Report on Female Staff Discrimination at Columbia University, February 1971

Primary tabs

Results for

Download: Transcript

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 View All

Show transcript

M

 

$9.?  "wmu‘en jatA‘V.CbV1umb,;La‘ }.  V

         

 

 

t:e‘j;:;1§gé¢s;Lr§ 33.}.

 

 

   

\ .

 

 

 

 

t}; 5 sub-c oxmittég  

     

.x-¥'¢_  , ’  '-4~,~‘: . ’ 

                  

% .;,.k,_

..s_'‘‘ 57:‘ H: ,< if%£fi¥:? .;

  

%,v;“

 

it.‘

iII,%"

"% iv} f

}%rAfF1rWa*iv¢ A¢f%'

5' s§fi1h1¢s:;

 ’T#2Af§5 Lette t

i£.'nJ....-‘-.:.'n-«-- -w-M-.‘.‘o:'u'.:/.. .‘.- . \ -. .  L.“ ..

TA BLE OF CONTENTS

            

.

General Statement.................}..........;.....Q....; 1

Evidence of Sexual Discrimination.;-......;..;........;.; 3 Employment Ratios é ‘ Case Histories _ V. other University Policies

       

Coné1u§iDns,§;.;g;.Lf§¢ suggesgedéhreasxfpv

‘ Q‘§»Ioo iooooiIofoooc--o~uonuu'oaooo1-6 an Inquiry -- sgfiqr the University

                                      

'uéarings on Status of

domuvubooocroooyonouon-nodaooola

Report gn March, IQJO >‘v‘0flyen._-q 9 I 9 0‘ o‘o‘_u o"o_ I

.,.

#LV 4;-Committ§ on “ '”VFaéu1ty } 

0‘ iminét ion Agu ins t ywonfén

 

"h cf Personnpl _ .0 7r‘<'?'./E‘ 1,qr“; of P er.'~:onne1

.imination Questionnaire (;()1‘l!mb ta M

 

 

       fl  

-- may

     

 

 - .3.‘ . a._ .93. .-*, ~4~ ,. , __ _,, _

.. fa.‘ Q‘-‘€15 I‘ " :,,i .‘ -'

«h..{o. -

.rLN»'IRAI, Q Hi? ii‘-‘at."‘-'i

             

In January, 10.70, (Tolumbiu Wntm.-n's I.:'h0r~atinn rnlvased a report from the Committee on Discrimination Against women Faculty‘ (Exhibit #1) wwich was based nn data collected from the {G68-69 catalogues of Columbia University. The most crucial findings were that the number of tenured female faculty at Columbia is only 2.1%. Moreover, as the income and.prestige associated with a given job category decreases, the relative number of women in that category increases concomitantly.

The Committee on Discrimination Against women Faculty was fortunate in that much of the data it required to produce its report was available and open to all interested individuals. The Committee on Staff Discrimination, however, had need of data that was consistently refused it by the central administration of Columbia-during the course of it! investigation. we were denied impersonal statistical data on H job categories, reference to either inc past or upcoming Univeraity Personnel Policy manuals (Exhibits 25, 2b) or even a complete mailing list of the non-teaching women at Columbia.‘ As a result, we were obliged to rely on two basic piecvs of data: (1) the December 31, l969n report submitted by Columbia Univerwity to the Office of Contract Com-l {

pliance of Hfiwzand (2) results from questionnaires which were sent to

Reproduced from Barnard Alumac Magazine, Qpring, 1970 issue

The affirmative action compliancw program submitted by the University" December 31, 1969, is an example of the continuing deliberate avoidance of the myriad problems regarding sexual discrimination at Columbia 1 The program attempts to conform to thv ruquirements of section 60-l.Q0 of the Rules and Regulations under Executive Order 11246 regarding minority group employment practicws. Thv fact that in L968 the order J was amended to include discrimination on the basis of sex (Amendment 11375 to Executive Order ll2U6) is ignored in the program. No attempt.

..... ..._‘_......._iV— ye--m

 

   

 

as many women as were listed in non—fnculty main campus positions from the Columbia University l96‘)—7ll rumpus telephone directoryV.3 The refusal of the administration to supply data concerning its employees is not new. Professor Ann Sutherland Harris made reference to this policy of non—cooperation in her testimony before the Special House Subcommittee on Education with Respect to Section Q05 of H.R. 16098, June 16, 1970.” (Exhibit #3), "we were not able, to do a study of women in the administration at Columbia because published catalogues and directories do not provide an accurate list of all male and female administrative staff. we could not get more

5 Because of administration

accurate statistics from the management." attitudes and "...Since almost no administrative women have tenure, they are all most reluctant to make themselves visible by complaining

about the treatment of women...“6 for fear of reprisals.

Despite these factors, the data we were able to obtain (without

cooperation from the administration, confirmed what we, as staff women,

knew about the University's treatmcnt of women.

is made to deal with this problem. In addition, several proposals made to help define general employnwnt_practices have never been

realized or have only recently materialized. For example, the Uni- versity Personnel Policy Manual is unavailable, an Equal Employment

Opportunity Officer's appointment was not announced until February 10,

1971, and a salary analysis due January 1, 1971 has yet to appear.

Many female supporting staff are not included in this directory; it appears that some supervisors attach a certain amount of prestige to a listing in the campus directory which makes them loath to include '1ow-status individuals, i.e., women. ’

u Pagination for references to the Harris testimony will follow the reproduced version included as Exhibit #3 in this report.

5 Exhibit #3, p.30. The entire Harris testimony should be read for

its information on discrimination against women at all levels of Columbia. Particular attention should be given pp. 29—3H which deal most specifically with administrative and staff women.

5»  Exhibit #3, p.30

    

 

        

EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION

Eggloyment Ratios

The following statistics were taken from the report submitted i

r‘

  

observations can be made on the basis of the data below:‘ (1) In 1969, there were 70 people employed in the top-most‘ii"' levels of the administration g- including officers of the University, deans, associate deans and assistant deans. 69 of these administrators were male; the one female was serving as an assistant dean -- the lowest level of the hierarchy. (2) The total secretarial-clerical staff was l03fi of which 18 (1.75%) were male and mm (98.3%) were female. As ' with faculty positions, we again observe that the low- ipaying, low-status jobs are held primarily by women. While these figures do not represent a substantial difference from national figures, there is strong Evie V dence that the number of women with B.A.'s or higher degrees functioning at this level is disproportionate ' to the‘ re tional average. 7 0 (3) In the area known as Buildings and Grounds, out of a M total staff of £533, 352 are women who are employed al- most totally as maids and housekeeperss, the onlyrzil ceptions being 1 female carpenter out of 9 and 5 female janitors out of H30. Buildings and Grounds has more than

abmfl :21 job categories and employs women inAonly H of them.

