- Our topic for discussion tonight is the legal and historical background of the topic that we're talking about for a month. You recall that last Monday, we talked about women in universities in general, and that this Monday as we announced we would discuss the law court actions and executive orders. Our guest panelists tonight are Louise Wheeler, Assistant Professor in the School of Law, Dr. Julie Shafer, who is the Chairman of the University of Kansas Affirmative Action Board, and Cindy Robinson, a law student on leave this year from the School of Law. I thought we might start tonight by asking for a little historical perspective. Julie, you know that this subject gets rather complicated. And of course our objective tonight will be to clarify as much as we possibly can. The questions which we're continuously asked. We would like for you to note our number, 864-45-30. This is an open line, and ordinarily we suggest that at the end of a half an hour, you call if you have questions or comment. Tonight however, I'm going to suggest that if at any time in the course of the program, there're questions or comments you wish to make, that we would be happy to have you use this line, 864-45-30. Then if you do ask something which we're going to deal with later on, well, we can always say that too. So, Julie would you tell us a little bit about when these laws all started that we're talking about now? - All right. First, I'll start by saying that until March of 1972, this year, there was no law that specifically covered women at least at the faculty and administrative levels in universities. Let me give a little background on the civil right laws in general and what's happened since March then. The first Federal Civil Rights Act was in 1866, immediately following the civil war and it did not include sex. Should be clear when you think about that time. Following that there were a number of Federal Civil Rights Act, it was a rather active time. And then for some time then the activity slack and then for a long time there was very little federal legislation in the civil rights area. In this century, the major Civil Rights Act was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'll talk about that in just a moment. In 1963, the Equal Pay Amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act did affect some women in universities. It requires equal pay, but pay cannot differ by sex. However, academic administrative and professional employees were exempted from the Equal Pay Amendment of 1963. So it still did not cover faculty and the administrative employees. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, there're two titles that are relevant to universities, Title VI prohibits discrimination in any program receiving federal financial assistance, which covers students, faculty, everyone except that sex was not included in the original act, prohibits discrimination on the ground of race, color or national origin. Title VII prohibits discrimination in the employment, specifically, and does include sex but educational institutions were exempted from Title VII. So in consequence, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not help women in universities. Now in March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 was passed, and this removes the exemption of educational institutions from Title VII. So this was the first law that specifically covered faculty and administrative women, women at all levels of employment in the universities. Then I think it was June, the Education Amendments of 1972 passed, and they amended Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to include sex, so that now students as well as employees in universities, discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited. All the same amendments broadened the Equal Pay Act so that the academic administrative and professional employees are now covered by the Equal Pay Act, so that this now brings a whole battery of laws. The Equal Pay Act now covers all women in universities for employment. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act in both employment and student discrimination. So that all of this has come about since March of 1972, in addition, and it was either June, July 1st, 1972, the new Kansas Civil Rights Act, the new amendments became effective including sex in the Kansas Civil Rights Act, which is very broad and also covers all levels of women in the universities. So up until this time, we had no laws, but we did have something called a federal executive order. And federal executive orders are orders that the government puts out about the way in which federal government can conduct its business. And so this particular audit covers people who contract, government gives a contract to someone. And so can specify certain conditions that must be met in order to have that contract awarded. They're not as good in some ways as having laws because they can be changed whenever the executive wants to issue a new order. But since 1968, a federal executive order has been in force, which prohibited sex discrimination in any university that had federal contracts over a certain size and it covered almost well, all of the major universities in the country. There've been a series of federal executive orders, starting in 1944 on non-discrimination, but it wasn't until number 11246 and 1965, prohibited discrimination in universities receiving federal contracts but did not include sex. In 1967, executive order 11375 amended that order to include sex. And so the way to proceed there is to file complaints as you know, probably a complaint was filed