The Creation of the National Organization for Women

Martha Griffiths was not alone in her indignation at the behavior of the EEOC. Although initially disturbed by the threat to protective labor laws Title VII represented, by 1966 virtually every women's organization protested the EEOC's cavalier attitude toward sex discrimination. By June, a "proto-feminist" nucleus in Washington (Peterson, Catherine East, Mary Eastwood, and EEOC commissioner Richard Graham) had come to believe that the EEOC would not improve unless outside pressure from organized women served to heighten the commissioners' interest in enforcing the sex provision of Title VII. This cadre had begun to work toward the formation of a new outside

group devoted exclusively to sex discrimination, starting with the traditional women's associations of the Women's Bureau coalition.^[2] These groups were reluctant, however, to establish an activist group that would fight exclusively for women's rights;^[3] as council member Viola Hymes had earlier explained, women's organizations hesitated to take the lead in the fight "for fear it would be interpreted that they were favoring women instead of looking upon everyone as having equal opportunity."^[4]

But other, less familiar, avenues were being explored. Betty Friedan, author of The Feminist Mystique, who had begun work on a book concerning the new law on sex discrimination, was now in close touch with Catherine East, Sonia Pressman, Pauli Murray, and Martha Griffiths—part of what Friedan later described as the "feminist underground" in Washington. Pressman, an attorney at the EEOC, told Friedan that only she could start a national organization to fight for women as the civil rights movement had for blacks. Richard Graham, too, urged Friedan on, telling her that he had asked the mainstream women's associations, such as the League of Women Voters and the American Association of University Women, to develop such an organization, but they had declined. Friedan nevertheless delayed. Although East and Eastwood supplied her with lists of women likely to be sympathetic, Friedan suggested that the state commissions on the status of women take the lead. East protested that women on the state commissions were too dependent on the state governors and had too little power of their own. Over Mary Keyserling's objections, East invited Friedan to attend the Washington gathering of the state commissions in June.^[5]

Friedan took the opportunity the conference provided to probe the sentiments of the state commission members. Shortly before the meeting Friedan, to her dismay, had learned through her Washington friends that Lyndon Johnson did not intend to reappoint Richard Graham to the EEOC after his initial term expired in July. (Ironically, Graham himself had no sense that he was being "dismissed" from the commission, although he was aware that Roosevelt, Holcomb and Edelsberg preferred that he not be reappointed. Graham's term on the EEOC had ended; he

welcomed the White House offer of the post of director of the National Teacher Corps as a chance to work effectively for civil rights free of the energy-draining backbiting of the EEOC. He left the EEOC unaware of the controversy swirling around his departure.)^[6] Mindful of East's words, Friedan invited a group of interested women participating in the state commission conference to come to her hotel room and discuss what could be done about Graham's reappointment and about the recent EEOC ruling regarding sex-segregated advertising. The women who caucused in Friedan's room agreed that a civil rights organization for women was not necessary but proposed that a resolution be offered at the conference supporting Graham and insisting on better enforcement efforts by the EEOC. Kathryn Clarenbach, chairman of the Wisconsin commission on women and known for her close working relationship with the CACSW, volunteered to speak to Peterson, Keyserling, and Hickey about the proposal.^[7]

Administration officials had anticipated some expression of irritation at the conference. Esther Peterson confided to John Macy that "95 percent" of the delegates believed that the EEOC was lax about enforcing the sex provision of Title VII. Moreover, she said, a grapevine made up of "women active in women's groups, unions, civil rights groups and political parties" was communicating dissatisfaction because Lyndon Johnson's campaign to bring more women into government had lapsed.^[8]

But despite Peterson's obvious sympathy with the grievances, the action she and the other conference hosts took to address them brought the annoyance to a head. When Clarenbach conferred with Hickey, Keyserling, and Peterson about offering resolutions on the subject, all three told her it could not be done because the conference participants were not official delegates and because conference organizers did not want resolutions critical of the administration emerging from a federally supported gathering. Angered by the ruling, Clarenbach reported back to Friedan and the others. Having had their request for action denied, the fifteen women who had met in Friedan's room the night before took over two tables at the conference luncheon. Within sight of the conference directors, Friedan, Clarenbach, and their colleagues planned an inaugural meeting

for a new women's association. Friedan scribbled the name on a paper napkin: NOW—the National Organization for Women.^[9]

In addition, disregarding the official decree, eighty representatives in the Title VII workshop voted for a resolution asking Lyndon Johnson to reappoint Richard Graham. Olya Margolin of the National Council of Jewish Women reported to AFLCIO lobbyist Andrew Biemiller that "the most unfortunate part of these proceedings" was that some labor women joined conference participants ("equal-righters") in an attack on protective labor legislation, which "created the impression that labor is either divided or no longer concerned about these labor standards." Mary Keyserling ignored the disputes and the ire of conference participants. She reported to Secretary Wirtz that the conference had been "very successful," mentioning no disagreement of any kind.^[10]

Keyserling tried to pretend that nothing had happened, but the June conference constituted a crucial point in the history of women in the 1960s. Until then, either influential individuals or official government bodies had created a federal agenda for women and moved with caution and deference to traditional views about women, carefully couching requests for specific improvements in the language of liberal ideals and obeisance to women's "natural" roles as wife and mother. The formation of NOW indicated that many women were no longer satisfied working within the constraints imposed by being official members of governments. From that time forward, the federal government would no longer control or restrain the agenda of the women's movement; NOW could take action, as official groups could not, without executive sanction. At the conclusion of the June conference, NOW officers sent telegrams to Lyndon Johnson asking him to reappoint Richard Graham to the commission and requesting the EEOC to revise its ruling on sex-segregated want ads.^[11]

The target of NOW's original animus, the EEOC, was in extremis as the new group got underway. The Chicago Tribune alleged that Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., when he resigned in May 1966, had been "driven" from the commission over the issue of enforcing the sex provision of the civil rights law. In June commissioner Aileen Hernandez complained to the White House

about the slowness in naming commission replacements and about the high staff turnover. Johnson did not fill Graham's post promptly; thus, in July the commission, with only three members, was at 60 percent of its total strength. The White House, concerned about the controversy over the commission and its personnel, decided to take no note of the July anniversary of the enactment of the civil rights statute.^[12]

The situation continued to decline. In August the EEOC issued a new ruling backing away from a position in support of protective labor laws, saying that it would not make decisions in cases of alleged conflict but would wait for court interpretations. In doing so, the commission now drew the wrath of labor women as well as ERA advocates. In September Hernandez sent a memorandum to the commission and its staff expressing her dismay at the long time lag in responding to complaints and at the neglect of sex discrimination. This grievance had no effect, however, and in October Hernandez submitted her resignation in disgust, effective November 10. Stephen Shulman, whom Johnson appointed to head the commission in September, was not in an enviable position. The National Organization for Women intended to make sure he took his new job seriously.^[13]