ested in this kind of a problem, and have in the last 10 years at least addressed themselves to whether there is talent wastage in a society of people who have high aspirations, are very well trained, and then are underemployed or are not employed.

In the mid-1960's another colleague and myself undertook with support from the U.S. Office of Education a national study of women Ph. D.'s, matched with a national sample of men Ph. D.'s. Our sample was over 5,000 recent Ph. D. graduates. We wanted to answer a question: Is this investment in the higher education of women lost? There were those who were arguing that women should not be included in Ph. D. programs when men could be, because women were not as committed to a career, they were not as productive, as scholarly, they married, had children, were not seen or heard from again.

We found even at that point that such was not the case. I think there was some attention to this in Ms. Fraser's speech that the higher the amount of education attained, the more likely it is that the woman will be in the labor force in this country, and we found that practically all of the women Ph. D.'s were employed basically in positions commensurate with their training, although there were some differences in status and salary between the women and men doctorates.

Senator MONDALE. I think almost all of these social wrongs are not only wrong, they are foolish, just from the buck standpoint.

In the civil rights movement there have been studies of what discrimination cost America, not just the people who are discriminated against and their families, but America. This must be an enormous bill we pay through indirection every year for unfairness. I do not know if there is any literature on this.

Well, thank you very much.

Our next witness is Dr. Bernice Sandler, director, Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges. If you will proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. BERNICE SANDLER, DIRECTOR, PROJECT ON THE STATUS AND EDUCATION OF WOMEN, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

MS. SANDLER. I would like my full statement printed in the record. Senator MONDALE. Without objection, it will appear in the record at the conclusion of your testimony.

MS. SANDLER. Discrimination against women and girls in our educational institutions is real and not a myth. Until the last few years it has gone unnoticed, unchallenged and unchecked. Indeed in 1970. when the first charges of a pattern and practice of discrimination were filed against colleges and universities, there were not laws whatsoever forbidding sex discrimination in our schools and colleges. Women students and faculty had no legislative protection; only Executive Order 11246 applied, and that covered only institutions with Federal

contracts.

Senator MONDALE. Let's stop right there. In other words, it is an Executive Order.

Ms. SANDLER. That was the only Federal coverage we had back in

Senator MONDALE. Where are we now?

MS. SANDLER. We have really had a legislative explosion. I think it was one of the least noted achievements of the 92d Congress. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which covers employment, was amended in March 1972 to cover all educational institutions, public or private, regardless of whether or not they received Federal assistance. It covers all schools elementary, secondary, and postsecondary.

Senator MONDALE. Title VII prohibits discrimination

Ms. SANDLER. In employment.

Senator MONDALE. În all institutions, public and private?
Ms. SANDLER. Yes.

Senator MONDALE. What does Title IX do?

MS. SANDLER. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination not only in employment, but also against students.

Senator MONDALE. Title VII is really employment and Title IX is students.

Ms. SANDLER. Students and employment in federally assisted education programs are both covered by Title IX.

Senator MONDALE. Are those the two main ones?

Ms. SANDLER. Those are the main ones. The other one is the Equal Pay Act which was amended to delete the exemption for executive, administrative, and professional employees, so that women faculty have coverage under that act as well as under Titles VII and IX. Senator MONDALE. Is that just Federal employees?

Ms. SANDLER. The Equal Pay Act does not cover Federal employees, but covers virtually every employee in educational institutions. Senator MONDALE. You cannot pay someone on a discriminatory basis less than they would receive based on their ability? Ms. SANDLER. Yes.

Senator MONDALE. All right. Title IX has not been implemented yet, because it is awaiting regulations.

Ms. SANDLER. The law is in effect now, but the proposed regulations have not been issued. The latest I heard was they are close to the Secretary's desk.