fairly recently against the University of Kansas on the basis of that executive order. I'll let other people. - Now, I remind our audience that we'd welcome questions at any time, but that's a brief overview of where we stand in relationship to laws and to executive orders. But Louise is our lawyer here. One of the questions withdraw frequently ask is, what's the difference really between a law and an executive order? And then in what way do the courts enter into the situation? - Well, I think that Julie has really answered, really what the crux of the issue is, and that really is that the executive order changes pretty much with the executive. In other words, because of the constitutional setup that we have in the separation of powers as it's arranged, the legislature of course, is the primary law making body that we have. And in fact, Congress is enacted all sorts of legislation in that role. But the executive has not only the power, but also the duty to carry out the laws. And once a congressional policy has been established as it had been in the Civil Rights Acts, then the executive is expected not only to encourage the enforcement of those laws in States, but also to have those laws enforced in the federal government, of course, which is the head of the administrative angle. So he can set up administrative bodies to effectuate the policies that Congress has put into law. On the other hand, it seems that an executive order, well, I would suspect the wallet, executive order is more flexible. It would probably be just as effective, if not perhaps more effective to have a legislature actually speak and thereby have some sort of consensus on the part of a larger community instead of just the executive talking on one aspect of the problem. - Let's leave it for a moment and take this call. Would you go ahead, please? Hello. - Hello. - Would you go ahead please, with the question? - Yeah, it's not a question, it's a statement. I don't feel women are equal to men. - Is that all? - Especially mentally. - Any other comment? - Well, I don't think they're equal to men mentally. - All right, thank you. - Thank you for your comment. Would you go ahead then, Louise. - Well, it seems to me Emily, that once you have an executive order, at least you've got a leg up. And I think that in this respect especially, because The Office of Federal Contract Compliance was set up under the first executive order that we're concerned with here. And they have been administering the way the federal contracts are awarded in the kinds of guidelines they have to obtain when a university receives a federal contract. But I'm not really sure, because I'm not sure if there's been litigation, specifically on the issue of these executive orders, how they would fair as opposed to legislation. But I do know in terms of the constitution, that the executive does have as the head of the administrative branch, not only as I say, not only the right, but also the duty to set up standards to execute the laws. And so I think that, that has been a duty, that's been read rather broadly with the exception of something like the steel seizure cases under our president Truman, in which case that particular authority was denied. - Wouldn't it really make any difference in light of the fact that what's at stake is the federal contract? And wouldn't the government be in a position to deny a federal contract anyone they wished? - Oh, I think that's right. And I think that's exactly the reason they have been allowed to impose the guidelines that they have, because it is really a contracting situation. And there is supposed to be freedom of contract and supposed to be some sort of meeting of minds as to what the underlying contract is. - What would be the effect and the opinion of any of you, of the withdrawal of federal funds from a university? - Catastrophic, I imagine. - Absolutely disastrous to any major university. - Could you give any idea at all of what's involved of how much federal funds and how many federal contracts universities do sign with the federal government? - I've seen the figure, I don't remember it, but I know it's certainly well in the millions, - A substantial part of the entire budget of universities in other words, and in fact that even many colleges except federal funding, so the contracts can be both for construction or for non-construction, like a grant to a faculty member who applies. So we've talked about the statutory parts and the executive orders. To what extent, what's a relationship? Unless you've already said this. Louise you might want to repeat it again on a court case. What's the relationship between the guidelines that the administrative unit sets up and the action of the court? - Well, the basic framework that's used is that obviously Congress cannot legislate in any more than the most general areas. And so the administrative agency actually administers the laws as they are passed and takes account of the day to day setting a policy. And that's the reason that great difference is paid to their opinions as to what the guidelines mean. - We have another call. Would you go ahead, please? Hello. - Hello. - You have a question or comment? - Yes, I have a question regarding the 1963 Equal Pay Act and also the 1964 Civil Rights Act as to whether the anti-infective discrimination clauses were purposely omitted from those Acts in the original version? Or for what reason, if any was this omitted? - All right, would one of you care to comment on that? - Do you know what ? - No, I don't know. I will point out the 1963 Act, it had sex in it. Of course it was Equal Pay for