against women students in their admission policies and against women teachers and professors in employment.

So great is the discrimination against women in public universities and colleges that in one State alone during a period of 3 years 21,000 women were denied college entrance while men of comparable abilities were accepted. (See statement of Dr. Bernice Sandler, Women's Equity Action League, subcommittee hearings, page 412, 434.)

Public educational institutions are rejecting qualified women by the thousands, thus denying them an opportunity to prepare for occupations of their choice. Women professors and teachers, who are not within the scope of title VII, are discriminated against in employment by colleges and universities. When they are employed, they are frequently arbitrarily denied tenure and confined to lower paid positions. (See Fact Sheet on Earnings Gap-U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, supra, note 4.)

Women are not considered worthy of education by the admissions officers of public colleges and universities. In recent years the situation of women in this respect has deteriorated. In 1967 women earned only 35 percent of all master's degrees, while in 1930 they earned 40 percent of such degrees. In 1967, they earned only 12 percent of all doctor's degrees, after having achieved a high of 15 percent in 1920 and 1930. (See Fact Sheet on Trends in Educational Attainment of Women, U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau 1969.)

Obviously, women cannot become lawyers, doctors, or engineers when college admissions officers make the highhanded decision that they are to be excluded from college altogether.

REBUTTAL OF OPPONENTS ARGUMENTS

In our modern-day society, the right to follow the profession or occupation of one's choice and the right to acquire an education in order to do so are so important that persons who are denied such opportunities are consigned for life to the status of second-rate citizens unable to cope with life's problems. The social injustice that is being perpetrated against 52 percent of America's citizens exceeds in its enormity most of our other domestic problems.

It is absurd to say, as the opponents of equality have said, that the mountain of discriminations barring women from equality should be raised by "special bills for special ills." It is comparable to saying that the mountain should be removed bit by bit with a teaspoon. Of course, the equal rights amendment cannot destroy in the mind of each sex bigot all the pettiness and prejudice directed against women, but it can eliminate governmental discriminations which foster and condone such discriminations and offer alibis for them.

It is further insulting to American women for the opponents of equality to argue that a constitutional amendment is not necessary and that the exploitation of women can be eliminated by a few statutory provisions. Women have been subjected to discriminations and abuses since our Nation was founded, indeed since civilization began. There could be no area in which constitutional protection is more obviously needed than it is for the purpose of guaranteeing to women the same freedom that men have long considered theirs as a matter of

course.

The question as to whether women might not ultimately achieve their rights under the 14th and fifth amendments has frequently been raised by adversaries of the equal rights amendment, their real motivation being a desire to obstruct women in their fight for equality. Had the 14th and fifth amendments been properly interpreted by the courts, unquestionably women would already have many of the rights which they now seek under the equal rights amendment. The 14th amendment and fifth amendment's guarantees extend to all persons. Under the rules of constitutional construction, words must be given their logical meaning. Accordingly, under a proper construction, no person can be deprived of the rights guaranteed by these amendments on the basis of normal human traits permanently determined by birth, such as an individual's sex, skin color, or national origin.

The case of Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, and companion cases should not be regarded as determinative of woman's right to full protection under the 14th and fifth amendments. That case did not involve a woman litigant seeking her rights to due process or equal protection under the 14th amendment; instead, it involved an employer attempting to defend against violations of a State criminal statute. Furthermore, as one professor of constitutional law pointed out at these hearings, cases such as Muller, decided in 1908, and reciting the dogma that women are weak and should be protected are antiques and not entitled to weight as modern day legal precedents. The more recent case of Goesart v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948) upholding the constitutionality of a State statute preventing a woman from working at a bar is no longer viable since the principle on which it was based was repudiated by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), wherein the Court held that "law and order are not to be preserved by depriving (persons) of their constitutional rights." Be that as it may, women citizens have no reason to believe that their rights which have been neglected for centuries are going to suddenly be vindicated and upheld by the 14th and fifth amendments which have been part of the Constitution for over 100 years. As recent as Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961), the Supreme Court cited the Muller case as though it were still viable, antique though it is.

