CONCLUSION
POLITICAL STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES

The liberal politics of the Kennedy administration, embodied particularly in the President's Commission on the Status of Women, gave shape to the agenda of the first feminist organization of the 1960s and provided it with both a structural and a psychological underpinning. New administrations, particularly when a new party takes over, bring bursts of energy to the political process. If after the dislocations of World War II the populace had sought a return to stability, fifteen years later Kennedy's call to action tapped a wellspring of enthusiasm for solving social problems. Although no grassroots women's movement pressed for them, new frontiers opened for women.

The Equal Rights Amendment

Ambivalences about women's roles in the postwar period had shown themselves in national politics in the battle over several legislative initiatives. The most important measure to be entangled in these complex feelings was the Equal Rights Amendment, which served as context for most of the other legislative disputes concerning women.

The Equal Rights Amendment failed because federal policy-makers would hardly approve so significant a proposal without wide and deep support for it. An amendment to grant women constitutional equality bespoke a belief in the right of women to function as individuals. But individual equality, however in keeping it was with traditional American ideals, conflicted with an ideology that considered women as responsible primarily to their families, not to themselves. Historically, the law defined women as wives, mothers, and daughters, placing them under the aegis of their husbands and fathers. Twentieth-

century innovations gave the state a new role in overseeing the conditions of women's employment, under the rationale of protecting their interests as homemakers. The Equal Rights Amendment, which would remove legal distinctions between the sexes, suggested a reordering of the world, a responsibility the U.S. Congress does not readily assume. By 1960, women leaders had had little to show for their efforts except token offerings of executive appointments, tendered by presidents who were staying out of the fray.

Token Appointments

The strategy of token appointments offered many advantages to the presidents who employed it. The women's organizations on both sides of the ERA struggle emphasized their desire for more appointments of women, persuaded that such appointments marked significant gains for the sex. Thus, presidents who followed that course won praise, especially from women journalists, who found the selections made good copy. Appointments, moreover, could be had at virtually no cost, and they were easy to effect. Unless the candidate was wildly unqualified (and women appointees tended to be overqualified), the Senate offered no opposition to a presidential choice. In many cases, Senate confirmation was not even required.

But welcomed as they were by women's organizations, the appointments had an unanticipated consequence that worked badly for women seeking substantive measures. By acceding to the request for more women appointees, the chief executive could evade much more significant policy questions. The president could state in truth to his women constituents that he had met one of their objectives; he could not in fairness be asked to meet them all, especially when no political pressure existed outside Washington for a comprehensive program for women. Therefore, the groups requesting appointments diminished their chances of wresting other—more important—benefits from the administration.

Moreover, the willingness of chief executives to yield to these

requests itself suggested that the appointments made little difference for the status of most women. In general, when the standing of a particular group has been low, it has often sought high-level appointments as a way of winning respect and recognition, and the symbolic value of a black or female cabinet officer may in fact have important psychological and sociological implications. But in the absence of a social movement to enhance the position of blacks or women, such token appointees can achieve few concrete gains. In order to prove the competence of both the group and the officeholder, a token appointee is constrained to "lean over backward," as Mary Anderson observed of Frances Perkins, not to show favoritism and thereby lose credibility with the white males who made the appointment. The ability of such a woman official in the postwar period to assist the underprivileged members of her group was thus severely limited. In fact, the onus on the appointee was to prove that she was no different from the usual nominee. Under these circumstances, only an executive whose job expressly required her to address the status of women felt free to press for meaningful change.

When John Kennedy was elected president, he sought programs that would directly address the problems American society confronted in the 1960s. A well-developed program concerning women—one that comported with his views and the rest of his liberal agenda and that had few political costs—emerged from the Women's Bureau coalition. Kennedy's ties to the progressive labor community made him especially receptive to the coalition's plan of action (as Truman's ties to the Democratic National Convention had made him sympathetic to its agenda). Kennedy's appointment of Esther Peterson to head the Women's Bureau and then to assume the post of assistant secretary of labor placed a representative of the Women's Bureau coalition in a highly strategic position. With access to the president and to all the political resources of the administration, close ties to her own constituency, and an impressive degree of political savvy, Peterson proved to be an effective agent for the Women's Bureau coalition, providing leadership and crafting compromises.