sex, but it did not cover administrative and professional, academic administrative and professional employees. I don't know why, and I don't know why in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, this was not included. - I think that the reason that the 1963, the Equal Pay Act, it was an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and at least many women's groups still feel and some of them were called into session about this at the time that it was an oversight. And the decision was made that it was better to go ahead and get this amendment pay us because it did help great many people at least, and then work to expand it. Do you see how long it takes? Another nine years before it was expanded to people in executive professional and managerial jobs? The second part of the question was about the Civil Rights Act, 1964. - Yes, Title VI, which did not include sex. I really don't know why not. - It is difficult enough to get it in Title VII. I suspect is it probably the reason then that we were at sort of at the beginning stages of listening to the arguments as to why it should be included at all? Obviously we all think it was a mistake. Do you have any further comments or questions? - Not right now, thank you very much. - Thank you. - Now, as I was saying about the EEOC, that is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They are authorized to set up guidelines that will be used in the cases that are handled by the courts. And in fact, most of the cases aren't gonna get to court, the EEOC is gonna conciliate them since that's the primary function that the agency has. But so that all the people that deal with the agency and come under that aspect of federal law, will know exactly what's expected of them. The guidelines are furnished to firm things up. And in my experience in studying the administrative framework, it seems to me that the courts by and large will give extreme deference to the decisions made by the administrative agency because it's been set up underneath the statute, because those people presumably have had the most experience in dealing with the statute, and they are familiar with the day-to-day problems. So I would say as a rule, you're going to get a fair amount of difference to those guidelines, unless they just seem really off base as far as the court is concerned, and totally without support in the more general statute. - As a general rule, I hear you saying that the guidelines are based upon what the legislative history show is the true meaning of that act. - That's right. - So that have to be some really good reason for regarding. Now, how about this Kansas Action Against Discrimination? Because all we've talked about so far, the Equal Pay Act, the '63 Title VII and Title VI, and the amendments there to our federal legislation. Cindy, you would care to comment on the Kansas Act Against Discrimination? - The Kansas Act seems to be very comprehensive and is not subject to quite as many exceptions and quite as much As some of the federal laws. The Kansas Act covers any person employed by an employer who pays for persons or more, which would include almost anyone in this state with the exception of parents, spouses, children or domestic servants. Unfortunately, I think that's a pretty important but it does include most other workers in the state. To file a complaint, you can write the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights in the State Office Building in They can send you a form to fill out. And after you present that form to the commission, if you have a private attorney, he can represent you in the proceedings. If that isn't your wish, then the commission can go ahead and investigate and hold the hearings on its own. But the Kansas Commission operates pretty much with the powers of a district court. It has powers of subpoena and taking depositions and requiring interrogatories powers like this, that generally courts only have. So that in some ways I would imagine that the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights can work much faster than the EEOC, which after it tries conciliation, it has to go through the courts themselves for any actual enforcement. - Well, there is a big improvement. However, there is or not that the EEOC can take matters to court that do not respond to a conciliation, can take it directly with their own lawyers. Whereas prior to the spring, they had to start all over again by convincing the justice department that they should take the case. So that was a very, very slow process. - That's right. I think it really should be pointed out quite clearly, that in conjunction with adding new restrictions on sex discrimination this year, Congress also really did give teeth for the first time to the EEOC, that organization had really been just virtually ineffectual in terms court matters because they really couldn't enforce anything that they had tried to conciliate. And this way there was a little bit of punch behind their conciliation. It makes them a little bit more believable I think, when they go up against an employer, - They haven't taken any cases to the court so far? - I don't know, I don't know. - Yes, actually, within weeks after they regain their new powers, they had taken four major cases. They took four major cases within a few weeks. And since that time it does and others So that I think they not only now have teeth in it, but they're obviously using their teeth, because some of these matters had already have been at the conciliation stages for a long, long time. We probably, yeah, I should talk about what kinds of affects that these various