7 Needless to say, it is our opinion that the national figures as , well reflect a pattern of systematic discrimination; that Columbia's? treatment of women should fall below that average is outrageous.

8 The maid salary of $100.40 weekly must surely represent the lowest salary structure for fu1l~time employees. .

\ ....  A 2.... V.,..,. W... »..o.v.—,-.v..._«‘»-.....¢...,.. . -

      

 

 

and women; most are dwminuted by one sex. Those areas which are‘ predominantly female arc 1ower—stnLns‘arvas9 and, one can safely‘

‘assume, disproportionately lower-salaried areas.

ask what kind oF commitment Columbia feels to its female staff. A‘ snceinot evaluation was made by Minda nikmnn in a newspaper article entitled "women at Colombia: A Supporting Role." ‘"...The University. hews to the line.‘ women are administrative assistants for example, Awhile men are assistant directors of admissions. The work is the

same ~~ only the titles, salaries, and fringe benefits are different: ...women with B.A.'s are systematically channeled into secretarial jobs, althoueh only a high school education is officially renuired

by the personnel office.

is to.eome in this report and a follow-up report, women at Columbia hereby serve notice to the University that we will no longer tolerate this

hineqnity:

‘-.‘3t-*-e---fl3:£.:1ci';:«a‘.'u«4onn»- -4-4-».».  nIWl » . - V. 4' -~-- »  :‘»'.A-.a.~‘.'-

\ Very Few ion categories contain a near equal number of men.

/

In reviewing the data in this report, one nmst inevitably

s10

On the basis of the information already presented and the data

9

;poliey-making fioh when one reaches the higher echelons of the manage-

'10

En reading the statistics which follow (based on Columbia's 1969 report to the Office of Civil Rights, Contract Compliance Division, Department of Health, Education and welfare) one may observe that there is an uncanny affinity between the term "assistant" and the

designation "female". Of course, the term "assistant" defines a ment pyramid at Columbia; in those cases, the designation is "male."

The Village Voice, June U, 1970, p. 22.i This article was written following hearings by-the Columbia Senate on the Status of Women. Additional comments are as follows: "Barbara Wheeler, an administra- tive_assistant, made a survey wnirh disclosrd that the two men em- ployed as administrative assistants were in the Department of Physical Education. The only hign—pnying independent positions open to women are in such traditionally ‘female’ areas as artistic properties, public ccremonizs, placement, interior decorating, nursing... ...And when a young man applied for a job as a typist, the personnel office offered to train him in computer programming." .t§

\

_.,.. , ,_,.. _, .. ,..,,....,.. H .,....,.«.....,L-.t.. . ,..  . .....,.....,.....i.‘.....-:-«-viw.».._...>,..~..~..4... .

   

            

      

 

                    

          

3 0:’ 8 Of‘ - ‘ k \  Egg! :43). uu~;£.x rmnu. W‘.._1-J3.   University Professor 1 *3 “E. 96.1 - 3_  ‘ *P1~ofessor 591 ‘1 2g 96_o V ‘ A jg.-  Visitixg Professor 35 h 29 86.3  g 13_ 0 . Adjunct Professor 1 1‘ 310 91.3  3.1“  » g ..Assoc.iste Professor 333 ‘-'  3. ~ :--.’*:'~:..%'’ 0 Visit. Associate Prof. }0 g :3 :33“; V 0:0‘; . N ):;.i4§u.,, Adjunct C110. . 353 106 “S9 763 23.  ~ ‘ ,.Assistsnt Professor 0 5 100.0 , mu "“"- “‘§".' "°f'r 103 6 109 95.0 0.0:: Ass't: Clnucsl. Pro . 181 n _ 252 7L8 23.2    IIOOCJICQS 2”‘) 71 317 7 7 . 5 22-“ ,, . . .1Btnnctor 6“ 5“ us 5&3 1.5.7 _ ;.fre
            
‘- ‘N:-4 . .

8 ¢ E c

     

TOTAL MALE

I ("1 Z tԤ'3 2..

   

   

 

 

Associate Registrar 3 0 3 100.0 0.0 Assistant Registrar 0 1 1 0.0 100.0 : Assistant Secretary 1 O 1 100.0 0.0 V Administrative Aide 1 10 11 9.1 _ 90.9.? : Administrative Ass't. .5 120 125 0.0 96.0“ 5 Special Asa't. to Dean 1 0 1 100.0 » 0.0 ' ? Assistant to Dean 11 1% 25 uu.0 I6.0_w E Assistant to Director 8 15 23 30.8 65.2 _ 3 Aas't. to_Project Director 0 1 1 0.0 100.0 5 Assistant to Editor 0 7 7 0.0 100.0 - 7 Assistant to Manager 2 3 5 no.0 60.0 7 . Ass't. to Medical Officer 0 1 1 0.0 100.0 7 *. Spec. Ass't. to President 2 0 2 100.0 0.0 V ' Assistant to President '0 1 1 0.0 100.0 Assistant to Provost '1 O 1 100.0 0.0 55 Assistant to Registrar 0 1 S 80.0 20.0 .:? Assistant to Secretary 0 1 1 0.0 100.0 .3  Spec. Asa't. to Treasurer 1. 0 0 100.0 0.0 ‘ 313 '~ Ass't. to Vice-Pres. 1 0 1 100.0 0.0 a ’, Aaa't. to University Prof. 0 1 1 0.0 100.0 *f f Security Officer 7 0 7 100.0 . 0.0 “;§ . Aaa't. to Exec. Director 0 2 2 0.0 100.0 ffi ‘Foreman 10 0 10 100.0 0.0 ,,“ . Assistant Foreman 10 0 10 100.0 0.0 , Head 11 1H 25 uu.o 56.0 Assistant Head 2 '2 . M 50.0 50.0 ' Managers 32' 19 51 62.8 38.2 Assistant Managers 5 ' 3 8 62.5 37.5 Superintendent . 71 7 78 91.1 8.9 Assistant Superintendent 9 5 Lu . 64.3 35.7 Supervisor ‘ 101 139 280-; 50.0 u9.6 Assistant Supervisor 17 8 25 68.0 32.0 Senior Accountant ’ 5 0 5 100.0 _0.0 .~ n_ Accountant 12 7 19 63.2 36.8‘ .?9, Admissions Officer 1 2. 3 33.3 66.7 “ ‘git Adviaor . ‘ 0 H 2 6 66.7 33.3 *;;7 ”' Alumnae Affairs officer ». 0’ 1 1 0.0 100.0  Analyst 7 9 15 u3.8 56.2 V ”n‘ . Architect 3 0 3 100.0 0.0 ” :; ' Artist _ 2 1 ‘3 66.7 33.3 f ;‘ Associate Engineer 9 O 9 100.0 0.0 -I ‘ Attorney 9 2 11 81.8 18.2 E ‘h ; Audio Visual Officer 1 D 1 100.0 0.0  Auditor , 7 o 7 100.0 0.0  Bibliographer ' 7 5 13 53.8 no.2 m§éf§ ['Assistant~Bib1iographer 1 3 u 25.0 75.0  mdget Officer . 1 3 u 25.0 75.0  1' V Buyer ‘ A u 3 7 57.2 02.8 fifigx 3 Assistant Buyer 2 u 6 33.3 5 ?--‘ caseworker ’ 0 1 1 0.0 I,§,'..--0 Cataloguer 1 . 11' 19' .40 35.7 h Assistant Cataloguer 0 S 5 0.0  Li Chemist 2 1 3 66.7 5;; Clinician 0 1 . 1 0.0 ;_ ~ Consultant 0 . 3 . 3 0,0 g. :“v.

