person that we are dealing with and I think this is what we are really talking about, and I think this is where you and I have gotten ourselves off just a little bit. You are not concerning me about what you testified to in relation to the relationship of men and women. I am not going to brand your testimony x so that nobody can read it or anything else. That has nothing to do with it. We are all grown people and we all understand. But I think we are not talking about the equality between people as such. We are talking about the equality that is presented to people by governments. We are talking about the responsibility of governments at all levels to consider all of its citizens as equals, not whether men and women desire to do this between each other. Not what their relationship is in their home or not what their relationship is out on the street or anywhere else. We are talking about equal treatment under the law directed toward governments for its people.

And I think this is the distinction that I make out of this that I can't get out of the biological sequence that we have gone through; but please continue.

Mrs. GRACE. Thank you. I know exactly what I am getting at, but apparently it is not getting across. Put it this way: The man who is objective does not want to work under a subjectively minded boss. We say that a woman doesn't advance to a supervisor position very easily, and if a man has a choice between choosing a man for the job or a woman for the job, I think that in view of the people and in the office he should be able to choose a man simply to keep the tone of the thing objective, to keep an objective atmosphere going in that business. My grounds are that we don't live under the dictum of the laws, we live under its influence. And to give you an example, I don't know exactly what traffic code it is or what the penalty is for going over 60 miles an hour. All I know is when I feel I am going too fast, I slow down on the feeling that I am going to be breaking the law somehow. I don't know what it is. But that actually causes me to take a different action and I think if an employer had the choice between choosing a man and a woman, and felt that there was no ground for him to doing this legally, that he wouldn't push for the commonsense grounds. He does not think the male workers would want to work under a female who takes subjective approaches to her job and to the men in it.

Senator Cook. Well, maybe this is that degree of inequality that we might talk about in Women's Liberation that says that one should equate himself with the idea that he works for a degree of intelligence that he may not have. I am not going to argue that point. First of all, your premise doesn't agree with mine because I can't equate all men as being objective and all women as being subjective. Now, we start off wrong and therefore the conclusion that you come to, I cannot come to, because I can't really say that every male that is born into the world immediately becomes an objective individual and every young lady that is born into the world becomes subjective.

Mrs. GRACE. I say the one difference psychologists and psychiatrists have been able to agree on is the one difference between males and females.

Senator Cook. They may agree on the patients they have but thank God all males and females in this country are not patients of psychiatrists. Really, you know, I really don't want to argue with you. I really should give you an opportunity to finish your statement with

out interrupting you anymore, but I do have to say that when we are talking about the desire of a nation under a constitution to want equality, then equality is a hallmark of all of its people and not reserved for a part of its people. And that may be throwing something up in the air that everybody can shoot at but I do have to say to you we are not talking about the objective or the subjective attitudes of males and females to each other, we are talking about a government in relation to its people. And I think this is where this distinction has to be made.

You can go ahead and proceed.

Mrs. GRACE. Well, I guess it would be just a continuing argument to say it is not toward each other, it is toward their feelings of life in general. I would like to, all right, forget the result of this and take it on the basis of saying that this amendment is going to go through, and we are going to have offices that now have discriminatingly staffed themselves with males in the higher positions, and that there is a certain business life that is going to go on in those offices, now, the amendment gets the women in there, but it is the men and the women together who have got to work together and there is a difference between the way women conduct business and the way that men do. A male usually does something from a clear-cut unemotional efficiency minded standpoint. I think that the way battleships are run, the way that fire stations are run, the way any institution that is basically male is run more than proves the point.

Senator Cook. Let me say that nothing in the amendment says that men and women have to be put together or men and women have to work together. This amendment is saying that all people are to be treated equally regardless of sex.

Mrs. GRACE. What I am saying is that I think the question of the actual inequalities between men and women should be looked into before you give women in effect access to authoritarian positions or we have called them high-paying positions but they are the same.

Senator Cook. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already says to every employer in the country that you shall not discriminate. You are a citizen of this country. Do you feel that in dealing with your Government, do you feel that dealing with the government of Maryland, do you feel in dealing with lawmakers, do you feel in dealing with the courts, do you feel in the treatment that should be afforded you as a citizen of this Nation that you should be treated differently than anybody else?

Mrs. GRACE. In certain things, yes. For instance, both the laws that affect men in custody rights and the laws that affect men in alimony, stem basically from what I am talking about. They have been decided against men and for women.

Senator Cook. I might suggest to you that the laws of most of the States now say that it is not that way.

Mrs. GRACE. I was trying to answer your question.

Senator Cook. Let me say this. The amendment reads as follows: equality of rights under the law. We are not talking about whether an employer should do something with an employee or not. Whether he should have a choice. We are talking about under the laws of this land. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Now, it doesn't

say equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of being a woman. It says on account of sex.

But it could discriminate by saying women, couldn't it?

Mrs. GRACE. It is not men who are pushing for this amendment. Senator Cook. I have listened to two distinguished professors, one from New York University and one from Yale this morning, and I listened to a remarkable professor of law at New Mexico University, all of whom were enthusiastically in favor of this and who said as a matter of fact that in many instances men are being discriminated against and that this amendment will establish equality. You see, the reason that this is a movement that finds more women discussing it than men is because frankly they are being discriminated against more. And so therefore the challenge really is there and they have done a pretty good job of it. I would assume that there are many men who could come here and say they didn't want this. As a matter of fact, there are many women who have said to me they do not want it. But I must confess when we sit side by side, comparable efforts within the framework of being a citizen of this Nation, and the compensation of women, either in one's loyalty to one's country, one's love of one's nation, or remuneration that one receives because one is a female, she receives less. And this cannot be equated to a democracy that we commonly referred to as the greatest democracy in the world.