laws and court actions and executive orders have, for example, in the equal pay, let's start with that. What does that really mean, Equal pay? In a university, people do all manner of things. How do you know who's pay should be equal to whom? - I don't recall the exact wording. And there was some wording that if a job involves equal responsibility and skill and duties or substantially equal, which is the way it's been interpreted, you can say no two jobs are exactly the same but if it involves substantially equal experience, duties and skills, then the patient be equal. - It's interesting too that it doesn't say that the jobs need to be identical, but all that's required is that the jobs be equal in the amount of skill and the type of skill that they require. So I think small variations would be allowed. Interestingly enough, I think that some of the ways that employers have tried to get around this in the past has been, for instance, the typical situation is that men will be working in a job, women will also be doing substantially the same job and the men perhaps will be given additional chores, one or two or 3% of their time will be devoted to additional chores that really would be done otherwise by lower paid persons. The courts have enjoined this practice and have instructed the employer to pay the women equally with the men since they're doing substantially the same work. And then the employer will transfer the man out of that department into something else, so that the only people left in that department are women and then claim that there's nobody doing work equal with the women, therefore they can continue to be paid at a lower rate. The courts by and large have not bought that argument. But I can't really think of an analogy immediately at the faculty level, but I think we might find some of that at the staff level. - Well, one analogy it might be, many people enter a university as assistant professors, meaning they've just completed a terminal degree and if two people are hired to teach the same subject at the same rank, then it's certainly reasonable to assume that women should not be offered less money than the man. Another technique of courses with titles. Like calling people who do the same sort of work, calling the women maids and calling men janitors. It would be one of the very simplest and one which has been taken the court. The work that they're doing of course, is not very, very similar, as you put it, substantially the same. - We have seen a large amount of discrepancy in faculty salaries here also I think, that would be very instructive I think, for people who are concerned about that. - Say that, statistical evidence is sufficient, so that just showing statistically that the women as a whole have lower salaries than the men even in the same ranks is enough to provide a case certainly that the Equal Pay Act is being violated. - That's very important too, because I think that a lot of people really think that they would not have a sufficient case to bring in court if they can't show some sort of bad feeling or some sort of intention to discriminate. But the courts have not required that by and large, as you say, statistical evidence that women are not in the same position as men, would be enough to get you at least into the door and is something that should be tried even if you don't have a letter saying we would not consider hiring a woman or we will only pay you this much as we pay a man more. - Yeah, apparently what they do is that it put the burden on the employer to justify why these statistics are this way. He has to prove that there's a reason for the women being paid less as a class rather than the women having to prove that it's due to his active discrimination. - Which really is as it should be. Because as far as court discovery process and everything else goes, he's the guy who knows. The employer is the one who's going to have all of those records and is gonna know about length of employment and wage scales and everything else. So it really is the employer that I believe that the burden should be placed on. - Louise what would you have advised the woman who talked to me this morning and said that she had applied, oh, well, we'll pick up that case in just a moment. Right now we have to stop for a station identification. - No, no, this picture just doesn't go... - We remind you again that our number is 864-45-30. And we'd be happy to receive your questions or comments at any time. I had just begun to ask you Louise, as our lawyer here, what you would have advised the young woman who talked to me today, who said that she had applied for a job through a State Employment Agency, and that they had a job there, which only they had access to the name of the contact or the name of the store who was wanting to employ an assistant manager. And they would not give her this information, because they said that the store wanted a man for this job. - Well, it seems to me, Emily, first of all, the only conditions under which they could hire differentially a man in preference to a woman, would be under the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification about which we haven't spoken yet, but I think probably we'll get back and talk about that later. If the woman has a genuine gripe though, I think that it is the kind of discrimination that can be handled under the federal laws as they stand now, I'm not really sure off the top of my head, and I wanna caution that legal advice that's free is worth exactly as much as it costs. But I think that Employment Agencies are covered, and I believe that State Employment