 

.-———«r—« v ~ —v —~ ——-—.—.—_»..__._._._.- _,.

1*

‘Pk

**U

Lt. *fi

i*

_Huau 'Nur=vw _0rganist

POSITIO.Ԥ2_

Coordinator

ASS't. Conrninnth“ Counsellors

Curator

0r§i2n0r-

Dietivian

Editor

Auqouiate Editor Engineer

Finanvinl Aid Officer Gift Recorder 0 Health Physive Oifivur

' Histologist

Illustrator. Inrvrn Librarian

. A§s‘t. Librarian

Mathematiciun _ Mediral Dffivur Mortician Nurse

Patholagist Personnel Officrr Photographer Physician Physicist Placement Officer Plannér

Proctor‘ Progra'mm'e r

Junior Programmer

0Projects Offibor

Psychiatrist Psychologist

Recorder

Veternariau

Research Engineer

Sr. Rnsearvh Svientiat Research Scientist Research worker

Social worker

Sr. Staff Associate Staff Associate

Staff Decorator Student Record Officer Statistician

Surguon ‘

Systnma Analyst

Tech. 1n?ormation Offiovr Therapist " Trainer

.. ..-...'.».. ..aun- ,5...‘ .......s-=.

aw (in z ‘ 4 HER ‘V  1 ' E’ (I 1 H I‘) I I < 31 I 0 I U 1 02 0 0 I 0 E U? Q 23 ~ HR 0 A ‘ 1 1 u 27 0 72‘ 0 l I 3 .102 1 U 1. 0, n 1 , 1 8 2 189 26 1 1 1 U 1 0 1 h in" 2 3 q r £4 ‘ 0 j 3 H 1 V0 1 U 25 3 27 70 3 ‘.47 13 L 39 .0 0 ¥ J ’ 1 H 3‘ 2 1 (L H 0 2 1 3 13 2 U ....-.-....._ .... . .,..~...... .. -.5-.- ...,.... . . ..

\:J‘ _,_ .- r-4.»-4:‘.;;—-Ir\.\--—t~-.:_'.;:'J

97 30 10 33

21 0

15

 ’

‘Wu?

"‘IU.UV

70.0 a2_R lUU.U 30.0 35.7 3.5 ,U qg_q 0.0

0.Uv

100.0 0.0 0.0

85.8 32.0 0.0

100.0

1nn_0

500.0

90.0 '2.9 luu.()

100.0

50.0 00.0 87.9

‘$0.0

100.0

100.0

.1U0.0

73.7 60.0 {)‘5. 3 77.8 U4hS 0.0 100.0 l00.U 100.0 89.3 27.8 .g10.0 92.9 12.1 0.0

(1 . ()

57.2 100.0 100.0

hf), 7

15.3 100.0

w

g_§_.¥iA_I.£

 

63. 50. 2%.

0,

H . CU‘Nw..CN Ln;--t\;u1 .\l\lO'NC«OC."OCU1NUVO£7\’:DC3C:ol'uQo

P""V SCSW LD\.'>—— NOD

o

a

o

v

o

5C3‘!-"GL5: ‘JR-‘«C2CDUJ

O‘“‘NC3C>®P*Olvjdtzclciclrru~Ao;y:3c:c:c:p-c;g

_.... ...a

 

 

3 of 3 of

 

                         

MEN 0 WOMEN 1 I _. 1 2 .@.Anima1 Caretaker 1 25 0 Vw~Non~teaching Assistant 06 160 3Computer Operator 1 6 Draftsman 1S~ h Indexer 0 2 Nurse's Aide 0 1 Production-Associate 1 2 Radio Operator 1 0 Recreation worker ' 1 0 Proofreader 1 0 Scanner 7 18 Technician 312 ' 267 Junior Technician 13 18 . , Senior Accounting Clerk 0 1 1' 0.0 100.0 Accounting Clerk 0 1 1 0.0 100.0 )_ 0 Junior Accounting Clerk 0 1 1 » 0.0 100.0 3  Bookkeeper. ' 9 25 35 25.7 7u.3 Cashier. ’ 5 3 8 62.5 . 37.5 Assistant Cashier 2 0 2 100.0 0.0 Senior Clerk CS 50 55 9.1 —90.9 .” H Clerk 1 301 592 893 33.7 66.3 ia..1AJunior Clerk 8 5 13 61.5 38.5 ' ,. Clerk Typist 8 100 112 7.1 92.9 7?‘i-Duplicating Machine Operator 21 0 29 80.0 16.0 *". Senior File Clerk 0 S R 0.0 100.0 Jr._Fi1e Clerk 1. 1 2 50.0 50.0 Interviewer 0 3 3 0.0 100.0 _ Ksypunch operator 3 21 20 14.5 87.5 .w..j Personnel Assistant < 0 2 2 0.0 100.0 ‘ {-; Receptionist 1 UN ' 05 2.2 97.8 .. Searcher H 15 _ 19 21.1 78.9 ; " Executive Secretary . 0 29 ; 29 0.0 100.0 3 "Senior Secretary 2 183 155 1.3 98.7 [ L. Secretary ’ 1 In 756 770 1.8 98.2 » ~ Junior Secretary 0 17 , 17 0.0 100.0 1 Stenographer 1 11 12 8.3 91.7 1"Te1ephone Operator 2 ‘ 20 26 7.7 92.3 Typist . 1 52 53 1.9 98.1 ‘:1 ’Chief Plant Engineer 0 3 3 0.0 100.0 7 3 ’ «. Chief Engineer . 1 0 1‘ _100.0 0.0 ~ Qtilitymen 37 0 37 100.0 0.0, Messengers 9 0 9 » V 100.0 0.0  v. Aides 66 ‘$7 123 53.6 46.0 . ;V Chauffeurs 21 0 21 100.0 0.0 A Counter Attendant 1 7 8 12.5 87.5 . Desk Attendant 39 20 b5 60.0 00.0 Elevator Operators 13 .0 13 100.0 0.0 Groundsman 25 0 25 J 100.0 0.0 . _. duards . mo . n 100 ' 100.0 0.0 * Scooter Guards 1," M 0 0 100.0 0.0 Executive Housekeeper -~o 1.4 u. 0.0 100.0

