public accommodations ordinance in the city of Phoenix, Ariz., in 1964, 7 years after the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, was never publicly disowned until he appeared here before this committee. We believe that men can change their minds and we want where possible to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the UAW is always been leery of eve-of-confirmation hearings conversions.

We express our deep concern over the values and views which seem to have shaped the consistently far-right record of the nominee. We are, however, even more concerned over the way he expresses his views and values. In contrast, Mr. Lewis F. Powell, Jr., a conservative southerner, has commanded much respect from those who do not agree with many of his views, but who find his discussion of legal issues to be thoughful, scholarly, and moderate.

But the Rehnquist speeches, articles, and letters are not marked by the same qualities as those of Mr. Powell. For example, Mr. Rehnquist, in taking issue with a Washington newspaper over its editorial opposition to the Carswell nomination, wrote that what the paper really wanted was a restoration of the Warren Court's majority which he said would have the result of "not merely further expansion of constitutional recognition of civil rights, but further expansion of the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, of pornographers, and of demonstrators." We submit that these hyperbolic and loaded words tell the Senate a good deal more about the one who uttered them than they do about the Warren Court.

In announcing his most recent choices for the Supreme Court, the President emphasized the importance of his role in staffing the Supreme Court. He neglected, however, to mention the crucial role of the Senate with respect to Supreme Court Justices. The Nation has come to expect the Senate to take seriously its advise and consent duty with respect to Court appointments. The President's own words-"Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court through its decisions goes on forever”— attest to the critical task now before the Senate. We urge the Senate to reserve its consent for those who are qualified anl open hearted and who will enrich the Supreme Court.

Even the President now seems to recognize that the Supreme Court of the United States is not a remote institution known only to government, academia, and the bar. As final arbiter of the Constitution, the Court plays a significant role in the life of every American. It is imperative that its members represent not only the best available legal talent but also that they demonstrate allegiance to basic human rights and traditional American values. We must never forget that to protect the rights of all of us, the Court must protect the rights of the least of us.

Whenever a President tries to pack the Court with those who are unqualified, whether by virtue of ability, character, or commitment, the UAW will urge the Senate to perform its constitutional duty and advise the President that it will not consent to any such nomination. It is in that spirit we urge the Senate not to confirm William H. Rehnquist.

Senator HART (presiding). Mr. Dodds, thank you. I sense that even those who would disagree with your conclusion would commend you for the balance and moderation of the statement; and yet you speak very clearly to vour conclusions.

Senator Kennedy?

Senator KENNEDY. I am sorry I was not here to hear your whole testimony, Mr. Dodds, but I appreciate very much your taking the time to be with us. Obviously the UAW has had a long tradition of being interested not only in questions of wages and hours of their employees. It also has been willing to speak out on important questions which are before us and which has been helpful to the Members of the Senate in reaching our own decision. I want to express my personal appreciation for your appearance here and say I look forward to looking through your testimony in its entirety.

Mr. DODDS. Thank you very much.

Senator HART. Senator Burdick?

Senator BURDICK. I want to thank you, too, Mr. Dodds, for the contributions you make. I have no questions.

Senator HART. Senator Hruska ?

Senator HRUSKA. Thank you for coming. Please express to Mr. Woodcock our regrets he was not able to come, but also tell him he sent a good representative.

Mr. DoDDs. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator HART. Next we shall hear a representative of the National Women's Political Caucus, I believe Mrs. Kathryn Herring. If the others would join you, fine, and for the record if you will identify them and the organizations.

TESTIMONY OF BARBARA GREENE KILBERG, ATTORNEY,

NATIONAL WOMEN'S POLITICAL CAUCUS

Mrs. KILBERG. Gentlemen, my name is Barbara Greene Kilberg, rather than Katy Herring. She was a member of our staff.

I am an attorney and am pleased to testify today on behalf of the National Women's Political Caucus. We are a multipartisan, national organization whose goal is to bring about full and responsible participation of women in local, State, and Federal Government.