Agencies would also be covered and wouldn't be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, which it seems to me that is absent, some sort of a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, Cindy? - It seems like a situation like that would also come under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, which includes the State of Kansas and all political and municipal subdivisions which I assume would mean the State Employment Agency as well. It also includes all kinds of corporations and associations and organizations which I assume would include the employer who is going through the Employment Agency. So even not knowing exactly who she should complain against the commission on civil rights after she filed her complaint, that would be their problem to figure out who to proceed against, but obviously it would come under some provisions of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. - How many employees did you tell us earlier that the organization had to have in order to come under this law? - Only four employees. - So almost any store who was going to hire an assistant manager would have at least four employees. I think you've made a very good point that if you take the case to the Civil Rights Commission, if some other group and wouldn't that be true of all of these enforcement agents, if some other group could do a better job with that particular case, that it would be turned over to them the important things to get to somebody, who then makes a referral to someone else, because surely it is true that many people do not know where to go. And many times they tell something, there is a human interest story rather than actually seeking for advice about it. And let's do talk about, Cindy, if he could have approved that being male was a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, then this would not have been in violation of the law. How broadly or narrowly is what's called, BFOQ, Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, how broadly is that interpreted? - Well, currently it's being interpreted very, very narrowly, guidelines on discrimination on account of sex were issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April of this year, and they're very heartening actually, because they did read the BFOQ most narrowly. And basically it comes down not only to a disregard of the employers preferences, but also a disregarding for whatever irrational preferences his customers might have, and I think that, that is certainly one aspect that many women had worried about. Because for instance in the private field, speaking from an area about which I know something, many employers had hesitated for instance, to hire women attorneys, because they had said that their customers and their clients that is, had a preference for male attorneys and had the EEOC not been really on its toes, they might very well have called out a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, that is the prejudices of other people would be allowed to determine the scope of your rights. And luckily the EEOC said that was not it. And basically we seem to be back to the situation where the authenticity of a person's sex has to be required in order for something to be a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. - You can say an example. - Wet nurse - Well, the example that was given in the federal guidelines was that of actor or actress. So that's the only example that they gave that I could find in all of the guidelines. It seems to me that if they're going to give that narrow an example, that they're not beyond having perhaps a woman, may clean up a woman's restroom or Louise's example, the wet nurse. These are just very, very minimal interpretations of BFOQ - In fact, there are those who say that we probably should drop the term altogether, because it's a little misleading. It sounds as if there're lots of things that only men or only women could do. We're talking about things that substantially no woman could do or no man could do. And when you think in those terms, obviously there are very few things where there wouldn't be some women or some man who would be able to carry them out. And the fact that most of them don't want it, should be neither here nor there. - That's right. - I wonder, we've talked about various commission to whether it might be a good idea to say something about what commissions are involved with what laws. - I think that's a good idea. - It's very confusing and certainly quickly confused me a great deal when I first got into this. - I'll talk about that a little bit. - Okay, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission or EEOC which we've talked a great deal about, was set up specifically to administer Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 1964, the one which prohibited employment discrimination. Of course, the Kansas Act Against Discrimination as administered by the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights, the other one we've talked about most. Now the executive orders are in a different category. Oh, before I go to those, the Equal Pay Act is administered by the wages and hours division of the Department of Labor. The executive orders, the president designated the Department of Labor to administer the executive orders. Now they have an Office of Federal Contract Compliance the OFCC, which administers the executive order. And of course the OFCC and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission collaborate a great deal since their jurisdiction overlaps. The OFCC in turn designated many sub-agencies to administer the executive