 

 ‘K it M t: 7. ’ ' ‘ POSITIUN . HEN _""'7."'.E\' IIHWAL

._.._....

                                                 

     

        

;;Husekeeper ' 0 0 Q 9 * Janitor 050 S 03%.

cc:‘

Maids‘ - 10 207 :17 mo 9$‘.,w Potwasher 7 ’ 0 7 100.0 'fi.03 Powerplant Cleaner 3 0 % 100.0 7310.01 Window Cleaner 3 U 3 100.0 --0.0 -1 .Cook 7 2 9 77.8 ‘“2Z.2g uienerj » _ 7 27 an 20.5 __":79.I+ Foodhandler 1 2 3 33.3 ‘66.7 Salad Attendant .0 .2 2 0.0 , 100.0 Sandwich Attendant 0' 2 2 . 0.0 ’10D.0 . Carpenter 8 1 9 88.9 11.1 "A Electrician 6 O 6 100.0 0.0 Glass Blower _ 2 0 2 100.0 1 0.0 -. Instrument Maker 19 0 ' 10 100.0 0.0-] ;-1 Machinist 3M 0 30 100.0 0.0 ‘ ‘ ”* Head Mechanic 5.‘ 0' 5 100.0 0.0 0 L; Mechanic" 88. U 88- 100.0 0.0 ' ’ Painter 3 0 3 100.0 0.0 _ i , Plumer . 5» o 5 100.0 0.0 ”0 Power Operator 10 0 10 100.0 0.0 —1,Refr1geration Engineer 11 0 11 100.0 0.0;; 0 Specialist 2 2 u 50.0 50.0 , “7' Steam Man 5 U 5 100.0 ‘ 0.0'0 -; Typesetter 1 1 0 1 100.0 0.0g€ z "~Whtch Engineer u 0 0 100.0 0.0‘ gffilelder ' 2 0 2 100.0 . o.o"« _ ' Captain 1 0 1 100.0 0.01 .3 Port Captain 1 0 1 100.0 ; 0.0. = Master. u 0 H 100.0 . 0.0 '3 Gardner 1 0 1 100.0 ' 0.0 I 0 1 100.0 0.01 22 5 23 78.6 21.4 .. . 1‘ 0 . 1 100.0 0.0 N «First Mateé 3 '01 3 100.0 .0.0 V - —S¢cond Mate _ i 0 3" 100.0 0.0 w _0,BoItswain 8 0 8- 100.0 g 0.0 " *- Seaman 3 0 3 100.0 . 0.0 ” \' Laborer 10 -0 10 100.0 0.0 .He1per . V— . 2n 3 27 88.9 11.1 _?.g» * The d1screpanry‘between the 3.9% tenured female faculty in this

report and the 2.1%-figure from the Committee on Discrimination _, .w Against Women Faculty can largely be attributed to multiple liatn ' ing of faculty in more than one school and/or department

*5 Represents categories of more than 10 in total population-where vwomen predominate.

 

,,....,:-..0~,_-   > ,-=.- '~'- ‘,~-- 

  

'women in the University (see PP. 1-2 of this report). Thusfar,

forty-six returns have been analyzed. 11 names (optional), offices (optional), highest educational levels, ‘quested information on the following categories: (1) job offers/

transfers (2) salary (beginning salary; raises; unequal pay) (3) pro-

? ,(7) maternity leaves (8) daycare. VMost of the returned questionnairesvh

CASE HISTORIES

        

During the period of February 9 through February 19, 1971,92,

Columbia women's Liberation sent out.a nuestionnaire to non-teachin3*i The questionnaire (Exhibit #U) asked women to give us their_;y5oA division of employment, positions and number of years held. we re-

motions (H) biased attitudes about women expressed by staff/supervisors.‘

CS) over verbal or written affirmations of discrimination (6) nepotism A

listed complaints of discrimination in more than one area.12

.11 Approximately 300 questionnaires were mailed, Of the 25% non-

yilz; Where specific quotations are used, a code number will appear at

returns, 50 did not reach their destination. 20u questionnaires

2 are still outstanding -- some we have been notified are en route to us but it is not possible to-predivt a total return percentage. Because of the time constraint created by the early arrival of the Contract Comliauce investigatory team, we are compiling this re- -port on the basis of questionnaires on hand.” Data which arrives after the completion of this report will be included in a follow- up report on staff discrimination. ' '

-a

     

Returns were from women in the Arts, Business, Columbia College, . Engineering, Journalism, International Affairs, The Graduate Schoolfi of Arts and Sciences as well as institutes, central administrative , ‘offices and other offices (e.g., the libraries, Columbia University ‘ Press, etc.) ‘o ' . - ‘

the conclusion of the quote. Names will not be included in these ,case histories;, they will, however, be given to the investigating" team from HEW and Labor with the permission of the respondees. Note: 35 of the respondees volunteered their names.

   

‘ ,:.».»...u-.-....- 3 A-..

. ........-......t...-....‘  . .

J03 OFFERS/1RANSYERS

3' ,.

Sixteen women indicated experiences with discrimination fiireetly

relating to initial inn offers or transrnrs within the Columbia com-flk nunity, and the Department of.Pursonuvl was frcnnently criticized furl vfailing to notify women of appropriate positions.

"...aFtcr three months as a secretary, I requested a transfer because I thought I had more capabilities. The personnel officer said boredom and better capa- bilities were no reasons for a better job..." (3)

wPosition: Clerk-tynist. Education: B.A_ degree

"When I was hired at Columbia as‘a clerk typist, I

»was told by the interviewer that I was almost certain

of a_"position" for the reason that I was the wife of

a student. ‘Columbia likes to.hire student wives.‘ Gradually it has dawned upon me the reason why.

