somewhat differently from the way a man would look at that situation. Mrs. GREEN. Would my colleague yield on this point? I remember a hearing on juvenile delinquency I attended a while back. That morning I had clipped out of the New York Times a long article about a woman who was arrested for being a prostitute, and there was a long article about the two that were involved. It identified the woman by name. It said that she had been taken down to the police court to be fingerprinted. It referred to the man not by name. It referred to him as a successful businessman from out of town. There was no further reference. There happened to be a woman judge from New York who was a witness at the hearing I attended that morning, and I said to her, "Why does this happen, if they both are engaging in an illegal act? Why is the blame put on the woman exclusively, and the man not identified." Doesn't "accessory" as the "accomplice rule" apply here? One of our colleagues leaned over and said, "You know why, don't you?", and I said, "No, I really don't," and he said, "Because there has to be a witness." I said, "Why couldn't the woman sometimes be a witness." Why, in these cases, is it the rule to charge the woman with the crime and protect the man as the "witness"? Miss KOMISAR. Why don't we in this country have a national child care system? It is because the people in Congress are men who don't have to take care of children. If half the people in Congress were women who, because of the rules of our system, social system, had to take care of children, you would be pretty sure we would have a national child care system. Mr. DELLENBACK. I think that is a little simplistic, but I would say that if I were a defense attorney and my client were a prostitute, I would be very interested in having some women on that jury. Mrs. ROBERTS. In the same way I would be interested in having workingmen. All these different people have different attitudes. Mr. DELLENBACK. Because it brings different attitudes. Mrs. ROBERTS. But it is different experiences, not innate differences. This is the kind of things, Congressman Dellenback, that we are so interested in getting at, and we have confronted here this morning, that certain people have the idea there are innate differences that we must perpetuate and that are valuable. We say that we don't know if there are innate differences. We certainly know there are cultural differences, and this is the kind of thing we are talking about. Mr. DELLENBACK. I am not really, you see, quarreling with the legislation, Madam Chairman. You understand that. Miss KOMISAR. In terms of advertising there are some women, and women in advertising are fighting this. This was an ad taken out in Ad Age, by Francelli Cadwell, President of Cadwell-Davis. It says "The Lady of the House Is Dead." It talks about ads that depict women as barefoot and pregnant, that dumdum in Wichita, and that seem to have a cleanliness neurosis. She did a study to find the 10 ads most. hated by women; they were mostly cleaning products and things of that sort. There are women in advertising who are trying to change the image, and she has said that her agency will not do ads that are demeaning and degrading to women. I think that is a good step. There are some other things in terms of media that are both a reflection of our society and a mirror that tells women what their expectations should be. Here is an ad that says, "After a girl has spent 4 years getting a college education, it is a shame not to spend just a few more weeks getting ready to qualify for a rewarding job." It is an ad from a secretarial school. I would like to give these to you; ads where media pretty much advertise their policy of sex discrimination. Here is one, "The Metropolitan News Staff of the New York Times*** Pick of the Professionals." It is a newsroom with only men in it. Here is another ad for WOR radio. There are about three women out of a few dozen men, so they don't think there is anything wrong in showing the kind of discrimination that exists. Not only that, but this indicates to women the kinds of opportunities that are available to them. Mrs. GREEN. Both Congressman Dellenback and I have appointments and I am going to have to adjourn the meeting, but I would like to make one comment and ask for your remarks before we adjourn. Because our country and our society was so long in doing anything to end the discrimination against blacks, it has resulted in a great polarization, and it has brought about the militant blacks. It is my judgment that if our society, which is run by men, in the National Congress, State legislatures, et cetera, does not put more attention to ending the discrimination against women, I think we are going to have an increased polarization in this conutry. I think we are going to have more and more militant women who will not be willing to tolerate this slow progress, I think also as we now are seeing blocs of votes among the blacks, that we are going to have women voting as a bloc. My own personal view is that this is not the most healthy thing for our society. I would wish that we could avoid it, but I think that we will see it if change isn't made. Would either one of you want to comment? a Miss KOMISAR. I think it is true and I think that some of the more forward-looking legislators are realizing this, because I know that in New York we have numbers of people who have made statements and are running on women's rights issues. For example, both senatorial candidates in New York, Senator Goodell and Representative Ottinger, have made statements on women's rights. They include it in their literature. They appear at hearings and talk about it and they know that it is an important issue, and I think that Senators and Congressmen who see which way the country is moving will be responsive to the needs of the people, and