pattern to construe sex discrmination as coming within the equal protection clause, that if they had established that kind of judicial precedent, there would be probably less need of it, but that is beside the point now because the case history is so well established that what we need to do is to be sure that there is a separate ERA that will at least give the same protections under the Constitution. I think the facts which have been set forth here demonstrate an impelling reason why ERA ought to be ratified. Ms. HOLTZMAN. What you are saying is that all the discrimination that you have pointed to in your very lengthy testimony of some 17 pages documents persistent discrimination that has been permitted to exist despite the existence of the 14th amendment. Ms. FREEMAN. That is right. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I have no further questions Mr. Chairman. Mr. STAREK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a couple of questions here. You document a number of areas where there has been, or is in fact, discrimination based on sex. I am curious just how prevalent it is as a result of State statutes and State ERA's. For example, you comment in page 15 about discrimination in GI benefits between men and women. I am not familiar with that. Is there in fact discrimination based on sex with regard to GI benefits? MS. FREEMAN. Actually, let's say that this is one of the clear examples of how benefits that a veteran receives, because of discrimination against women, are available mostly to men because they are the ones when were in the service. If the services are opened, without the discrimination and exclusion, then more women would become eligible for such GI benefits as are available. The one example is the 5- or 10-point preference that a veteran now receives for civil services. That in itself excludes women because of the denial to them of participation in the services, so what we are now talking about is the cumulative effect of something that has existed for many, many, years, and it is certainly prevailing now because if automatically there is a 10-preference, or whatever, and a whole class has been excluded from participation in the program that provides the preference, then that sort of compounds the discrimination, in my opinion. Mr. STAREK. How long has it been that women have been eligible to enlist in the armed services? Are there quotas on the number of women who can serve in the United States? Can anyone who wants to join? Ms. EDWARDS. There are quotas currently in terms of numbers of men and women. For a number of years certainly there have been a limited number of women because they have been very much restricted by the kinds of duties they were assigned. Women served as nurses, in what were considered sex-based roles as opposed to the men who could serve in all the capacities as full-fledged members of the Armed Forces. Mr. STAREK. Would you agree it would be a fair statement to say the equal rights amendment would not have any effect on the GI benefits for men or women? MS. FREEMAN. ERA would assure that women and men receive GI benefits. Mr. NUNEZ. I think there is a misunderstanding. The statement indicates the fact that the women represent such a tiny minority of veterans, they are prevented from taking these benefits into account. The statistics are 2 percent of the veterans are women, so the point is that with passage of ERA and the cutting out of the limitations of the number of women in the Armed Forces, you will see a greater proportion of women who will have served in the armed services and thus will become eligible for greater veterans' preferences. Once they become veterans they do in fact enjoy the same benefits as other veterans, but the point is that there are relatively so few and the whole historical pattern has been to keep them at a minimum, and they do have quotas. The armed services are beginning to change that, but the proportion of women right now in the armed services is very minor. I would guess it is less than 10 percent of the armed services at the present time. Mr. STAREK. What I am asking, is there any prohibition on women enlisting? MS. FREEMAN. When there is a quota there is a prohibition. Ms. EDWARDS. And when they are limited to what kinds of duties they can perform, certainly it would not make it as inviting for them to volunteer for a service that restricts them to very limited duty and training. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Would the gentleman yield? I would like to bring it to the attention of counsel the fact that Congress had to pass in this very session a bill to provide to women who flew planes during World War II the benefits they would have received if they had been men. Mr. STAREK. What is the situation in the States with respect to alimony? Are there still State laws that say that alimony is paid by the male spouse to the female spouse, or have most of those been corrected and based alimony on the amount of income by either spouse? Ms. FREEMAN. I would say that many of them have been corrected. The situation is, however, that with respect to the determination of alimony it is based upon need, and the whole judicial process is one that really needs to be looked at when we are talking about ERA because you still are looking at a judicial system in which the judges for the most part are men, in which their interpretations of whatever the statute may be will still be based upon their past decisions and however they feel about it. But in Missouri, for instance, so far as the statute which provides specifically that the man shall provide for the female, that has been changed. What we are getting at is there may be instances in which the need is not with respect to the female, it is not with respect to the male. But then there is another point there. Then there is the assumption that women get a whole lot of alimony, which is not true. There is the the assumption that men continue to pay it after the first 2 months of the court order, and that is not true. There is really a long pattern which has been very well documented that there is no duty of support, and most men recognize it and do not pay it. There is a problem there. Mr. STAREK. Generally as to the situation in the States, is it fair to say most of the State laws have been corrected to base alimony not on sex but on need? Is that a fair statement? MS. FREEMAN. No. I say a number of them. We can supply this information. The international commission during the IWY does have this, and we refer to that, the legal status of homemakers in America, and they also refer to domestic relations. There are a number of studies that have been made that can be made available to the committee for a cataloging of the number of States where there have been changes. There is still need in every single State for revision of domestic laws. Mr. STAREK. Even in the States that have an equal rights amendment? MS. FREEMAN. Yes. Mr. STAREK. If I understood your statement correctly, you said that State and Federal prisons would be required to become sexually integrated with the exception of the toilet facilities. I just want to ask a question. How do the corrections officials feel about the integration of prisons? Ms. FREEMAN. We have set forth in the testimony instances of discrimination in the rehabilitation program, especially the training and the stereotyping of the training. Our State committees have done some work on this. As an example, it seems if the corrections officials would recognize the need for the training of women in the same kinds of ways that they recognize the needs for training for men, this could be done in a campus situation. You have colleges where there are separate dormitories but the classrooms are integrated. There is no reason why a female and