Student wives generally have a college education, they are willing, conscientious workers who are easily

trained and their term of employment is brief. For

the University means good workers and no raises." (H2) Position: Clerk-typist. Education: n,S, + graduate work

 

 

SALARY.

Complaints on salary were received from twenty—four WOMEN . ‘

 

"I can't honestly say that I'm being exploited obviously because I don't have a college degree and also because

my salary jumped $2,500 within nil months. However, I would like to note that the man who had my job was making '$1S,000 (I helieve) and had a full time secretary (7,500) who, in turn, had a student assistant! Nuudless to say, the University is saving the sum of $16,500 on me. (19) POSITION: administrative EDUCATION: lg years of college

who held the.assnviate,cditorship...in'I968

a secretarial appointment...P's successor, D.H.,.held the same.position in 1969 after graduating

from Columbia College in 1908., He entered on a secre« tarial appointment and came at a starting salary of $8,500. (I) was hired at $7,800...as supporting staff...because I am a woman...I was never told there was a 5-8% limitation

on raises for supporting staff...I am sure no male would be hired as an editor without an appointment because the Uni- versity would not conceive of hiring a male professional at such a low salary, especially with such limited prospects of increase.". (37)

Position: Associate Editor

"P.S.(ma1e) entered on

Bducation:_ A;B.

"In 1968 it was made clear by the Dean of my school at a staff meeting that a man and I were to be co-equally respon- sible for the operation of our office. The male, however,

.,,,...,.,.,..... 44. . ...aw..r..; ..,a..;s,»ey-.4.-Mg»... .‘ _'

.. .,........~.,,. ...,

. ,, m~,......,.l.....«—-m\~, ~.... .,....,,..-,, . ,.

 

       

   

 

_.-..... . . .... ._.................. ...... ............................._...,.

retained his University title of Assistant to the Dean and I retained mine of Administrative Assistant;“ My salary was $7,000; his was $10,000 with a prospective: raise to $10,500. It is my understanding that he did not -receive the raise because it was mutually agreed that _ _ the job was not suited to him, nor he to the job." (33) }, Position: Administration Aide Education: M,A_ expected;,

                                                        

 

izrnonorrow

Lack of opportunities for advancement were the complaint of? fourteen women, many of whom are clearly over-qnalified«forf their positions. One department has had men placed in it by the central administration to "be groomed"; :when the‘ 4 department head asked about grooming.women, she was told that“ "...except for administration assistants and the like, women ‘_ cannot be of aswmxeh value as a man...“ (20) '” ' -5"“

  

”...in my own office, the female assoriate director has been here 30 years, the male direetor less than 2 -— and he came from outside the University...” Q 7: ’ Position: Clerk-tygist ' Education: BA + some graduate worgl

UIASED AT?ITUnE9

Biased attitudes toward women on the part of staff or supervisors 'were noted by eighteen women filling out questionnaires,'inelud—"3 .ing several who complained about being asked to bring }Na¢h\0r make tea for male staff members. ' M A

"The_supervisor asked secretaries to serve tea at meetings for pr other staff. The wonen said they were too busy. The supervisor ‘T refused to ask a male staff member to do this during a hreak in_ the meeting and said that it was traditional that women secre- taries do this." (8) y ' ‘

Position: Secretary— Education: R.A,4 Phi Beta Kappa

."The male sorretary has...until recently rrfused to share in

y teIePhonn relief for the switrhhoard operator and has con-

‘ sistently worked shorter hours than anyone else in the office usually about 25-30 a week, while we earn 85% of what he does for the same job." (#7) - Position: Secretary Education: all credits for B.A. except

nvnar DISCRIMINAFION

Eleven different women were'told that they would have heen treated dilferent1y on the ioh had they been men, including one woman who was told she would have been offered a vacant top-level administrative post if she were a man. (1)

MISCELLANEOUS y(_fi' ' Several categories received small but thoughtful responses. b , _ Nnpotism practices kept three women from obtaining or keeping iar,V " jobs of their choice. Three women complained about the

maternity leave policy at Colunmia and four wrote that lack of

.,...... .......,...,,.,..;,...; ..,.~<.., ..., .-,\,,.,.,.,...,,,. .....,. ._.,s.,,.,..,_,.-..~‘......,.:.,,.... ...‘y,p¢v--».«-«-...,..,.-,‘,._..... ....,.,... _..L..-,...., . ....... -4...‘..:., ,,,,_,,. .._.,.,. . . N ...,... 3.. .- NP’ -- . ...i..‘. . \.....n.. . .‘..,....‘. .  

 

   

da

‘Columbia to whethe

one 2

9|. a

more pay,

be

Position:

.__.....,-, .'.....a .. .

Additional conpiaintc pressured the wearing of pants

facilities had defini in01uded_sv\era uuwritfvn ares

y care

to adhere to

Perhaps the best sumnary cnavactvrizazion

is The one given often by womvn in

r they suffer from unequal tneatmen

t if a man had in this soc kind

..I feel certain tha but then no man cause it is women who do this

Secretaryo

Education:

fvly been a problem for them.

or slack r¢iLs my wonwn

B.A.

1 uxses of wnwwn being 9 couna which precluded in Lhfl office.

of toe situation‘atué

answer to the question as

t in_their jobs; to quotev

a would réoeive 1d have my job (28)

my job h iety wou of work."

 

  

_a

0'i‘H}.'R 3"‘.‘ l ‘Ct']’{f~. 4"‘ 3- v!. 2 " H‘..~',

   

Prior to June, 1970, the administrative structure in— jJ{T

                

1 eluded three appointments. Trustees_r?residential; Secretarial, .% and the non-appointive position of Supporting Staff. The True-pJ9:A1 tees appointment includes senior officers of instruction and y if V-research and senior administrators." The Presidential appointqiegsr ment was made up of the_junior officers of instruction and ad-0 ministration, and other officers of research. The Secretariall_L7'" category included academic assistants and junior administrative Q‘ officers. The Supporting dtaff were secretarial. clerical.’ M technical. maintenance and service staff. I M thin July-1970 the structure use changed to the broad grupa of Officers and Supporting Staff.‘ The Secretarial appointment fol has been eliminated for new employees. Many people were eligi- ble for the TIAA and CREF retirement plan through this apoint-Lv y‘__ lent. Nu as a member of the Supporting Staff. the benefits ifl through the non—contributory plan are inadequate in comparison. C_4 Furthermore. the University only contributes l%% on a Support- 0 in; Staff salary.of $7800 or less. with the same salary on a

Secretarial appointment, Columbia's contribution would be 10%.