In two cases, Heaton v. Bristol, 317 S.W. 2d 86 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958) certiorari denied 359 U.S. 230, rehearsing denied 359 U.S. 999, and Allred v. Heaton, 336 S.W. 2d 251, certiorari denied 364 U.S. 517, rehearing denied 364 U.S. 944, the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in the case of women plaintiffs who had denied the right to enter all male colleges because of their sex. While certiorari is not a matter of right and its denial does not necessarily indicate approval of the decisions below, the different treatment received by women and persons of racial minorities is dramatic. (See Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).) It would be difficult to find cases wherein the 14th amendment is more obviously applicable than in the Bristol and Allred cases. These cases alone are ample proof of the need for the equal rights amendment.

The advocates of equality of rights for women have a right to simultaneously press for the equal rights amendment and to fight in court for the rights of women under the 14th amendment. The fact that the equal rights amendment would achieve some of the same purposes that would have been served by the 14th and fifth amendments had

they been properly interpreted makes it nonetheless imperative for the equal rights amendment to pass.

As was pointed out in "Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" (5th ed., secs. 1938, 1939), there is no reason why constitutional provisions may not overlap since "the securities of individual rights*** cannot be too frequently declared, nor in too many forms of words" in cases where a tendency has been shown by persons in high places to ignore such individual rights.*

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 231

We are absolutely opposed to Senate Joint Resolution 231. It is nothing on earth but an attempt to sabotage the equal rights amendment in the same classic way as the Hayden rider.

Senate Joint Resolution 231 would freeze into the Constitution a provision putting the stamp of constitutional approval on State restrictive laws. Any change in the House-passed equal rights amendment would be a betrayal of American women.

We have been gratified by the understanding and support of the equal rights amendments' sponsors and are hoping that this 50th anniversary of women suffrage will be a landmark year for American women as a result of passage of the equal rights amendment. Thank you very much.

Miss PAUL. Thank you so very much.

Senator Cook. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Dr. Elizabeth Farians of the Joint Committee of Organizations Concerned about the status of women in the Church.

STATEMENT OF DR. ELIZABETH FARIANS, JOINT COMMITTEE OF ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH; ACCOMPANIED BY MRS. CAROL FORBES AND MRS. ELSIE HALES

Dr. FARIANS. I will try to be very brief. I am not going to sit down. I am too furious. I am very angry that these hearings are being held and I am standing up as a protest to the fact that this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, that in any country in 1970 there should be a group of men debating whether or not women should have preference. This is absolutely ridiculous.

These hearings were initiated for the second time this year by Senator Sam Ervin, as we all know, and I think he ought to be here. He ought to be sitting here and suffering through this nonsense instead of you, for example.

I am going to be very brief. As I say, there are a few things I want to point out.

Margaret Brandt, in 1648, was the first woman to appeal for a place and voice for American women on this continent. She was a Catholic woman. Women finally got the right to vote but they have not gotten their place. There are no women on this Senate Judiciary Committee. The power of one man to hold hearings when we have had hearings

See discussion of this principle in "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment." memorandum of the Citizens Advisory Council on the Status of Women, supra, subcommittee hearings, pp. 381-382.

before on this amendment-this is the second set of hearings. He is not here today. He wasn't here the first time.

We all know that Ervin was a member of the subcommittee that was supposed to be hearing these hearings the first time. I think he owes us an apology. I think he owes us an explanation of why he wasn't here. I think he is negligent in his duty.

Now, he has just told us that tomorrow he is going to put in a substitute amendment which will, of course, water down this amendment. Senator Cook. I do not know this, in all fairness, and I have heard this. I do not know this as a fact.

I merely want to say I am here today and have been here today, and by reason of my being here I have neglected being in three other committees.

Now, I don't know what to say. I think it is perfectly all right and I want you to know that all of your remarks will go into the record and I think it is perfectly all right for us to be as critical as we want to of anybody that we want to be critical of.

We do find ourselves in this business, at least I, for one, that I wish we could get back to about five good standing committees and have no more. I don't know why we have to have 52 committees, or whatever we have, so that we really can't all be where we have to be, and put in the time what we ought to put in.