Our caucus initiated the campaign several weeks ago to press for the appointment of a woman to the Supreme Court. We were joined in this goal by a wide variety of organizations and thoughtful individuals throughout the country, among them: the First Lady, Mrs. Pat Nixon; Mrs. Martha Mitchell; Mrs. Lucy Benson, president of the League of Women Voters; Mrs. Margaret Laurence, president of Women United; the following Congresswomen: Hon. Florence P. Dwyer, Hon. Leonor H. Sullivan, Hon. Edith Green, Hon. Julia Butler Hansen, Hon. Charlotte T. Reid, Hon. Patsy T. Mink, Hon. Margaret M. Heckler, Hon. Shirley Chisholm, Hon. Bella S. Abzug. Hon. Ella T. Grasso, Hon. Louise Day Hicks and Hon. Martha Griffiths; former Chief Justice Earl Warren and former Associate Justices Arthur Goldberg and Tom Clark; members of the National Federation of Republican Women; the American Bar Association Committee on Rights of Women: Common Cause: the National Council of Catholic Women, B'Nai B'rith Women; the National Council of Negro Women; the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs; the Ripon Society; and the National Board of the YMCA of the U.S.A.

We asked that a woman be appointed to the Court because we are the majority group in this country, because there are qualified women

who would serve the Court well, and because we, for too many years, have been excluded from those deliberations which have had significant and often detrimental effect on the shape of our own lives. We are distressed that a woman nominee is not before you for confirmation today.

In his address to the Nation on the evening of October 21, President Nixon stated that he believed, as he was sure all Americans did, "that the Supreme Court should in the broadest sense, be representative of the entire Nation." It is impossible, in our opinion, to have a broadly representative Court when 53 percent of the electorate does not have representation on its bench. While the President accurately observed that every group in the country cannot be accommodated since the Court is composed of only nine seats, we maintain that the appointment of a woman should have as high a priority as the appointment of a Justice from a particular geographic region, a particular racial, ethnic or religious background, a particular age category or with a particular judicial philosophy.

In his address, the President set out two criteria that should be applied in naming people to the Supreme Court: First, he stated that "the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in this country. Its members, therefore, should above all, be among the very best lawyers in the Nation." There are eminently talented and experienced women attorneys and jurists who are among the very best in the Nation. The President's second consideration was the judicial philosophy of those who are to serve on the Court. There are highly qualified women in this country who fit within the definition of a conservative judicial philosophy.

As the President himself noted, the Supreme Court is continuously engaged in balancing the many interests of a diverse society. The late Justice Felix Frankfurter, a judicial conservative, in explaining the necessity of weighing these conflicting interests stated that it requires an ability at both "logical unfolding" and "sociological wisdom." We believe that a woman would bring to the Court a perspective on "sociological wisdom" that could not be duplicated by any man and that would constitute a valid and important input to Supreme Court decisions, both on issues that involve women's rights and those that deal with the general body politic, which has been seriously lacking to date. As women, we are well aware that our secondary role in society has not been determined primarily by Supreme Court decisions. We have been placed in a subordinate role by an endless array of discrimination that begins from the time we are very young. In the legal field, the statistics speak for themselves: There are today only 9,103 women graduates of law schools, 2.8 percent of the total law school graduates. In the last 2 years, the average scores of women on the law school admission test have been higher than the average scores for men, yet the proportion of women admitted to law schools is smaller than the proportion taking the test. It is estimated that the nationwide entering law school class in 1971 consisted of about 10 to 11 percent women. There are only about 150 women judges on the local, State and Federal levels out of a judiciary total of over 5,000. On law school faculties only 2.3 percent of the full professors are women.

As the 10 to 11 percent student figure indicates, a number of law schools in the last few years have begun to open their doors to women in larger numbers and I am confident that the male dominance in law

school admissions is on the road to being reversed. In law faculties, in the judiciary and in the practicing legal bar, however, women have been and continue to be severely restricted in both access and advancement. This is a discrimination that is being addressed by the ABA's Committee on Rights for Women and it is one of the areas in which the National Women's Political Caucus intends to pressure adamantly for redress.

As we stated above, there are women of distinguished legal backgrounds who deserve nomination to both the Supreme Court and to the lower courts in much greater number. We deeply believe that courts should be institutions in which no vestige of discrimination, sexual as well as otherwise, should be permitted to exist.