 

Another advantage of the Secretarial appointment was that after three years employment a person became eligible-for pro— f_%Jpl ‘motion to the Presidential category. Here the primary advanq 0 "ll. tags is the college tuition grants for children of persons hold- ing this rank. Now a supporting staff member can only obtainv the Presidential appointment by earning $10,000. For a man this is far simpler than for a woman. It means she must be

‘employed by one of the larger departments, and have worked

 

there five or more years.

 

The maternity leave plan discriminates against women hes cause it is not available to men. Until child rearing responsi-. b1lities’.are shared with men.-having children will con- tinuetfo discriminate snainst women.

At present no day care facility exists which serves large numbers of children of Colubia employees. Within the pasr few months a facility has been established providing care for about thirty children. Such -a facility is clearly inaao.-'4

quste.

 

 

 

CONCLUF3 IONS

SUGGESTED AREAS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY We believe that the inequalities revealed in this study are L3 indicative of tendencies which permeate every level of employ- .ment at Columbia. We further believe that should the university ' open it’: files for critical examination this thesis would be proven conclusively. [Considering the seriousness of this A accusation and it's far reaching consequences for the human dignity of Columbia women it seems only just that all relevant infonaation be made public. This must include hard comparative ‘data on: t M 1. Salaries 2. Educational levels 3. Experience H. Length of service 5. Job titles 6. Job descriptions 7. Criteria for promotions not lust the general employment policy which serves an an

administrative figlelf.

2

,, .‘ ‘t 3?‘. 4 I

AfE§3*g

    

 

The university must:

1) 2)

3)

u).

5)

m 6)

7)

3)

10)

11)

' an publish them in a bulletin to -11 employees.

vlncrease ratios of female admissions to all Ph.D. grauate

ilncrease the participation of omen in committees inaolving

’Require the Personml Department to process all non-teachin . E

APPIRHATIVE ACTIGN DEMANDS FOR THE UNIVERSITY‘

Achieve salary equity in every job category in the university.

compensate, throuh the payment of back sages, each female employee who has lost wages due to discriminatory treataent by the university either through uneqal pay for eql work or discrimination in respect to job category and promotion. Payment must be retroactive to 13 October 1968 (the date President Johnson ammended Executive order 112us to include sex discrimination). ' '

Achieve a ratio of female employment in academic positions“ at least equivalent to availability as determined by the number of qualified women available.

Pffififlll . .

the selection and treatment of employees.

Develops a written policy on nepotism that will insure correct treatment of tandem teams.

Analyze past effects of nepotism and retroactively compenslte (to 13 October 1968) any person who has suffered discrimina- tion. ~ ‘ . A

Assure that female applicants for non-academic employment receive consideration commensurate with their qualifications. The university must also ensure that the concept of ale and female job classifications is eliminated through changes in recruitment procedures.

Assure that all present female employees occupying clerical or other non-academic positions and who possess qualifications equal to or exceeding those of male employees occupyin higher level positions be promoted immediately to higher level positions.

Provide every member of the university staff with a complete statement o personnel policy. ‘

positions, including senior ad junior administrative positions,

 

V.‘V.,,.:e..,.a.%.,ggt,y.,,—5m:,..,:.,m,,,J,W,7,‘:_”,W..;' . ,_.,,.  .V ._,,.., _. ..  . .,.i,.«. . 9...... .. .,.,.

 

 "!"».<*“-."""‘ . 

 

 

p. 182"

SELECTED COMMENTS Inwn NRITTLN TLiTiMHHY PRESENTED AT THE SENATE "t"i HEARING ON THE SJFTUH or woman AF COLUMBIA, March 11, 1070. (wi t h ;1ppc=, nd ix)

     

On the evening of March 11, 1970 the University Senate sponsored an

   

open hearing on the Status of women at Columbia primarily to determine the need for continued investigation into the status of faculty, staff, and studentay on the Columbia campus. The meeting attracted no more than 200 persons despite ’ widespread publicity and provisions for professional child care during the time‘ of the hearing.’ Although no formalized methods were employed to determine the‘ composition of the audience, it was observed that students (primarily graduate‘ level) were in the majority with staff, faculty and administrators (ahout 3 or g 4) represented in that order; Anpproximately 35 women testified at the heaggng, afl jtape recording of uhich is available in the University senate office, 402 Low itibrary. Twenty women submitted written statements extracts of which appear belowr‘ For the purposes of this report, only those comments directly conernad iituith conditions of employment will be cited.

As a result of the hearing. the University senate agreed to form a

,Commiasion of the status of women which has subcommittee status under the Execui 'tive Committee of the senate. This Committee hopes to submit a report to the y',~ ,;‘* Senate during May, 1971.

I-:x'rRAc=rs mom SENATE uemmzc

 

* woman FACULTY AND swam :~.§_ ROLE MODELS: (v)

A tenured faculty member of the Barnard Faculty (female) sumitted that

A. H ‘ "  '75:».-3 .-A_3

the “status of women" is an important subject since the status of faculty and administration touches directly on the welfare of women students throughout the

University. without the "role models" who can provide direction and inspiration,

   

 

». »......,,. .. .-,‘.», E-'5! .. -a...m-m.« u.«,.-;r_AI>—‘4a-nu. '

       

from Teachers College. At a salary level of $6,000 per year, she was in charge

  

the female academician — not to speak of the rumale intellectual - will becomefi? a dying breed."_ THE B.li. AS A "sr:(‘._1_2l»:'1'1\1:y“ (Case Ilistorj,<::s.) (\IrI.and VIII)

A. The Essay and Dissertaion secretary at the time of the Hearing (spring, 1970)‘

was a 1968 graduate of Barnard who expected to receive her M.A. in June, 1970

of accepting final-deponit of all M.A. essays,and Ph.D. dissertations; had final

say on standards of format for all assays and dissertations; was responsible for

binding} microfilming, shipment preparations, communications, and preparation of

the annual publication "Master's Essays and Doctoral nissertations"} she was also the liason between photographic services, reference and cataloging departments

of the Libraries, the Registrar, the deans and the student re: final acceptance

of the Ph.D and M:A.Cssays.

venployees working under her most of the time — although they were shared by other

tin the Columbia Libraries during 1968-69 outlined the following situation. while‘ V ‘working as a secretary in the library of a department a women with her master's ‘degree held the position of clerk; two women held untitled positions with

l i_ responsibility primarily for circulation, reserve control, etc. - both of these

slots held by men, neither of when had degrees.

