for women, Stanley J. McFarland of the National Education Association cited statistic upon statistic indicting the broadly based discriminatory attitudes in the field of education-pointing out that the situation is the worst in our institutions of higher education. Let me quote to you part of his comments on salaries:

"It must be emphasized that discrimination as to teachers' salary schedules is rare but it does exist in public schools. It is far more prevalent in higher education." (The italics are mine.) "The median for women college teachers' salaries, according to a University of Pennsylvania study, is $1.000 below that of men in comparable positions. Since women are increasingly shut out of opportunities for advanced degrees, this situation will likely worsen. Women in college positions predominate in the part time, non-tenured positions where they are expendable-they are added or dropped in response to budgetary or enrollment changes. With the present oversupply of Ph.D.'s available, the gap between men and women faculty members will widen..."

A news article earlier this month cited examples from some 800 case histories of sex discrimination received by the American Association of University Women-many of which, unfortunately, involve our institutions of higher learning.

The files of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the files of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, my files, and, I'm sure, your files contain letter upon letter, case upon case, all involving intelligent, competent, qualified women who seek only the opportunity to share their knowledge, to use their abilities, in their appropriate educational area of competence.

I'm pleased beyond words that Dr. Bernice Sandler is testifying before this Subcommittee. As Chairman of WEAL's Action Committee for Federal Contract Compliance in Education, she has compiled case upon case in establishing beyond a shadow of doubt the facts about sex discrimination in the colleges and universities of this Nation-not just that it exists-but that, it seems to me, that it is running rampant!

More importantly, she is actively and constructively doing something about it through just about the only approach presently available-filing charges of sex discrimination under Executive Order 11246 as amended, which forbids federal contractors from discriminating against women. This is, however, a long and circuitous route, and is only effective in certain circumstances. The amendments being considered today are vitally necessary if our long-range goals are to be achieved.

The glaring legislative loophole in Title VI, when taken together with the virtual exemptions of educational institutions under Title VII, for all practical purposes, provide for situations of gut discrimination at two levels-and there is no effective legal way to get at them!

At one level: students. Discrimination upon the basis of sex has been going on for so long with respect to the students that it's criminal. Here we have this scholarship money-much of it, please bear in mind, is federal-going to students. Which students receive this scholarship money is decided upon by the individual colleges and universities-where there are often quota restrictions on women recipients. Thus, we find ourselves faced with a situation wherein federal funds are subsidizing discriminatory opportunities-and there is no way to get it back!

At the other level: faculty. This level has already been referred to, and other witnesses have and will be presenting a veritable mountain of substantive evidence of discrimination. The last figures I saw indicated that around 40% of all college and university students are women-the percentage of women faculty members is such a small fraction, it's staggering. Clearly, the pattern indicates that if you are a woman-no matter how qualified-your chances of being hired in the first place are slim, the pressures and demands upon you will be more than those put on your male colleagues, your pay will be less, your chances of selection for tenure or for departmental chairmanships are practically non-existent. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance is unable to get at many individual cases filed under the Executive Order because, of course, not every college or university is that heavily dependent upon federal funds.

It strikes me as being unconscionable that such problems are widely recognized as existing at the undergraduate level, at the graduate level in the medical schools, veterinary schools, the law schools-of the colleges and universities of this Nation today.

50-147-71-pt. 1-16

It seems to me that the overall situation is so clear that there is simply no valid reason for any delays in amending the laws that pertain.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be amended to include sex as one of the prohibited grounds for discrimination.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be amended to remove the exemption of teachers from application of the Equal Employment Opportunity provision.

Section 104 (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 must be amended to add discrimination against women as a subject of investigation and study by the Civil Rights Commission.

The Fair Labor Standards Act must be amended to extend the equal pay for equal work provisions to cover individuals of both sexes in professional, executive and administrative positions.

In 1776, when this Nation was yet in the midst of its birth pangs, Abigail Adams asked her husband, John, to be more generous and favorable to women than his ancestors, and to see to it that this new government not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands.

Almost two hundred years later we find ourselves still pleading the same

cause.

As the title of the just-released (and long-awaited) Report of the President's Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities so eloquently sets forth: it is "A Matter of Simple Justice."

Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m. the Special Subcommittee on Education adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, June 19, 1970.)

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Green and Hathaway.

Staff member present: Harry Hogan, counsel.

Mrs. GREEN. The meeting will come to order for the further consideration of legislation that is now before the committee. I am delighted to welcome as the three witnesses this morning testifying primarily on section 805, of H.R. 16098: Dr. Ann Harris of Columbia University, representing Columbia Women's Liberation; Dr. Pauli Murray of Brandeis University; and Dr. Bernice Sandler, chairman of the Action Committee for Federal Government Contract Compliance in Education, Women's Equity Action League.

We are delighted to have the three of you here. I would ask unanimous consent that the full statement of Professor Harris be made a matter of record at this point.