order in different areas. And in the area of educational institutions, it designated the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to administer the law. So they in turn, they have an office for civil rights which is directly involved with negotiations. This is why we've all heard about health, education and welfare so much. Their office for civil rights actually comes to campuses and makes reviews and does the actual dealing with campuses. Although all for them in a sense, is The Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the Department of Labor. So that all the regulations which come out that office and Department of Labor also apply to universities since that sort of over The Office for Civil Rights, Health, Education and Welfare. It's a rather confusing group of agencies. Maybe this will help a little bit to clarify who does what. - And for those of our listeners who are less interested in universities and in some other incorporations of one kind or another, The Office of Federal Contract Compliance is ultimately as Julie has said responsible, and there are some 17 different agencies to whom they farmed out various aspects. They an enforcement agent to this particular area. Do you have to go to Washington, for instance, if you feel that you have a complaint under any of these laws? Or are you aware that there is a branch in Kansas City? - There is yes, the branch of region seven, for enforcement of the Civil Rights Act. Mr. J.L. Thomas is the Chief of Contract Compliance in Kansas City, working out of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare there. His address would be, J.L. Thomas, Chief Contract Compliance Branch, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health Education and Welfare, 601, East 12th street, Kansas City, Missouri. The zip is 64106. I'll repeat that address later on for people to get pencils and papers. If you'd like to direct inquiries to him about Affirmative Action or whether you as an individual, would be covered by Affirmative Action, he would be the closest person to answer those inquiries. - Oh, that's the interesting vital information. We also have always the enforcement, well, a total staff of the Department of Labor on Walnut Street in Kansas City at the Federal Law Office building, wage and hour people, of whom there are some 2000 enforcement agents in the United States representing the Women's Bureau, a representative of the Labor Department and Miniature really, so that it would not be necessary to go to, or to write to Washington. One could find out whether or not she had a legitimate case by going to Kansas City or writing to the Labor Department in Kansas City. Our number is 864-45-30. And if there's anything that we're saying that you did not understand or wish to comment on, we would welcome your calls. - Emily, I have one further thing that I'd like to add. When I started talking about the BFOQ, it reminded me of it. I think some people may have questions as to how protective legislation or so called protective legislation fits into this whole framework. And I think that's important, because earlier in the century, one of the primary movements that we saw in terms of legislation was a move to protect women and to protect minors against some sort of harsh aspects of labor. And a lot of those have lingered on, many women have argued that they are not really very protective. And I think that the government has had a very interesting answer in promulgating Title VII and the guidelines under that. And I think Cindy has something on that. - Yes, I do. I looked up some of the particular Kansas Labor Protective Orders for Women. Some of them seem really out of date even though they were only issued in 1966. They were issued as administrative regulations under a more general statutory authority. These orders covered laundry workers, manufacturing workers, American Teal, public housekeeping and telephone company employees. It's not worth while to go through and enumerate all of the various details regulating these women workers, but in general, they limit the number of hours per day she can work, the number of hours per week, and in some cases, the length of meal periods, of some very minor details. Also they'd limit the hours of night time work that women and minors under 18 can engage in. However, in light of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination which became effective just a few months ago, and does include sex along with race and religion and national origin as prohibiting discrimination. These laws probably would not stand up in a court. In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in some of the guidelines which it has issued, has specifically said the State Labor Laws, usually referred to as Protective Legislation. And I quote, "Such laws and regulations are in conflict with and superseded by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such laws will not be considered a defense to otherwise established unlawful employment practice, or as a basis of the application of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception." In other words, Kansas and a lot of other states are going to have to get rid of their protective legislation which limits the work that women can do. - What many states have taken action in this regard, in one or two ways, either by repealing the law or extending the benefits to everybody. - If it really isn't beneficial law, it might as well be extended to everybody. - Raises some real questions as to what parts of it are beneficial. You may recall reading in the paper a few weeks ago, or perhaps