 

vThe employee noted that if her signature did not appear on the certification ’

‘for degree, the candidate did not receive his degree. She had two part-time fiembers of the Dean's staff.

1

3. A tullutime student in the School of General Studies who had been employed

women were B.A.‘a. The two other positions on the full—time staff were supervisory

 

Another policy cited was that female general assistants were not permitted — *5

to work after 6 p.m. This limited not only the number of hours a female could work,

 

but also the actual number of positions available to qemales as general assistants.

 

    

3;, ‘_- _ ' m' » ,' . i ”»_' 8. "Testimony presented by a female tenured (acuity member of the Department , if I of Biochemistry: f 7%‘ istating that'within her own department she believed that discrimination |  g’ V _ . ' _ ii A qglinst women does not.exist. she offorred that this situation was possibly not ;V € 4 the same in-other Science departments in the University. “It is true that I an I a the only senior women member of the faculty, but there have been relatively few mg new appointments and, in discussing new appointments at all levels, I have never 5W;7: been aware of prejudice‘against womcn.;.As with the appointment of black faculty,  A gr

 -h__,,., ...:.-~ ‘ ,_

FACULTY RF:CRUITMI~:x-1'1‘ mm 5;‘; .':‘:; (x1zV.xvr..)

   

A. Testimony presauntc-d by a student lf:<,'mb(?1' of .3 dc-pa.r.'t;m:mta} :;<'~\:r'«:,:h coxrunittecz . , A female student in the School of Arthiterturc stated that "at present there are no women on the faculty on any lnvcl in the Division of Urban Planningiiiid

\

thin the School of Architecture. _Compared to the entire University the Division has

a fairly good record of admitting women students, at least within the past year ifif or 30,: but its record of hiring women teachers is even worse than that of Colum- bia University as a whole. The Division has hired none of its female Ph.D.'s, even though it has hired several of its male Ph.D's."

Citing the need for women students to have female role models and for

women planners-to have the opportunity to teach as well as engage in private prac- tice or governmental work, the students urged that women (or at least one woman)

he hired for the next academic year. The student then outlined her experience

with the faculty search committe and submitted that women ncre_stil1 be considered an peripheral to the central search effort. The female students sitting on the lrgcomnitteeglhad no reason to believe that the Urban Planning Division was committedi

” to creating equal opportunities for woman in the Planning profession. ., V M V, _

     

                                                  

                                                            

il. there is a time when the g§_facto absence or virtual absence of women faculty ;

» . -,-4._.‘

Vnnst be construed as Q9 facto discrimination. ,.,,H

 

happy one at Co1umbia;b

Stating that her personal experience has been a

the speaker attributed her situation in a very large part to good fortune—andlif

1 , ‘ 2 ‘V to her association with firstrate scientists. "The firstarate do not need to¢g,-

holster themselves and their positions by disparaging others, whether women or -

-black.”

STATUS OF hDMINISTRAT1VF STAFF i(XIV,XV, XVI)

Speakers concerned with the status of administrative staff and the possibilities h

of women entering into the middle and upper eschelons of administaation at the

University generally agreed on the need for open recruiting, puhlished salaryo

hiilevels and job openings, more open channels for promotion, and an inquiry into.

Vthe nature of the more popular administrative job categories "assistant",

“administrative assistant",“executive secretary“, “assistant to". More detailed ,“

questions are appended to this report:

done speaker asserted that there are women (e.g. departmental adniniutxau

f"t1vo assistants) who are capable of higher administrative responsibility than'they:! 7— new exercise; Stating that their competence and talent contrasts sharply with7jf:g up that of come men in the administration, the speaker referred particularly to

{,the Controller's Office, to Government éontract, and to the Purchasing Departments{i_

‘; “loan not peraonnaly aware of any efforts to prevent omen from taking appoint» n to_seek higher administrative

lj manta, but no efifort is made to encourage wome

L‘positions, neither hy invitations to apply for positions as they oocur,‘nor by

;f°‘the provisions of specific training in business administration, etc, to_he1p preufo

~,.:e‘:n¢m for positions of higher rank. It is curious coment that while not_a11 yp

‘ w;fisuistant Professors at Columbia University are promoted, nonetheless, the faculty’

.i;does consider Departmental Assistant Professors for promotion before it looks elso;i

flyuhere. The administration does not generally appear to consider the potential

 

    

     

talent of women administrative officers in making appointments to higher.ad¥ 1,,

ministrative grades T V L 3

 

.+L'.«~'.,.‘;g M  .“THE ATMOSPHERE AND .'l.'lH‘.‘ A'I“l‘I'I‘U.Lfli

tcomments extracted from the testimony of a tenured faculty member (femele) which summarizes the prevailing tenor on campus)

“In the areas of appointment of women faculty and the appointemfg of women too higher administrative positions, Columbia could set a policy and administer it in such a way that the University's commitment would be plainly evident. The academic freedom of ?rofessors,which I cherish, is not a license to prejudiced pi.”o judgments§l These are specifics and they all respond ultimately to that most general area of my concern which incolces the question of atmosphere. There are very few,iE any, persons at Columbia University, I know of none, who openly 4]. express anti-black sentiments. social pressures have at least stilled than into i silence if they exist. V ,

‘There are, in my experience, many people at Columbia who make anti-feminist

,eg_,~- ,

 

oremarks.' They do this, not always with the intention of being insulting or offen~ .

 

cive, but simply because they are totally unaware of the impact of their renarks;»~g,_f If they were to substitute in their conversation the word "black" for the word ‘A it d3’fiy‘o 3, 'uonan3, they would be outraged by their own insensitivity. This sense of dominance

‘“o"’ leads not only to patronizing attitudes, but may lead and has 1ed,on occasion, to; 'gf

the preferential indulgence of women students: - an unusual masculine sensitivity. :3

 

and response to irrational arguments - the power of the gentle tear. 1 s,w4

«

Columbia University cannot be held totally responsible for what is effectively3

‘the climate of opinion in the United states. The preoccupation with difforentiationx

on the basis’o£ sex is as.pervasive in our present culture as is an analogous

 

                     

                      

jpreoccupation with di1':fr'r-:n'.'iation on the }_m::i.; (>1. raw‘; in the Southern states. : ~Chi1dren are bred to [nest irrelevant diaLinvL.ons. As people, women are §;a~y. maimed by them, by that atxnospherc: which 21:; inn’.-lied in all those Sentences“, 513-  ginning, “women-arc..." or "women shnu1d..,“. Columbia University equally i§“i not responsible for the inability of Sigmund Freud to free his insights front the prejudices and attitudes appropriate to his position as a member of the#A['V‘ Viennese Jewish bourgeoisie.‘ [k The prevailing view of women has been cynically employed asha simple ,J:.J

mechanism to prevent women from entering we11—paid professions.w I have never’

hear any man argue that women should not scrub floors because it was not a‘

 