The President's Commission on the Status of Women

The program of the Women's Bureau spoke to the unresolved problems in women's lives, and the President's Commission on the Status of Women was its centerpiece. Emerging in part from the animus of the Women's Bureau coalition against the ERA, the commission succeeded in undermining the amendment. But its role was not merely negative. Peterson, Arthur Goldberg, and John Kennedy recognized the hardships caused by the injustices that the ERA sought to correct. Women were often denied the right to serve on juries; some states gave husbands total control of family income or barred women from certain professions; the right to contract, own, and convey property or to establish domicile was available to women only within limits. In addition, women in the labor force consistently earned lower wages than did men, and they had fewer opportunities for advancement. Even the adversaries of constitutional equality recognized the need to better women's condition.

Using models provided by the civil rights movement (federal commissions, legislation, executive orders) and drawing on the same liberal ideology of individual equality, these advocates for women's rights—at a time of continuing ambivalence about appropriate roles for women—addressed many of the legal and extralegal inequities women faced. The commission affirmed the primacy of women's traditional roles, and the tension between this ideal and the simultaneous quest for expanded opportunities for women as paid workers pervaded all the commission's discussions and recommendations. At the same time, however, the commission also conferred new respect on the subject of equality for women, and it forged into one agenda the proposals of the three diverse groups fighting for women's opportunities: the proponents of constitutional equality, the advocates of increased opportunity in the workplace, and those who sought appointments for women.

At its conclusion in 1963, the commission proposed, and President Kennedy established, two continuing federal bodies to monitor action on the status of women. State legislatures and governors followed the presidential model and instituted their

own commissions on the status of women, developing a national network of women and men knowledgeable and concerned about the position of women in society.

When ERA supporters succeeding in adding to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a provision protecting the employment rights of women, many women activists responded with hesitation because of the conflict between women's role in the labor force and their responsibilities in the home, which the president's commission had left unresolved. But the disdain with which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission treated its obligation to enforce this section of the law catalyzed the network created by the presidential commission of those involved in women's issues and led to the formation of the first women's rights group of the new wave of feminism, the National Organization for Women.

Possibilities and Limitations of Government Action

Presidential commissions are commonly thought to be worse than useless. A rhyme that appeared in Punch in the 1950s expresses the common view:

If you're pestered by critics and hounded by faction
To take some precipitate, positive action,
The proper procedure, to take my advice, is
Appoint a commission and stave off the crisis.^[1]

Herbert Hoover admitted creating "a dozen committees" in order to divert crusaders into research.^[2]

Yet presidential commissions have often resulted in worthwhile outcomes. They have built support for controversial courses of action, helped to provide data to back up proposals for mainstream legislation, dramatized the existence of a problem, and broken policy deadlocks. Thomas R. Wolanin, investigating the policy achievements of presidential advisory commissions from Harry Truman through Richard Nixon, concluded that 68 percent of presidential commissions produced "substantial" or "major" presidential responses to their recommendations, and

59 percent elicited "substantial" or "major" responses from federal government agencies.^[3]

The experience with the President's Commission on the Status of Women sustains Wolanin's thesis that commissions can meaningfully affect issues. The president's commission and its state-level offspring helped to legitimize the issue of sex discrimination, made data available to support allegations that discrimination against women constituted a serious problem, drew up agendas to ameliorate inequities, raised expectations that responsible parties would take action, and, most important, sensitized a nationwide network of women to the problems women faced. This network proved to be in the vanguard of the creation of the widespread, vocal women's movement that surfaced at the end of the 1960s. Betty Friedan, the first president of the National Organization for Women, repeatedly acknowledged the model the president's commission had provided for NOW, although she expressed disappointment with the commission's accomplishments.^[4] The change in approach from highly publicized but ephemeral token appointments to a presidential commission proved beneficial.

The initiatives of the Kennedy administration anticipated, rather than responded to, the appearance of a broad-based feminist movement and ultimately helped to bring it about. Characterized by the quest not for fundamental change but for attainable goals, this significant policy shift occurred despite the absence of a grassroots movement seeking federal action.