That is the only point I am trying to make and-I have been delighted in listening to you, but let me say this: You said a minute ago that men have a degree of objective efficiency and that they are different in this regard. I want to tell you, you used the phrase the way a man operates, the way a captain operates his ship. I want you to know that a captain loves his ship and I want you to know a fire chief loves his equipment, and what I am trying to equate to you is that please don't say that a man goes about doing what he does in his lifetime because he is unemotional.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Grace.

Miss Alice Paul, founder and honorary chairman of the National Woman's Party.

STATEMENT OF MISS ALICE PAUL, FOUNDER AND HONORARY CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S PARTY; ACCOMPANIED BY CARUTHERS GHOLSON BERGER AND HERBERT S. MILLER

Miss PAUL. Mr. Chairman, our organization, the National Woman's Party, supports and works for the equal rights of the amendment as passed by the House, and House Resolution 264.

With regard to the amendments offered by Senator Ervin, with all due respect to Senator Ervin, we want to say that we oppose them because we think that all of them would write inequality sections into the Constitution rather than equality. That is, just briefly, our position on the subject before you.

We were asked, we understood, to bring legal experts and confine our experts to the legal aspects of this whole question. So far that reason we have asked two supporters of the amendment, who are lawyers, and lawyers of distinction, and familiar with, very familiar with certain aspects of this measure from a legal standpoint, to testify for us,

51-146-70-24

and I want to introduce Mr. Herbert Miller, professor at Georgetown University and deputy director of the Institute of Criminal Law at Georgetown University.

He was also formely, for about 5 years, the deputy prosecutor of the Criminal Law Department of Justice, the Department of Justice. I will now call upon Mr. Miller to open this.

Senator Cook. Go right ahead.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is quite an honor for me to be here testifying on behalf of the National Woman's Party. I must confess at the outset that for many years I did not support the proposed equal rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I did not believe it was necessary, nor did I believe it was in the best interests of women.

For many years I worked under the supervision of a woman in a professional job. Frankly, I found it to be a trying experience. I intend to refer to that experience and refer to why I have changed my view on the need for this amendment at this time.

I am not going to explore in detail the legal ramifications of the equal rights amendment before the committee. I think it has been done in other testimony before this committee and other committees of the Congress. I think that the equal rights amendment that the House passed, the one that is proposed by Senator McCarthy must be endorsed by the Senate as a matter of public necessity, fundamental fairness and simple equity.

One thing is clear to me in retrospect when I look back on some of my former work experience. The difficulties I had working under a woman largely stemmed from my own feelings concerning her status in a bureaucratic hierarchy. Many men for whom I have worked, frankly, have been more difficult to please than the woman for whom I worked, but I accepted the difficulties of working for a man as part of the working world in which I lived.

From a woman I was unwilling to accept the same in the proper spirit. I believe, therefore, the cause of my difficulty was not so much the woman under whom I worked, but my own feelings of resentment and unwillingness to accept a woman as a professional equal or superior.

Since then I have had occasion to work with and supervise lawyers who happened to be women. In all honesty I found them to be just as good and just as bad as many male lawyers with whom I have had similar professional relationships.

I frankly believe that behind much of the finely-spun reasoning, much of the tedious legal argument, lies a hidden fear on the part of men, a hidden fear that what has been traditionally the dominating position in our society is now threatened by the emergence of capable and aggressive women who want their place in the sun.

I think this possibility underlies the basic opposition to the simple equal rights amendment proposed by Senator McCarthy.

Senator Cook. I might say to you that we went through a little of this with the last witness. I honestly believe that our arguments are oriented around a conglomeration of women's liberation and equal rights amendment to the Constitution, and I must confess to you that I think there is a tremendous distinction in regard to what a govern

ment feels about its citizens and whether a particular group of its citizens seeks rights in some respects, as a matter of fact, that are outside of the equal protection of the laws and the equal rights under the laws.

So I agree with you, I think that there is a little bit of this in here and we have to get past it and get down to the nuts and bolts of it. Mr. MILLER. I will try.

Senator Ervin's amendment purports to protect women on the face of the amendment. Unfortunately, experience indicates that in many jurisdictions and probably it would be used to perpetuate a recognized practice of discriminating against women in the working world. In the name of protection, in other words, a weapon, I think, is being forged which will be used against women.

It obscures the clear and present necessity for a clean amendment which provides women with a solid legal peg upon which to hang suits to enjoin the kind of discrimination which has been documented copiously before this committee.

I think we are entering into a new era of relationship between men and women, and I am speaking of relationships primarily in the working area.

I am not certain I personally will feel comfortable in the emerging new structure that we are facing, but I don't believe the prejudice and fears that we have should act as a block, as a block primarily to young people in this country and to future generations to whom, after all, we have the profoundest obligation. I think it is incumbent upon us to sweep the cobwebs of the ancient fears and prejudices from this amendment, and our thoughts concerning it, and to give women, who after all are human beings and American citizens, the tools which will enable all persons to attain that position in life to which their capabilities and their will entitles them.

No less a venerable institution such as the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia has only recently offered to the people of the Commonwealth an amendment to the Virginia Constitution. I would like to read it. It is very brief.

The voters of Virginia are going to vote on this in November and every indication is that it will be passed. The right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin, shall not be abridged.

That, I believe, will make Virginia one of the leaders in this field in the United States.

If a great Southern State, one that would supply the United States with some of the giants of American history, can make such a progressive movement forward, then surely the U.S. Senate can do no less.

Thank you, Senator.

Miss PAUL. Of our speakers, Mrs. Caruthers Berger is from Virginia and Mrs. Berger is one member of the National Council of the National Woman's Party, and a very devoted worker in trying to help women who themlseves are in difficulty because of special labor laws applying

to women and not to men.

Mrs. Berger.

Senator Cook. Proceed.