_-.I. -..,,

"feminine" occupation. Indeed, orofessions become non-feminine as they become uo1l-paid." ‘ ‘ ix

some relief can be afforded at Columbia simply by prompt acknow1odgement_V or the broad merit of the complaints issued forth in the oersonal testimony of.» students and junior faculty and staff concerning their experiences as women infwy litho academic-1i£e; Instances of incivilities, offensive banter, unwarranted Snaii fiiintrusive personal advice, disparagements, and of frank and deliberate discriminu » tion must_be acknowledgedand steps taken to rectify the situations surrounding _ these incidents; While the resolution of some of the problems invoked by so ‘radical’: change of view may demand time and study, this should not orevente‘ swift and vigorous action to remedy specific injustices.

«

Prepared by Moira Kennedy ' \=» ~ Administrative Aide, university ltnafiy ** Member of status of women Committee 7»

-**Membors of the entire committee could not be contacted in time toprepare a V formal statement on their activities. The final report of the committee will .. pc.« be forwarded to respective governmental departments upon completion later in

A._ 7 ‘the spring term.

A

W, .  ... .,.... .,. .. ....,,M_. ..,,,,,.nn,__,.,,,,,_ fin‘,

 

_ 2. what positions are fiossibly available —'in the central administration or inv

ASQ How many women currently at the assistant level began in secretarial positiona?>W‘

_,,,.._._..._........ .. . .‘ .. ..... ..._-....... .....

                

y‘

The foI1(m;ng ling of uuostjonc sugg~nru nruax {or innuiry into the status of women ”midd]e uéminjntrutiun" or "junior" officwrs at Columbia University.

1. What in the nature of the "assisLnnt",”administrativc aswistant", or "exeéy' utive.secrctary" positions or thn chwnnvls throfioh which these jobs are 'fi1lcd, makes those jobs ~> especially in the department: of schools and ._ faculties —« so exclusively suitable for women? [Irnm; in the latest Columbia Directory, for 1¢68«69, the only male administratjvu assistants in academic‘ departments warn two in the Départmont of Physical Education and inter- collegiate Athletics.) M -

o

the administrations of tho various schools and faculties ~ as promotions’ for women at the.assistant level? (Obviously, unless a woman working as assistant in an academic department acquires the credentials to qualify .her for faculty status;—thcrc are no possibilities for promotion within the denartment itsClf.)» [Itcm: tho.1968~69 Directory gives evidence that positions on the pdlicyénnking level are nvailabfr only in the following iareas: interior dccnrationgqartistjc yynpertieo, placement and personnel, ‘admissions, housckocping, library work, nursing, and public c-rcmonies.« These seem to be among the most -traditional "woman's" professional-areas.j

3; How are po1icy—making level positicns (vico—prcsidcnts. associate and_ assistant deans, and their assistant and associuL~ officers for example) ictunlly filled? .Wh0re‘are_¢ondidar¢5 for these positions found (i.e., executive enploymonp agency; personnel office or r(:ords)? [Itcm: the process of filling those positionc in finivcrsity administration is not napparent to me or to others i know in Aosistant positions. There seems to be a large numror of positions filiwd in some qrey area between the personnel-office and-the ggjggg search committee.] - 4. How would a woman with expertise or a degree in some area of educational V administration approach this Univcrnity.in search of a position? If she inquired firsL at the pérsonncl oftice, would she be required - as'most ’women and few men I know have been - to take a typing test?

 

What is the salary range for“assist_nts? Their average educational back- ground? How many years have they, on an avzrage, he1d_§hcir positions?

     

                           

                                                

uéhuytther questions submitted bywa spoakcr at the status of Women hoarind ‘ March 11, 1970. ' - M ;

 

Any comuittee or study group organized to investigaté the status of women at Columbia should give thorough uttontion to the problems of women on cut ‘

O

:j‘d&u1nistrat1vo staff.

’:h§:§Ma§¢T§aay coaéo of women who uove for years heid the second poaition thy M.

o dlvtoion or otticovof tho Unruerxity wfio have qualifications equal to orL :/ouperior to tho two for whom th¢y7w§rR;A»u V nu. .mi..4 .3 A%V,;t,,m; artorm fa mo

    H.

 

V*.MohAattout1ontohou1d be sivqn to*po§§' §i1—§baéfi ahfilicauts for jobs at c¢g§$§1a. regardless of their qualiticattons, Viotiiveuétypiug tests?‘ Male appliou V_ re not. way is it assumed ttat women

jipptitontstate iookifig for sccretariil jobs?

5 Eco does our Placcmont Office taspond.to oompanies who discriminate in h£§tnfi2;f: 

“ :Are thcre to tow male administrative aséiétants because men are unwilling to. Q

acccpt these jobs at the salaries offored? L .. A

.0."

.3 ’F1na1fy. I should like to recomnend_that at least one member of whatever committee W“

is formed as a result of these hearingo be a member of the administrative staff;

, WA‘. . . ' . , ., .~v».m-—~«-ya  ’ . 6 f . ~  . t -r ., v ' 

   

 

u  . 1 '

 Pi':£A2’s i‘i!¢;§§1t¢l*tcG111.”: ‘   ' ‘’

ajdcnt I _  fiemorinl Library  uI'Ib_ia”UI1£ver.s1ty  

 p f f the repoflx-t: r.:¢)::s1:)11a€lTby‘

 t_h_e~8eng.te1SVub-NC mittcw on the Status of Wmwmtat?  ifoluvdain and ‘the: S_3:af,f\ D13 . . 11 Comm

ittue of‘ Colunliié 

J u

" '_ gjepnrt *wa'u_g1yen to the 1nvest1gnt:or-n‘frorI‘|_t!h! t  n_t af Labozf (Ms,*Symons) 'and~ HEW last week, 1-9:; would; O’i“AatH ybut‘ rf¢_a_C1_1fI,8 _j1_t.thrang’h.‘andAgAiving us yuutj‘ c ‘tyom-' eat-litgst cpnv n1‘ ‘   _ _  é 4 _ aj final copy hinca an - much: data -we would likq yaw "cormtufg ’~

col   _I;Wom'en'7.s Libet-atlon H ~ as Ean1"m‘1_1 » . V  ; _ :

recéiving "a .r,ougl’1" afhf it