If the fate of women's issues in the Kennedy administration demonstrates that representatives of interest groups can initiate significant policy change, it also indicates the limits of such a course of action. The president's commission proposed moderate steps, placing the responsibility for implementation on government and private institutions. But none of these institutions had strong incentives to execute the proposals on their own, and Congress was loath to establish new bureaucracies to control private businesses. New bureaucracies cost money and make people angry; employers are important campaign contributors and vigilant lobbyists. Without political pressure, legislation would be hard to come by. So the temperate federal steps taken as the result of internal policy pressures

engendered expectations the federal government did not intend to fulfill.^[5]

Jo Freeman has pointed out that policy is "the means by which government stimulate[s], respond[s] to, and/or curtail[s] social change."^[6] It represents an attempt to channel or preempt the conflict. Yet policy can also incite reformers. By collecting information and offering modest solutions, the federal government helped to turn a latent issue into a salient one and to supply data to those who wanted to go further than the government did. In order to justify even limited steps, the president's commission and the Women's Bureau had gathered copious evidence to substantiate their proposals so that they could persuade Congress and other political actors to respond appropriately. By doing so, they pointed out problems of which the general populace had before been largely unaware. The minimal change the federal government supported could not have eliminated the pervasive problem it documented. So the government action heightened awareness, raised expectations, and then disappointed the new observers.

But in order to achieve an effective and coherent government policy concerning women's issues, women activists had not only to resolve internal contraditions within their own groups but also to reach a rapprochement with other women's organizations. The philosophies of the National Women's party and the Women's Bureau represented thesis and antithesis—two sides of the ambivalent attitude toward women in the postwar period—but a new resolution or restatement of the problem was essential if a united front was to be presented to policy makers.

That resolution grew out of the changing status of women, but it was also made possible by an ideological leap—new feminist theory separated childbearing from childraising, philosophically if not in fact, and permitted a redefinition of the "problem" of women's status. Without such a resolution, policy makers could have continued to exploit the differences in the views of women. Once NOW adopted the position that both mothers and fathers were responsible for the care of children, a coherent feminist philosophy could inform responses to questions of policy.

The new women's movement was also able to move beyond the

president's commission because by now the remedies the Commission had recommended had been tried and found wanting. As halfway measures proved inadequate, those who previously had hesitated now came to acknowledge the need for potent curatives. The National Organization for Women quickly became aware that the proposals of the president's commission, based as they were on traditional conceptions of sex roles, had no power to get at the root causes of discrimination. The group's endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment soon followed. Thus the president's commission, formed in part to ward off the ERA, unintentionally contributed both to its endorsement by virtually every liberal group that once had opposed it and to the recognition that the sex roles on which special legislation for women had been based had limited utility for the final three decades of the twentieth century. As Sara Evans remarked: "The purpose, in fact, may have been to quell a growing pressure for an Equal Rights Amendment, but unwittingly the government organized its own opposition."^[7] And Frances Kolb has observed: "The network's realization of the need for action collided with the inaction of the government agencies producing the classic revolutionary situation in which the revolution began in the government's backyard, at a government sponsored event!"^[8]

Not only did federal activity assist in the development of the women's movement, it made it more broad based. The vigor of the women's movement came partly from its solid roots in traditional liberal politics. Both at its inception and at its height, the women's movement at the national level operated largely in the context of prevailing values and institutions. It was at its most effective when it sought incremental changes, invoking equality of individual opportunity, the central tenet of liberal theory. Moderate demands cloaked the magnitude of fundamental change that took place whenever women were viewed by the government as individuals rather than as instruments of the family.

The array of feminist organizations formed by middle-class women, in addition to the community-based groups formed by younger, more radical women, provided women across the country a site of activity on as broad or narrow a range of issues as they wished. In time, the distinctions between "radical" and "middle-class" feminists became less clear. Histori-

cally, radical organizations have not been successful in the United States, which is a system organized to sustain the politics of the center. Jo Freeman has observed that, whereas the political system rewards those who seek reform, it excludes proponents of fundamental change. Yet, ironically, the mainstream women's organizations, such as NOW, have advocated one of the most fundamental changes in American life.^[9]

In short, the women who became federal policy makers during an era in which they themselves eschewed the term feminist ultimately helped to bring about a revitalization of feminism—to create, in the words of James Q. Wilson, an "enduring organizational base" for influencing policy.^[10] These leaders, without a women's movement to back them up, forced the federal government to recognize that changes were taking place in women's lives, and they shaped the government's response. Ultimately—predictably—demands outstripped the possibilities of ready government acquiescence.