STATEMENTS OF DR. ANN SUTHERLAND HARRIS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ART HISTORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTING COLUMBIA WOMEN'S LIBERATION; DR. PAULI MURRAY, PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN STUDIES, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY; AND DR. BERNICE SANDLER, CHAIRMAN, ACTION COMMITTEE FOR FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE IN EDUCATION, WOMEN'S EQUITY ACTION LEAGUE

Dr. HARRIS. I am Ann Sutherland Harris, assistant professor of art history in the Graduate Faculties of Columbia University in the city of New York. I am also active in Columbia Women's Liberation and I am a member of N.O.W. I do not represent Columbia University in an official capacity, but I am a spokeswoman for Columbia Women's Liberation, which supports this testimony and helped to prepare the report presented here today.

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am here today to testify to the urgent need to extend the protection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to women in institutions of higher education by means of the amendments proposed (237)

by the Honorable Mrs. Green in section 805 of the Omnibus PostSecondary Education Act of 1970 (H.R. 16098).

Much of my evidence concerning discriminatory practices against women in higher education is drawn from my knowledge of the situation at Columbia University. My research merely confirms my longheld suspicion, however, that the situation at Columbia is merely typical of comparable high-endowment, high-prestige private universities in the United States.

That the overall distribution of women in institutions of higher education in the United States is highly suggestive of discriminatory practices and of attitudes prejudicial to women no one can deny. Research into the problem of sexual discrimination in higher education is handicapped at present, however, by the scarcity of sex breakdown statistics for individual institutions.

A great deal of the data now available has been collected by groups of concerned women students, staff and faculty, and is not yet available in published form. I have been astonished-as disheartened-to discover how uniform the pattern is. In whatever proportion the women are to be found, the women are always at the bottom.

The rule and it applies to outside higher education as well-the rule where women are concerned is simply this: The higher, the fewer. The higher in terms of level of education, the higher in terms of faculty rank, the higher in terms of recognized responsibility, the higher in terms of salary, prestige and status, the fewer are the women. Dr. Bernice Sandler will present testimony regarding the overall distribution of women, and the evidence these statistics provide of a general pattern of sexual discrimination. My testimony, therefore, will concentrate on Columbia University and on other institutions, principally the University of Chicago, from which I was able to obtain. good statistical data and/or evidence of discrimination against women. I should add that my 40-page report is a summary of several hundred pages of information that I have accumulated over the past year, and that I have selected the material for presentation here because it was typical, not because it was exceptional. The report that Columbia Women's Liberation prepared on the faculty of Columbia and Barnard will be read into the record as an example of the kind of statistical and sociological report now being prepared in many institutions of higher education throughout the United States, both to document the widespread existence of sexual discrimination in the academic world, and to prepare the way for remedial measures.

I am only one of many thousands of women who believe that Congress will be increasingly preoccupied in the next decade with the legislation necessary to insure women equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal status with men in the United States. Women are organizing now as they have not since fighting to win the right to vote 50 years ago. More and more women are realizing that they are treated as second-class citizens.

The word "sex" was added to section 702 of title VII of the Civil Rights Act as a joke, and women will not forget that insult. Equality for women is not a joke. It is a serious issue, although many otherwise fairminded individuals still refuse to believe that discrimination against women is a serious problem, or is a problem that deserves to be taken seriously.

I believe that the best and most convincing evidence of discrimination against women, in the academic world and outside, is statistical, but I know that statistics are tedious to listen to, and I will trust the committee to read at their leisure the substantial body of my evidence.

Here I would like to try and convey to the committee by means of some quotations made by academic men about academic and nonacademic women the sexually negative atmosphere in which women live and work as students, staff, and faculty. These kinds of comments are familiar to all women. If they seem to the men in this audience a trivial form of opposition, I hope they will try to remember that they are not and have not been on the receiving end of such psychological warfare. They have not been subjected to daily propaganda with regard to their intrinsic weaknesses and inferiority. Nor have their ambitions been limited by anything other than their native ability and energy.

No man would be content to be only a husband and a father. Men have not organized political movements demanding the right to be house-husbands supported by their working wives. Thus tacitly men have recognized the limited world to which they still seek to confine women, and to which they continue to seek to limit them by making access to professional careers difficult.

Women's weaker physical constitution has never exempted them from hard physical labor in the United States in the home, in factories, in the fields. It has long been the most valued forms of human achievement from which men have sought to exclude women, and in this the academic world is no different from other spheres of prestigious professional activity.

When President Nathan Pusey of Harvard realized that the draft was going to reduce the numbers of men applying to Harvard's graduate program, he exclaimed:

We shall be left with the blind, the lame, and the women.

At Yale, when the new women undergraduates protested the quota on women and made the modest demand for 50 more women undergraduates the coming year at an alumni dinner, an alumnus was cheered when he said:

We're all for women, but we can't deny a Yale education to a man.

Charles de Carlo, who recently succeeded Esther Rauschenbusch as president of Sarah Lawrence, one of many examples of a women president being succeeded by a man-I know of only one reverse examplesaid the following, shortly after his appointment:

Feminine instincts are characterized by caring qualities, concern for beauty and form, reverence for life, empathy in human relations, and a demand that men be better than they are.

What is a man who does not think that women are people, doing as president of a women's college? Charles de Carlo thinks that women are myths, muses, madonnas, but not human beings with the potential and full range of characteristics ascribed to men.

Other academic men think that women are chickens. The following statement appeared in a respectable sociological periodical this winter: Some years ago, a colleague and I shared an office with a great view of the campus. When we were not consumed by teaching, research and/or community