it is not really a question of a bloc vote I think is only bad when it is based on something irrational or irrelevant, but voting on the basis of issues is the logical way to vote, and I think women have to begin voting for people, for women and for men who support legislation that is aimed at our needs, particularly at job discrimination, at child care and the like. That is the way that our system ought to run. Mrs. ROBERTS. The militancy will result if we see as the example the only way the blacks got anything is being militant. If we are told that we must keep silent because that is our role, and therefore we should just keep waiting, but we have learned by example that the only thing that gets Congress' attention in some instances has been militancy. We don't want to do this. We are trying to stress men's stake in women's liberation. We are trying to stress the positive things that men will gain. Men aren't going to lose, they are going to gain, but if it takes too long to get this point across, I think what we are doing is The model that has been established for us will be followed. COP Mr. DELLENBACK. We have had two excellent witnesses. Thank you both. Mrs. GREEN. I thank both of you for being here. You have been very helpful. I am going to ask unanimous consent that a statement by Congresswoman Patsy Mink be inserted in the record at this point. Without any objection, this will be done. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am delighted to have this opportunity to express my strong support of Section 805 of H.R. 16098, which has the purpose of amending the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1957, and the Fair Labor Standards Act so as to prohibit discrimination against women in education, and other objectives. Discrimination against women in education is one of the most insidious forms of prejudice extant in our nation. Few people realize the extent to which our society is denied full use of our human resources because of this type of discrimination. Most large colleges and universities in the United States routinely impose quotas by sex on the admission of students. Fewer women are admitted than men, and those few women allowed to pursue higher education must have attained exceptional intellectual standing to win admission. Scholarships and other forms of financial assistance are also distributed on a discriminatory basis, making it more difficult for women to afford a higher education. Universities discriminate against women in hiring faculty, with the effect that women students are instructed mainly by males. This reinforces the system of prejudice on our campuses that systematically deprives women of equal education. And when employed, women faculty members are frequently paid less than their male counterparts even though equally competent and equally experienced. Women faculty members are promoted less frequently than men. Even administration reflects the same pattern; deans of women are frequently paid less than deans of men. Our nation can no longer afford this system which demoralizes and demeans half of the population and deprives them of the means to participate fully in our society as equal citizens. Lacking the contribution which women are capable of making to human betterment, our nation is the loser so long as this discrimination is allowed to continue. The most unfortunate thing of all is that education is the very process we rely upon to make the changes and advances we need and yet we find that even education is not imparted on a fair and equitable basis. This year the Women's Equity Action League forwarded a formal complaint under Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, requesting action against institutions of higher education which discriminate against women. The League said that the Federal government should withhold funding from institutions which failed to comply with the Executive Order requirement "that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to .. ... sex." The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to which the compaint was referred, has initiated an investigation of sex discrimination at a number of universities. While I am hopeful that meaningful reform will be adopted as a result of the League's complaint, more direct administrative response to this discrimination could be obtained if Section 805 were adopted. A principal provision of H.R. 16098 would remove the exemption presently enjoyed by educational institutions from the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which requires Equal Employment Opportunity. This exemption has served to further the cause of widespread and flagrant discrimination by sex which has been encouraged for too long at our universities. We should correct this abuse by the complete elimination of this notorious clause, either through adoption of H.R. 16098 or H.R. 17555 which contains a similar repealer. H.R. 17555 was favorably reported out of the General Subcommittee on Labor on May 26th and is presently pending before our full Committee. Other provisions of Section 805 of H.R. 16098 would add sex to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for program or activities receiving Federal aid; add discrimination against women as a subject of investigation and study by the Civil Rights Commission; and remove the exemption for executive, administrative, or professional employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act provision requiring equal pay for equal work. Adoption of these reforms would stand as an historic contribution to the struggle of women for equal rights. In the field of higher education, I am particularly concerned with the fact that there has been no reversal of the recent pattern of discrimination against women. Indeed, figures reveal that the proportion of freshmen students entering our colleges