The presidential commission's report came at a critical moment. As Ethel Klein has documented, women were poised to expand their roles in the world. Between 1960 and 1970 the fertility rate declined from 118 per thousand to 87.9; mothers with preschool children increased their labor force participation rate from 19 percent to 30 percent; and the divorce rate rose from 15 per thousand women to 26 per thousand.^[11] In 1966, the cumulative efforts of the President's Commission on the Status of Women and the federal agencies it spawned, the state commissions on women, ERA activists, and women both inside and outside the government culminated in the emergence of an independent women's movement. In December 1967, the New York Times alerted its readers to the fact that "the feminists are on the march once more."^[12]

Feminism

The feminism of the late sixties and seventies reaffirmed the philosophy that men and women should be politically, economically, and socially equal, but it also expanded the theory to

argue that differences between men's and women's roles were culturally based rather than biologically determined. In practical terms, this new definition released women, at least in principle, from the total responsibility for childcare. It also meant that, for the first time, feminism was an internally consistent ideology, no longer rent by the contradictory demands for both equality and special privileges for women as mothers. Although consideration would still be requested for those who took care of children, now these "privileges" would be sought for male parents as well as for female ones, and employers would find that both men and women had demands on them as parents as well as workers.

Before this ideological break took place, women who fought for women struggled fruitlessly to resolve the central dilemma of women's lives: how to be at once an individual concerned with her own destiny and a mother (no word evokes a more laden image) entirely responsible for the welfare of her children. Some called themselves "feminists," and some did not.

Because the definition of feminism has changed, historians today writing about the history of feminism face problems. The term feminism is now as much normative as it is descriptive. We find it difficult to conclude that Eleanor Roosevelt, a great woman in every sense of the term, was not a feminist (a word she never would have applied to herself). So modern works often begin with a set of definitions that permit the writer to apply the label "feminist" as she or he sees fit. But the profusion of definitions is at once confusing and unnecessary. The term feminism as we use it was born in the 1960s. We need not ask if women were "feminists" per se in order to comprehend their behavior and motivation, or to illuminate their character. To do so, in fact, can create a diversion and may, because of the emotional content of the term, distort a viewpoint rather than clarify it.

Instead, we might ask: Which elements of women's lives appeared to a historical figure to be immutable? What aspects of women's lives did she or he question? What beliefs informed a choice of action? Did an activist favor a wider range of influence for women, or more power within a narrow one? How did class

origins color political agendas? What constraints limited the selection of political strategies?

Effective Strategies

For the purposes of this study, I have distinguished among activist women by describing the strategies they promoted. My pursuit has been to determine which strategies proved effective under which conditions. Governmental responses to social change do alter outcomes, although not necessarily in predictable or desirable ways. Political decisions can intensify, or retard, nascent social movements. Good strategies push the political system as far as possible without provoking a backlash, making the best of even inhospitable times. The story of policy for women in the premovement era suggests some approaches. In the absence of a strong social movement, we find that posing an all-or-nothing choice results in no gain at all. Conversely, incremental goals often can be achieved. If a group succeeds in gaining access to the White House, executive actions are easier to come by than legislative ones, but successful proposals are virtually always noncontroversial ones with low political costs. Neither a quest for appointments nor devotion to a single nonnegotiable legislative measure is likely to be productive. Compromises, in contrast, can elicit meaningful, if incomplete, initial efforts that can later lead to more effective policy instruments. The lesson is in fact an old one: If you want to get a camel into someone's tent, ask if you can just put its nose under the tentflap.

Appendix 1:
Text of the Equal Pay Act of 1963

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Declaration of Purpose

SEC. 2. (a) The Congress hereby finds that the existence in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce of wage differentials based on sex—

(1) depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;

(2) prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;

(3) tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;

(4) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and

(5) constitutes an unfair method of competition.

(b) It is hereby declared to be the policy of this Act, through exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct the conditions above referred to in such industries.

SEC. 3. Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. et seq.), is amended by adding thereto a new subsection (d) as follows:

(d)(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;

or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided , That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.

(2) No labor organization, or its agents, representing employees of an employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall cause or attempt to cause such an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) For purposes of administration and enforcement, any amounts owing to any employee which have been withheld in violation of this subsection shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this Act.

(4) As used in this subsection, the term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.

SEC. 4. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon the expiration of one year from the date of its enactment: Provided , That in the case of employees covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement in effect at least thirty days prior to the date of enactment of this Act, entered into by a labor organization (as defined in section 6(d)(4) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended), the amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon the termination of such collective bargaining agreement or upon the expiration of two years from the date of enactment of this Act, whichever shall first occur.