I am not making excuses for Senator Ervin. I can only say to you that having joined Senator Ervin in his opposition to what we commonly refer to as the D.C. crime bill, having found on many occasions his legal arguments are sound, and having on this one total and complete disagreement with him, I have to say, in all fairness, that I believe that he believes in what he believes, although many of us believe he is wrong.

So I only say that not particularly in an effort to try to make up for somebody's nonappearance, but I hope, by reason of the fact that I am not at three other committees that I was supposed to be today, that somebody isn't standing up in the hearing and saying, "Where is Cook from Kentucky? He ought to be here."

I only pass that on to you because I am afraid

Dr. FARIANS. I understand that and I apprecite that. But I think his actions speak much louder than his words. Women in this country are discriminated against. These are facts. Nobody can dispute them. And he has done nothing to help women. Where is the record? What has he done? For example, in the spring of this year our own Secretary of State initiated a proposal to see to it that the United Nations could save money by cutting down the number of times that the Status of Women's Commission meets.

Women are being sold into what is called white slavery in the world. They are still suffering ritual mutilation. They are still being subjected to a bridal place in some countries of the world, and our own Secretary of State proposed to initiate a proposal that this committee meet every other year. Where was Senator Ervin then if he is so interested in women? Why didn't he do something about that? That was just this year. And 11 percent of the women of this country live in poverty. That is about 11 million women. Where was he then? Why wasn't he doing something about that?

So I think his actions speak louder than his words, and I think this has to be said; even though time has run out, somebody has to say it and

put out what kind of a person he is. I don't think it is out of ignorance. He is speaking for a group of people who don't want women's rights.

And the amendment which he is proposing, whatever it is, will water down the rights of women. It is like the subject and predicate of a sentence. One of them will nullify the other.

We want our rights. I want my rights. I want everybody in this country to have their rights. And rights are indivisible. Nobody can have their rights at the expense of everyone else. I want to walk free and I want everyone else to also, and if Senator Ervin doesn't want women to have rights, or if some women don't want their rights, that is all right, but let us not keep those rights from those of us who do want them.

The other point that I want to make, because I did promise to be brief, is that this Margaret Brandt, who was the first woman to speak for rights in the country, was a Catholic woman. As I said before, we do have our voice now, but we don't have our place. And I represent, as a theologian, a group of women who are called the Joint Committee of Women Concerned About the Position of Women in the Church, and this is a Catholic group.

We want everybody to know that authentic religious values call for the justice and freedom of all people, and there may be groups who say that in the name of God man has the divine right to be the leader and to take all the positions of society and so on, and we want to say most clearly this is not so. There is nothing in the Bible, for example, that says the male has to be the supreme head of the woman. The theologians do not hold this position any more.

I will not go into all of the theological arguments, they don't belong here in this particular hearing, but I want to point out that theological arguments and religious sentiments do affect how we think and that, if there are false religious sentiments in our country that we need to know about, we need to be able to criticize them, and a great deal of the position of women is due to bad theology, and I want that to be made very clear.

I am very angry with Senator Ervin and his tactics, and I think they are dirty politics and they need to be called that, and I have brought with me two women from his State who will also say something about this.

Thank you very much.

Senator Cook. Thank you, Doctor.

(The complete prepared statement of Dr. Farians follows:)

STATEMENT BY DR. ELIZABETH FARIANS FOR THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH

In 1648 Margaret Brent stood before the all male House of delegates in Maryland and made the first formal petition for women's rights in a developing new country. She asked for "place and voyce". In 1970 the women of this country are still asking for "place" as they stand before the male power structure of the United States Senate. The fights for vote was long and arduous but women still have no "place", no status in the United States.

1

Margaret Brent was a Catholic woman. She saw clearly then what some seem unable to see today: that equality under the law for women and men in no way violates authentic religious precepts. Some persons1 would have us believe that male privilege is divinely ordained or that there is a supernatural law which decrees that women should be "barefoot and pregnant". Margaret Brent realized the fallacy of such a stand. She found no conflict between her religious beliefs and the emanicipation of women. She knew that a just God could

1 The National Council of Catholic Women and Senators Sam Ervin and Edward Kennedy seem to be examples.