Senator MONDALE. Have any lawsuits been brought under Title VII? MS. SANDLER. Yes. There are several in the courts, and the Department of Justice has gone in against Oklahoma State University. The Equal Employment Commission has gone in against Tufts University, and several women have instituted private suits.

The University of Minnesota recently had a case filed against it under Title VII.

Senator MONDALE. I think you can recover legal fees under Title VII, can you not?

MS. SANDLER. Yes. None of these cases have been fully settled yet, gone through full litigation. The University of Minnesota case involves a woman asking for $750,000 in damages-$500,000 compensatory and $250,000 punitive damages. Many institutions are now being sued for several million dollars, but as I say, none of them have gone through the courts yet.

Senator MONDALE. So there is now a much more impressive legal framework?

Ms. SANDLER. Yes; it is no longer only a moral issue, but a legal issue as well.

With the passage of Title IX, many of the overt forms of discrimination are now prohibited by law-discriminatory admission are forbidden; all courses in coeducational schools and colleges must be open to all students on the basis of their abilities and not on the basis of their reproductive organs; differential regulations, policies, and practices are forbidden; equal access to all programs and facilities is now a matter of national policy and legislation. But much of the discrimination that young girls and women face goes beyond the matter of official policies and practices.

Our young women, even when allowed equal access, will still face a pervasive pattern of sex discrimination. Our schools like the rest of society, are caught in a web of outdated attitudes, stereotypes, and assumptions about women. Despite the fact that women are now more than 40 percent of the work force-incidentally they are the fastest growing segment of the labor force our schools still operate as though all women marry and quit work.

Our young girls are not encouraged to think of work as part of their future lives, although most of them will work for 25 years or more. regardless of whether or not they marry, have children, or take time off for child-rearing.

From the time a young girl enters school she learns more than just reading, writing, and arithmetic. Her textbooks are far more likely to be written about boys and men; girls and women are rarely major characters. She will read about boys who do interesting, exciting things: they build rafts and treehouses; they have challenging adventures and solve problems, and they rescue girls who are "so stupid” that they get into trouble. One typical book pictures a 14-year-old girl standing on a chair, screaming because there is a frog on the floor; her 8-year-old brother rescues her.

When girls appear in books, they are passive; they watch, they read, they dream, and are incapable of solving the most elementary problems. About the most exciting thing that girls do in books is help mother with the dishes or take a trip to the supermarket.

Although half the mothers of school-age children now work (and one-third of the mothers of preschoolers also work), mothers in children's books all stay home and usually wear aprons.

I could go on and tell you more about half of our population, our girls and women, and how their lives and talents and aspirations are crippled by a society which sees them as second-class citizens. I could tell you of well-meaning teachers and counselors who tell our young women that most fields are "too hard for a female," or who tell young women "not to worry about a career because a pretty girl like you will get married." I can tell you of a second grade teacher who told a parent not to worry about a bright girl who was bored in school, because "after all, she'll only be a housewife." And I can tell you of teachers who tell their students that boys are better in math, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, even though there is no difference in math achievement in the early years of grade school.

I can tell you, too, of professors who tell their women students that women should not be professionals-my own adviser told me this a few

years ago; who discourage women students from considering graduate work; and I can tell you of professors who ignore women students in their class, or make "jokes" about how the "girls" wouldn't understand "what we men are talking about." I could tell you about the "underachievement" of women, which is a national scandal. For too many women, education produces a profound sense of inferiority.

Half of the brightest people in our country are women, yet the average woman with a bachelor's degree who works full time earns about the same median income as a man who is a high school dropout. No nation can long afford to waste half of its resources; yet that is precisely what is happening throughout our society now. If we are to begin to remedy the injustices that women face we will need a massive. program to counteract the biases that women encounter.

S. 2518 would help develop new programs for women and girls at all levels, programs which would help women overcome the disadvantages of being raised in a society where they are not given the same opportunities that are the birthright of their brothers.

