT HEIDE, MEMBER, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

I am Wilma Scott Heide, a Behavioral Research Scientist, a member of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, and of the Pennsylvania Boards of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), vice-chairman of the Allegheny County Council on Civil Rights and a leader of the National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW). However, I am here today as a citizen to briefly share some observations, raise some fundamental questions and make specific recommendations to this Senate Subcommittee so you may truly act to legislate effectively and thus not only promote but unequivocally advocate equal employment opportunity for American workers.

First, thank you for this opportunity. I had no intention of taking a day away from my other citizen commitments, my family and my employment to personally address this subcommittee. However, the quality and equality of life to which I am committed within and outside my home compel me to be here and be heard. If the federal legislation under question is at all equivocal, ineffective, incomplete, or uncommitted to human equity, then our more local, regional efforts are diminished by just that much absence of national leadership and/or action. I do detect a need for fuller commitment of this nation to human equity as variously evident in the approach and content of both bills S. 2453 and S. 2806 and in the serious omission from both of necessary provisions. So much for my reasons for being here.

Now, for some observations and fundamental questions vis-a-vis S. 2453 and S. 2806. It may be revealing to note that: S. 2453 . . . "may be cited as the 'Equal Employment Opportunities Enforcement Act'" (lines 3 and 4, page 1 of Bill; S. 2806 . . . "may be cited as the 'Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1969.'' I have 3 observations/questions: (1) is the omission of the word enforcement from the administration bill S. 2806 significant and indeed reflect the real intent? Its proponents claim it is designed for enforcement not mere administration of the law. (2) Why does S. 2806 state "Act of 1969?" Why must the date be included in the title of the law? Will the administration have some other laws to introduce in 1970 or 1971, depending on the political climate then? If the commitment to equity is present, the Act will be independent of the year or the climate and will in title, approach, and content reflect the ongoing commitment to Law, Order, and Justice, so frequently proclaimed. However, neither S. 2453 nor S. 2806 maintains active advocacy as purposes of the bills.

"To further promote equal. . . opportunities . . ." is weak, weasel language that communicates little more than platitudinous niceties. Measure that lan

50-147-71-pt. 1-10