it's been a little longer than that. Now, the story of the two women in New York who had to take weight lifting and running tests, do you recall that? And both of them were working in offices. They had had absolutely nothing to do with the work that they were performing, but it was the State Law. So this gave rise to some changes because it showed up, I think the absurdity of the situation as well as almost anything has. We ought to talk a little more about the very specific guidelines that EEOC set up, because there's some other areas too, there're some very interesting requirements. Any of you wanna comment, for instance on situation regard to pension benefits and what they've had to say on that subject? A lot of people connected with universities of course, are quite interested in this subject, especially since so many are covered, not only here, but all over the United States by the TIA. Louise, could- - I do think that it would be interesting for people to know that under the guidelines that the EEOC promulgated in April of this year, they say quite clearly that it would be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to have a pension or retirement plan that establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex, or which differentiates in benefits on the basis of sex. So that seems to be pretty clear, and I think that, we hear that TIA was going to be revising what they were currently doing. - At least the- - I don't know whether they're going But I guess they better. - I think, yes, I think they better take head also. - Wayne State University, a group there has been quite active in pressuring the TIA to take some action, and pointed out that among teachers, a differential of as high as $2,800 a year has been made under TIA between men and women, this all based on actuarial tables. But the problem with actuarial tables, if they are done entirely in terms of men and women, it does take into account anything else that where the differential is even greater, for example, the differential between white men and black men. In terms of longevity is greater than that between men and women in general. So that going by actuarial tables no longer impresses anybody as being a very fair way of determining how much people it should have. And also do the guidelines not say that, the fact that it may cost more will not be considered as sufficient excuse. - That's right, that's right, it does exactly. In fact, it's interesting also with respect to the Equal Pay Act, I think many people would worry that what might happen in an Equal Pay Act suit would be only the pay for the higher paid workers would be reduced to that level, currently being paid the lower paid workers. That has been taken care of, because it is written right into the statute that in no event is the pay of any employee to be lowered on account of a suit brought under the Equal Pay Act. So that would ensure that the only way is revision upward. - Violet, good many people have expressed some concern over the fact that Affirmative Action Programs are going to cost money, money that universities don't have. You have any suggestions to them as to what they can do about that? - Long as you raised that I was thinking maybe we should. We haven't really said exactly where Affirmative Action Programs come in this whole group of things. - Well, let's talk about that a little bit. - Yes, actually the laws talk about non-discrimination. The only place I've seen any reference to Affirmative Action is in the executive order. So that the whole idea of having to have an Affirmative Action Program is something that comes from the executive orders. We did a little study. Cindy, did look these up. I was interested in knowing when the Affirmative Action first became a requirement, and the executive orders prohibiting discrimination date back to 1944, but it wasn't until 1961 that the term Affirmative Action was used, and since then every executive order has included this and gradually broadened the scope of what's meant by Affirmative Action. And this is really something over and above non-discrimination, because what it requires is a positive effort to set out a program, a detailed program for eliminating every kind of discrimination and lack of equal opportunity for making special efforts to get fuller opportunity for women and members of minority groups who are covered by the executive orders. So that now the contractors, it's not enough for them to say they don't discriminate or even not have any evidence that they discriminate. They have to actually have a whole plan worked out, have a detailed analysis of what they're doing and wherever there's evidence that they don't have as many women or minority employees as they showed, or perhaps don't have them in some of the upper levels of the organization, they have to develop detailed procedures for particularly encouraging these fuller utilization of the talents of these groups. - Now, we are often asked the question, does that mean we have to take just anybody, lower our standards in order to include minorities and women? What kind of answer do you give to that? - No, it certainly doesn't say that in any way shape or form, it says the standards must be examined. And if the standards really don't relate to the job being performed, and if they result in fewer women or minority group members, then they cannot be used. You know the words, if you use a test as a requirement for passing a certain test as a requirement for a job, and let's say not as many women or minority group members pass this test as white men, then you have to prove that