male prisoner could not sit in the same classroom. This is an area in which the officials could be resourceful, creative, and exercise some initiative and save the taxpayers some money. Mr. STAREK. Do you think, then, correction officials think that is a good idea? Ms. FREEMAN. I have just heard of one Federal institution in Texas, I believe, in which this is being done, and I do not know whether it is on an experimental basis or not, but certainly it would seem that if there are going to be separate buildings they could certainly have the living facilities to assure the right of privacy, but the recreational areas certainly ought to be integrated, the training areas certainly ought to be integrated. Mr. STAREK. I have one final question. On page 15 you say "On the average, female professors earned over $3,000 less than their male counterparts in 1975." I would like to just go a little deeper into that. Did that include all professors? What are the statistics based on? My thought is that it could be based on experience but I do not know. MS. FREEMAN. If it is based on experience it would also mean it would not be because of discrimination; it would show the cumulative effect of past discrimination because if it is based on experience and if it is at a time which denied women access to the professorship, then this is a compounding effect. You have the experience because they are excluded. The male has the experience because the women were excluded for so many years. You are saying it does not necessarily mean a violation of the Equal Pay Act. I am saying it may or may not, but it has the effect of discrimination on the basis of sex. Ms. EDWARDS. If I might add to what you are saying, looking at that particular figure we are talking about comparing women and men who do the same kinds of jobs. We are talking equal pay, if you will. Some women professors are hired at a lesser dollar amount than male professors. Mr. STAREK. Is that not a violation of the Equal Pay Act? MS. EDWARDS. Yes. Mr. STAREK. If we already have Federal legislation on the books, what I am trying to understand is how the equal rights amendment is going to change that. MS. FREEMAN. That is why we need the ERA, because apparently with respect to certain laws there has to be further legislation for people to believe in enforcement of the law. This unfortunately is true with respect to civil rights legislation. If this were the ideal world, if people enforced that law the way they enforce the traffic ordinance, then we could say probably you would not need it, but the whole history of the lack of enforcement of civil rights laws shows that, even if we have a 14th amendment, we need it, but we need the ERA because we will give an emphasis that this is a benefit that is a constitutional protection and unfortunately the legislatures can say to the executive and to the judiciary not "We need to have ERA" but "ERA is now on the books, so do not give us any more excuses." Mr. STAREK. It sounds to me like that is an enforcement problem by the Federal Government. Ms. FREEMAN. This is another answer that we have had. In other words, you go from one excuse to the other. The point is, we need ERA and more enforcement. I am not saying we do not need more enforcement. We need enforcement of the law but we also need ERA. Mr. STAREK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EDWARDS. I think with regard to the discussion with Mr. Starek on alimony and homemakers, at that point in the record a summary of the recent report of the Rand Corp., on alimony and child support should be inserted. Most people think that women get paid alimony and child support as a result of court decisions and court orders. Actually, the situation is in disarray and the figures are dismally low. The judges might order 20 or 30 percent-we will put those figures in— but the payments are actually 15 or 10 percent or less. Certainly the evidence would be that a new look should be taken at the whole business of child support and alimony and that stricter attention should be paid to ability to pay. Whether the wife or the husband makes the payments, the money should be paid so the people should be supported and the spouse, whichever sex it is, would get the money. Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Just one point, Mr. Chairman. Dean Griswold testified here last October and he is one of your former colleagues, a former Commissioner of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. I am wondering if you people could arrange that he be born again. In October this is what he said: The extension of the ratification period would be poor policy and a bad precedent and would be a breach of faith with the States. I wonder if you would talk to that point, the breach of faith with the States. That came up yesterday. Frankly, that is a point that seems to bother many of my colleagues in Congress with whom I have discussed this matter. He said further, "To change the time now is clearly a change in the announced rules governing a substantial matter in our constitutional structure." So, on that point of the breach of faith, or a violation of contract, would you want to speak to that? Ms. FREEMAN. I believe, first of all, I would be in disagreement with Dean Griswold. But when he served as a commissioner there were occasions when we did not agree. First of all, with respect to the time period, there was no time period with respect to, I believe, the first 17 amendments; is that not correct? There was no time period required in the legislation, and there was certainly not one with respect to the 19th. I don't presume to know what Dean Griswold could have meant by a breach of faith with the States. I would certainly disagree with that. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much. Ms. LEROY. I just have one question, Commissioner Freeman. You touched on it in your testimony when you were talking about States which have sex-neutral alimony and support laws. In those States and in those States which also have their own ERA, have any of the dire results that the opponents have predicted come aboutMs. FREEMAN, No. Ms. LEROY [continuing]. That you are aware of? Ms. FREEMAN. No. I know of none and I don't know if they know of any either. Ms. LEROY. That is all. Thank you. Mr. EDWARDS. I believe there are no further questions and we thank the witnesses for very excellent testimony. MS. FREEMAN. Thank you. Mr. FLEMMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EDWARDS. Our last witness will be Prof. William Stanmeyer of Indiana Law School. Professor Stanmeyer is currently on leave from his law school and is spending some time here in Washington and on short notice has graciously agreed to be here today. We certainly appreciate his taking the time and trouble to bring the testimony and appear today. Professor Stanmeyer, without objection your full statement will be made a part of the record, and you may proceed as you see fit. TESTIMONY OF PROF. WILLIAM A. STANMEYER, INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Mr. STANMEYER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, my name is William A. Stanmeyer. I am a law professor who has taught jurisprudence and constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center and more recently at Indiana University School of Law. I thank you for the invitation to appear today. Itis a privilege to have the opportunity to place on the record my serious reservations about the propriety of extending the ratification time for the equal rights amendment and my grave misgivings about the amendment itself. I fully respect the credentials of your other witnesses, some of whom do not share these views; but I believe that the pro-ERA position suffers from the very rhetorical advantage of its having been argued |