Much of what happens to women and girls is unconscious and not deliberate but that does not make it hurt any the less. S. 2518 would allow for the development of materials, training programs, and inservice programs to help our educational personnel fulfill their obligations and new responsibilities toward our young women and men. I think we need training to help women help recognize what the world is now like, that they will work.

In contrast with the previous witness, I think if we do not have training, we will have more angry women and not fewer angry women. Certainly we need to end discrimination on the job, but we cannot wait for that before we train women. We need to train women now, and we need to train teachers to deal with women and girls.

The bill would encourage the development of all sorts of programs-programs designed to encourage young women to enter study areas and jobs from which they have traditionally been excluded; model programs in providing education; evaluation and development of textbooks and curriculum; reach-out programs for poor women, unemployed women, older women.

Specific attention also needs to be given to minority females. Too often many of our minority programs have been aimed at minority males, and too often, our programs aimed at women have focussed on white women. For example, textbook publishers have made a special effort to show pictures of blacks and other minorities in prestige positions; minorities now appear in books as doctors, judges, engineers. But these pictures and stories are almost exclusively limited to minority males. It it a disservice to hold out encouragement for higher aspirations to male children only. S. 2518 specifically allows for programs to be developed for minority females of all cultural and ethnic

groups.

Some people have raised the question that because of Title IX we may not need such a bill as S. 2518. Title IX forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in all federally assisted education programs, but it will not create new programs for direct assistance to women. For example, Title IX prohibits a school from denying girls admission to an auto

mechanic course. (Incidentally, my own daughter could not get into such a course a few years ago.)

However, Title IX would not provide for a new program to be designed to directly encourage girls to take the course, or to train counselors to advocate the entry of girls into such a course, nor would it train the instructor to deal fairly with the new female students. To merely end discrimination is not enough; new programs are vitally needed to deal with the new issues arising as discrimination ends. Some may ask why is a separate bill necessary: Cannot the same things be done by already existing programs?

In HEW and in the U.S. Office of Education are numerous programs where funding for specific activities concerning women might well be funded. The likelihood of any substantial effort for developing women's programs by OE is very small, considering OE's past history. In November 1972, the Commissioner's Task Force on the Impact of Office of Education Programs on Women, issued its report "A Look at Women in Education: Issues and Answers for HEW." The report is damning, particularly when one notes that it was prepared by OE personnel who are thoroughly familiar with the problems of OE programs. The following quotes are from the report:

Throughout the agencies (OE and NIE), the Task Force found little understanding of educational awareness * * *. Unless equal opportunity for women is made a priority, neither agency is likely to sustain major changes (p. 66).

*** it is abundantly clear that education contributes its share to the exploitation of women. Through its system of formal education, society should seek to nurture young minds and to open doors to lifelong opportunities. On both counts, education is failing the female sex (p. 21).

OE funds help to support the many discriminatory practices that make it particularly difficult for women to gain access to the education they want (p. 32). The report, which is 141 pages long, examined virtually every program within OE, NIE, and OCR for women, and documents how Government activities, programs, policies, and practices ignore the problems of women. Specific recommendations were made, and eventually various heads of administraive units were asked to respond to the recommendations. To the best of my knowledge, these recommendations have not been officially accepted, nor implemented, nor has a date been set for future implementation. It is clear that, without a specific mandate from the Congress, such as that contained in S. 2518, very little will be done by OE on its own initiative.

Moreover, the categorical programs supported by HEW have their own priorities: The aim of the vocational education program, for example, is not to help women but to support vocational education. With the substantial budget cuts being implemented throughout HEW, the most favored programs of administrators are those most likely to be funded, with women's programs given a low priority.

What is needed is a crosscutting approach, a program that would override narrow categorical aims, a program that would indicate commitment at a national public policy level. And this is what S. 2518 would do.

Would S. 2518 conflict with the equal rights amendment when ratified? The equal rights amendment would forbid discriminatory practices and policies by Federal, State, and local governments. It would