Appendix 2:
Executive Order 10980 Establishing the President's Commission on the Stagus of Women

WHEREAS prejudices and outmoded customs act as barriers to the full realization of women's basic rights which should be respected and fostered as part of our Nation's commitment to human dignity, freedom, and democracy; and

WHEREAS measures that contribute to family security and strengthen home life will advance the general welfare; and

WHEREAS it is in the national interest to promote the economy, security, and national defense through the most efficient and effective utilization of the skills of all persons; and

WHEREAS in every period of national emergency women have served with distinction in widely varied capacities but thereafter have been subject to treatment as a marginal group whose skills have been inadequately utilized; and

WHEREAS women should be assured the opportunity to develop their capacities and fulfill their aspirations on a continuing basis irrespective of national exigencies; and

WHEREAS a Governmental Commission should be charged with the responsibility for developing recommendations for overcoming discriminations in government and private employment on the basis of sex and for developing recommendations for services which will enable women to continue their role as wives and mothers while making a maximum contribution to the world around them:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows:

Part I
Establishment of the President's Commission on the Status of Women

SEC. 101. There is hereby established the President's Commission on the Status of Women, referred to herein as the "Commission." The Commission shall terminate not later than October 1, 1963.

SEC. 102. The Commission shall be composed of twenty members appointed by the President from among persons with a competency in the area of public affairs and women's activities. In addition, the Secretary of Labor, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission shall also serve as members of the Commission. The President shall designate from among the membership a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, and an Executive Vice-Chairman.

SEC. 103. In conformity with the Act of May 3, 1945 (59 Stat. 134, 31 U.S.C. 691), necessary facilitating assistance, including the provision of suitable office space by the Department of Labor, shall be furnished the Commission by the Federal agencies whose chief officials are members thereof. An Executive Secretary shall be detailed by the Secretary of Labor to serve the Commission.

SEC. 104. The Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairman.

SEC. 105. The Commission is authorized to use the services of consultants and experts as may be found necessary and as may be otherwise authorized by law.

Part II
Duties of the President's Commission on the Status of Women

SEC. 201. The Commission shall review progress and make recommendations as needed for constructive action in the following areas:

(a) Employment policies and practices, including those on wages, under Federal contracts.

(b) Federal social insurance and tax laws as they affect the net earnings and other income of women.

(c) Federal and State labor laws dealing with such matters as hours, night work, and wages, to determine whether they are accomplishing the purposes for which they were established and whether they should be adapted to changing technological, economic, and social conditions.

(d) Differences in legal treatment of men and women in regard to political and civil rights, property rights, and family relations.

(e) New and expanded services that may be required for women as wives, mothers, and workers, including education, counseling, training, home services, and arrangements for care of children during the working day.

(f) The employment policies and practices of the Government of the United States, with reference to additional affirmative steps which should be taken through legislation, executive or administrative ac-

tion to assure non-discrimination on the basis of sex and to enhance constructive employment opportunities for women.

SEC. 202. The Commission shall submit a final report of its recommendations to the President by October 1, 1963.

SEC. 203. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are directed to cooperate with the Commission in the performance of its duties.

Part III
Remuneration and Expenses

SEC. 301. Members of the Commission, except those receiving other compensation from the United States, shall receive such compensation as the President shall hereafter fix in a manner to be hereafter determined.

John F. Kennedy

The White House.
December 14, 1961.

Appendix 3:
Members of the President's commission and Its Committees

The names of the men and women appointed to the Commission, and the posts they occupied at the time of their appointment, were:

Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairman
(deceased )

Mrs. Esther Peterson
Executive Vice Chairman
Assistant Secretary of Labor

Dr. Richard A. Lester, Vice Chairman
Chairman, Department of Economics
Princeton University

The Attorney General
Honorable Robert F. Kennedy

The Secretary of Agriculture
Honorable Orville L. Freeman

The Secretary of Commerce
Honorable Luther H. Hodges

The Secretary of Labor
Honorable Arthur J. Goldberg
Honorable W. Willard Wirtz

The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
Honorable Abraham A. Ribicoff
Honorable Anthony L. Celebrezze

Honorable George D. Aiken
U.S. Senate

Honorable Maurine B. Neuberger
U.S. Senate

Honorable Edith Green
U.S. House of Representatives

Honorable Jessica M. Weis
(deceased )
U.S. House of Representatives

The Chairman of the Civil Service Commission
Honorable John W. Macy, Jr.