and universities is greatly biased in favor of men. Thus, even in our newest generation of young people starting out on their higher education, which will lead to advanced positions in industry, government, private life, and education itself, women are deprived of the opportunity for an equal chance. There are disturbing indications that women's role is even diminishing in faculty ranks, rather than increasing as it should to offset previous generations of discrimination. The Women's Equity Action League reported, "In the last century, women held more than one-third of the faculty positions in colleges and universities; today the proportion of women is less than one-fourth." Recently, the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor issued a fact sheet on the earnings gap which showed sex discriminations in rank and salary in schools. The report said, "in institutions of higher education, women are much less likely than men to be associate or full professors." Citing a 1966 study by the National Education Association, the report stated that in 1965-66, "women professors had a median salary of only $11.649 as compared with $12,768 for men." It found "comparable differences" at the other professorial ranks. Clearly, these differences do not occur by accident. They are the direct result of conscious discriminatory policies made possible by a loophole in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I see no justification whatsoever for the existence of this inducement to discriminate. Moves are underway outside of Congress to eliminate some of these discriminatory practices, notably in the Labor Department's new guidelines to bar sex discrimination on Federal government contract work. These guidelines apply to contractors and subcontractors covered by Executive Order 11246 and were described by Mrs. Elizabeth Duncan Koontz, Director of the Women's Bureau, as constituting "a giant step forward for those Americans whose talents have too often been wasted simply because they are women." Among other things, the new guidelines, effective immediately, forbid employers to make any distinction based upon sex in employment opportunities, wages, hours, or other conditions of employment. In addition, the President's Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities recently recommended a series of legislative actions to eliminate discrimination against women in our society. The legislation presently before you would implement some of these important recommendations, including the addition of sex discrimination to the Federal aid prohibitions in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, extending the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Commission to include denial of civil rights because of sex, and amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act to extend coverage of its equal pay provisions to executive, administrative, and professional employees. In view of the significance of these major efforts to improve the status of women and remove legal incentives to discrimination against them, it is imperative that the Legislative Branch move with equal determination in this vital field. Congress must act now to eliminate such glaring favoritism in our laws. It is no longer a matter of just equity, although that alone would dictate the necessity for the changes contemplated by H.R. 16098. Our country is now in a position where it can no longer afford to rely on the antediluvian notion that men should rule the world. We need women; their abilities and talents must be fully utilized. Our nation's future is the most compelling reason for the adoption of these provisions of H.R. 16098. I congratulate the Subcommittee for its action in bringing forth this legislation, and give the bill my complete support. Mrs. GREEN. The hearings will continue on Monday morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene on Monday, June 29, 1970, at 10 a.m.) DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The special subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:20 a.m. in room 2251 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Green and Erlenborn. We are delighted to have as our first witness this morning Mrs. Daisy K. Shaw, director of educational and vocational guidance of New York City, and past president of the Directors of Guidance of Large City School Systems of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. We are very pleased to have you. STATEMENT OF MRS. DAISY K. SHAW, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE OF NEW YORK CITY, AND PAST PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS OF GUIDANCE OF LARGE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEMS OF THE AMERICAN PERSONNEL AND GUIDANCE ASSOCIATION Mrs. SHAW. Representative Green, distinguished members of the committee: It is a great privilege for me to testify before you today with regard to section 805 (prohibition of discrimination) of H.R. 16098, the Omnibus Postsecondary Education Act of 1970. Although women represent a majority of 51 percent of our population, they suffer from many of the same barriers to economic and social progress as do the minority groups in our society. They are paid less than men for comparable work, are often consigned to menial or routine jobs, are passed over for promotion, have a higher unemployment rate than men, and are grossly underrepresented in decisionmaking posts in politics, business, and the professions. These facts are well documented in numerous reports published by the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Women's Bureau, and various commissions and task forces. Now, as never before, discrimination against women calls for strong new legislative action as well as vigorous enforcement of existing statutes. However, legislative remedies alone are not enough. What is (435) |