The National Women's Political Caucus has come to testify before this committee today because the Senate is a part of our representative system and we believe you should have an accurate picture of the opinion of the constituency that you are elected to represent. Women are a majority part of that constituency. In your role of advise and consent, we are not asking you to reject either Mr. Powell or Mr. Rehnquist for the Supreme Court because of their sex. However, we have taken this opportunity to express the discontent of a large segment of the population that a woman has not been nominated as a Justice of the Supreme Court and we wish to state before this committee, as we have expressed in writing to the President, that we fully expect the next Supreme Court vacancy, whenever it shall occur, to be filled by an outstanding woman. We note in closing that our testimony is being delivered to an all-male committee. We would like to issue a friendly warning, gentlemen, these are no longer all-male times.

Senator HART. You don't have to remind me. I recognize it and I feel guilty.

[Laughter.]

Senator HART. Mrs. Heide, do you have a statement?

Mrs. HEIDE. Yes, I do.

Senator HART. Might it not be better if we heard both and then if we have any questions

TESTIMONY OF WILMA SCOTT HEIDE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC.-NOW

Mrs. HEIDE. Fine. My appearance here today is an indication that I am nearly incurably optimistic of women receiving justice from this Judiciary Committee, the U.S. Senate, the Congress and the U.S. Government, most evidence being to the contrary. If my statement and recommendations are undervalued or ignored by this committee and the Senate, my remaining optimism about justice for women may be cured. To be candid, I am not certain that the Senate Judiciary Committee, perhaps with some exceptions, without any life experience of living as a woman in an androcentric society, has the capacity or desire to fully understand what I intend to share with you. For the moment, I will give you the benefit of considerable doubt.

I am Wilma Scott Heide, president of NOW, the National Organization for Women, Inc., a behavorial science consultant and a member of the National Equality Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union, the last being for identification only.

The symbol of justice in the United States is a blindfolded woman. The women's movement for rights, liberation, participation and justice is removing the blindfold to challenge the grievous injustices to women and balance the scales of justice. Those excluded from and/or disabled by the law must have a say in rewriting, defining, and interpreting law. If the Senate confirms the Presidential nomination of William H. Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr., for the U.S. Supreme Court, justice for women will be ignored or further delayed which means justice denied.

Now, as I begin and develop my testimony, please note my awareness that both nominees are probably bright, decent people as that is traditionally understood and implemented and probably not antiwoman in any conscious, intentional or overtly destructive way of which they are aware. It is precisely the nonconscious, institutionalized, traditional, narrow view of intelligence and decency vis-a-vis women that is the problem and the nominees have demonstrably internalized that behavior and thinking. Let me emphasize: my testimony is not intended and must not be characterized as an attack on the nominees per se as isolated sexists but as a challenge to the institutionalized sexism they manifest being further perpetuated on the Supreme Court and. by extension, throughout society.

To understand my theme that the criteria for qualifications for Supreme Court positions must be fundamentally changed to disqualify sexists and sexism, first, you must understand sexism.

Senator KENNEDY. Miss Heide, could I just possibly interrupt for a question? I am going to have to leave the hearing and I was wondering if I could interrupt just for a question?

Mrs. HEIDE. As long as I may comment afterward.
Senator KENNEDY. Yes, of course.

I was interested in either or both of your responses to the procedures which were followed in the consideration of Judge Mildred Lillie. Are you prepared to make any comment as to the process by which she was selected? Are you prepared to make any comments as to what your evaluation would have been if she had been nominated, or do you prefer not to? We have sort of gone past that, and perhaps you would prefer not to make any kind of judgment on it.

Mrs. HEIDE. My inclination would be, and that is part of the rest of my statement, would be to address ourselves to the criteria and to the method of selection, and that could include any of the announced favorites or possibilities for nomination to the Supreme Court and not directly to any particular individual.

Senator KENNEDY. I know your statement does; I appreciate that. I was just wondering, beyond the statement, whether there was anything you would want to say with regard to her selection as one of the six initially?

Mrs. HEIDE. I think that what we are saying, if I interpret my colleague here accurately, is that we think quite enough has been said about all of those candidates. The issue now is the present nominees, and from those points of view the criteria.

Mrs. KILBERG. I think the caucus would share that viewpoint.

Mrs. HEIDE. Sexism, as I was going to define, and I would like to continue, is behavior applied to the entire social structure and system, including justice, based on beliefs that some physical differences between females and males naturally justifies stereotyping by sex of