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

service, we would on occasion observe some of the comely girls passing beneath our window. While male scholars will dispute most generalizations, they will readily agree that there just aren't enough chicks in their area of specialization, to put it in professional sociological language [sic]. Hence, my friend and I determined to print some handbills or perhaps put up a sign inviting some of the sweet young things to consider doing advanced work in our field. Alas, we never followed through, and many a pretty girl still walks the street who could have been saved. This clear-cut case of creativity [sic] followed by indecision was duly noted by our professors, however, and we were both awarded doctorates shortly thereafter.

The article was headed: "Have You Ever Considered a Doctorate in the Sociology of Education, My Dear?" It is not my impression that those men were primarily interested in the intellectual capacities of the women they idly thought of attracting into their profession, nor do I think that they would have written a similar piece suggesting that blacks be recruited because of their soft voices and sexy sense of rhythm revealed as they walked past the window.

Sexual discrimination is, as has been said before, the last socially acceptable form of discrimination. (See AAUW questionnaire results cited in report.)

Women students regularly encounter the following kinds of statements during their meetings with male faculty-all quotations come from students with the highest academic qualifications:

"The admissions committee didn't do their job. There is not one good-looking girl in the entering class."

"No pretty girls ever come to talk with me." "You're so cute. I can't see you as professor of anything.” “A pretty girl like you will certainly get married. Why don't you stop with an M.A.?"

"We expect women who come here to be competent, good students, but we don't expect them to be brilliant or original." "Women are intrinsically inferior." "Any woman who has got this far has got to be a kook." "Why don't you find a rich husband and give all this up?"

"Our general admissions policy has been if the body is warm and male, take it; if it's female, make sure it's an A- from Bryn Mawr." "How old are you anyway? Do you think that a girl like you could handle a job like this? You don't look like the academic type." "Somehow I can never take women in this field seriously."

The effect such comments have on women students and the attitudes of mind behind them are analyzed at greater length in my testimony where the source of the following quote is given:

Comments such as these can hardly be taken as encouragment for women students to develop an image of themselves as scholars. They indicate that some of our professors have different expectations about our performance than about the performance of male graduate students-expectations based not on our ability as individuals, but on the fact that we are women. Comments like these indicate that we are expected to be decorative objects in the classroom, that we're not likely to finish a Ph. D., and if we do, there must be something "wrong" with us. Single women will get married and drop out. Married women will have children and drop out. And a woman with children ought to stay at home and take care of them rather than study and teach.

Here I should only like to say that when women drop out-and published evidence suggests that their attrition rate is only slightly greater than that of men-I call that discrimination against women, and not, as some do, women discriminating against themselves. What astonishes me is that so many women put up with this kind of sick humor and persist with their intention of getting a B.A., an M.A., a Ph. D. or a law degree, or medical training.