this test is really necessary, that passing this test is really necessary for performing the job. The burden of proof is on you, otherwise you are not permitted to use it. So that the standards have to be justified. You have to be able to show that if the standards have this effect, that they really relate directly to performance of the job. But then qualifications should be something that qualify you for the job, so that this is not a matter of lowering qualifications. You're never asked to accept people who are not qualified to do the job properly. - And you're also not asked to set quotas about which we'll certainly be talking again in our program two weeks from now on Affirmative Action Programs and attempting to explain to you the difference between a goal and and a quota? In the paper in the last week, we've seen quite a bit about from statements, from the president and from others that there is no requirement of a quota per se, which means you must hire a certain percentage within a certain period of time, which in some fields of courses is not even possible. But to have a goal of what you would like to do and you would be judged on your good faith effort to reach that goal rather than whether you succeeded or not. I have several announcements that I better give it this time. And if we have time to come back to this, we will. I have been asked to announce a three-day seminar to be presented by the Cave Commission on the status of women, on women in politics that will be October the 10th, 11th and 12th. On October the 10th, in the union there'll be a panel discussion on gaining political influence, and you're asked to come and find out what individual women as well as groups can do to make their political view points heard and acted upon. On October the 11th, the next night, there will be a discussion also in the Kansas Union, on ways women can organize at KU, an Affirmative Action Program will be discussed. The violate action by will and the ramifications of the sex discrimination charge against KU will be reviewed. And some of the same people will be on this program, who are here tonight, Dr. Shafer, for example and myself, also Shirley Gillam, who is the Affirmative Action Officer for Women and Joel Whitley, a student who is on the Affirmative Action Board. And then on October the 12th, on Thursday night, at 8:30 in Hoke Auditorium, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, who as you know ran for president of the United States, will be the principal speaker. So October the 10th, 11th and 12th, we'd appreciate having you put this on your calendar. For those of you who have not completed college or perhaps I've not started college, I think you'd be quite interested in a one day workshop called The Over 21 Woman Goes to KU, to be held on October the 17th in the Student Union, and it will aim to ease the transition of the 21 plus one to campus after some years elapse for a job or marriage or family. Every woman who is interested in continuing her education is invited to attend. Mrs. Roger Reeb, who is the Director of the Women's Bureau for region seven, the United States Department of Labor about which we previously spoke, that's in Kansas City, will speak about general opportunities and continuing education for women in this country today. Professor Mary Townsend of the Department of Psychology at KU, will talk on the psychology of women. A panel of women who have gone back to college will share their experiences in the afternoon session. And another panel of KU faculty and staff will explain facilities at KU for easing the transition to campus, and be available for individual conferences. Participants will have the chance to suggest the ways the university might make the transition even easier. The enrollment fee for this workshop, which begins at 8:30 and closes at 4:30 is $5, and this fee includes luncheon. Ms. Shirley Gillum, Director of the Office of Affirmative Action for Women and Ms. Vivian Mccoy, who is a Director of Student Services in the Extramural Independent Study Center are coordinating the conference. Pre-registration applications should be mailed to Karl Cappleman, Continuing Education Building University of Kansas, before October, the 14th. This is one day workshop, October the 17th. If you are interested and forget the details as to how to register for this conference or you wish further information, you can of course always call the office of the Dean of Women. Next week, we're going to have a panel that will speak specifically on sex discrimination at the University of Kansas, bringing down to our local situation, the kinds of things that we've been talking about in a more global way and for the last two weeks. Our guest panelist will be Marilyn Stokstad, who was the chairman of committee Is Committee on Women of the American Association of University Professors two years ago. This is the group that was the re-activation group of committee, Dr. Beverly Anderson, who is the present chairman of a committee Karen Zimmerman, who has been the Chairman of the Library, Affirmative Action Group and Shirley Gillam, who we've previously referred to, who is the Affirmative Action Officer for Women. And our final program on this series two weeks from now, we will talk specifically on Affirmative Action plans, doing discrimination at the University of Kansas, both in regard to sex and to race. I surely appreciate our panelists coming tonight, and appreciate your listening. And we hope that you'll continue to join us each Monday night, from seven to eight. - Listen again next Monday at seven, for a feminist perspective.