Mrs. Macon Boddy
Henrietta, Tex.

Dr. Mary I. Bunting
President
Radcliffe College

Mrs. Mary E. Callahan
Member, Executive Board
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers

Dr. Henry David
President
New School for Social Research

Miss Dorothy Height
President
National Council of Negro Women, Inc.

Miss Margaret Hickey
Public Affairs Editor
Ladies' Home Journal

Mrs. Viola H. Hymes
President
National Council for Jewish Women, Inc.

Miss Margaret J. Mealey
Executive Director
National Council of Catholic Women

Mr. Norman E. Nicholson
Administrative Assistant
Kaiser Industries Corp.
Oakland, Calif.

Miss Marguerite Rawalt
Attorney; past president: Federal Bar Association, National Association of Women Lawyers, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc.

Mr. William F. Schnitzler
Secretary-Treasurer
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

Dr. Caroline F. Ware
Vienna, Va.

Dr. Cynthia C. Wedel
Assistant General Secretary for Program
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Committee on Civil and Political Rights

Honorable Edith Green, Chairman and Commission Member

Miss Marguerite Rawalt, Co-Chairman and Commission Member

Mrs. Harper Andrews, Former President, Illinois League of Women Voters, Kewanee, Ill.

Mrs. Angela Bambace, Manager, Upper South Department, and Vice President, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union

James B. Carey, President, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers

Miss Gladys Everett, Attorney, Portland, Oreg.

Mrs. Yarnall Jacobs, President, National Council of Women of the United States, Inc.

John M. Kernochan, Director, Legislative Drafting Research Fund, Columbia University

Judge Florence Kerins Murray, Associate Justice, Rhode Island Superior Court

Miss Pauli Murray, Senior Fellow, Law School, Yale University

Mrs. E. Lee Ozbirn, President, General Federation of Women's Clubs

Miss Katherine Peden, President, National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Inc.

Mrs. Harriet F. Pilpel, Attorney, Greenbaum, Wolff and Ernst, New York

Frank E. A. Sander, Professor of Law, Law School of Harvard University

Technical Secretary , Miss Mary Eastwood

Committee on Education

Dr. Mary I. Bunting, Chairman and Commission Member

Miss Edna P. Amidon, Director, Home Economics Education Branch, U.S. Office of Education

Mrs. Algie E. Ballif, Former President, Utah School Board Association

Mrs. John D. Briscoe, Board of Directors, League of Women Voters of the United States

Mrs. Opal D. David, Former Director, Commission on the Education of Women, American Council on Education

Dr. Elizabeth M. Drews, Professor, College of Education, Michigan State University

Dr. Seymour M. Farber, Assistant Dean for Continuing Education in Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco Medical Center

Mrs. Raymond Harvey, Dean, School of Nursing, Tuskegee Institute

Mrs. Agnes E. Meyer, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Kenneth E. Oberholtzer, Superintendent, Denver Public Schools

Dr. Esther Raushenbush, Director, Center of Continuing Education, Sarah Lawrence College

Lawrence Rogin, Director of Education, AFL-CIO

Miss Helen B. Schleman, Dean of Women, Purdue University

Dr. Virginia L. Senders, Lecturer, Former Coordinator of Minnesota Plan, Lincoln, Mass.

Dr. Pauline Tompkins, General Director, American Association of University Women

Technical Secretary , Mrs. Antonia H. Chayes

Committee on Federal Employment

Miss Margaret Hickey, Chairman and Commission Member

E. C. Hallbeck, Chairman, Government Employes Council, AFL-CIO

Judge Lucy Somerville Howorth, Former General Counsel, War Claims Commission, Cleveland, Miss.

Honorable Stephen S. Jackson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, U.S. Department of Defense

Mrs. Esther Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer, American Federation of Government Employees

Honorable Roger W. Jones, Bureau of the Budget

Dr. Esther Lloyd-Jones, Head, Department of Guidance and Student Personnel Administration, Columbia University

Honorable John W. Macy, Jr., Commission Member

Dr. Jeanne L. Noble, President, Delta Sigma Theta, and Assistant Professor, Center for Human Relations Studies, New York University

Dr. Peter H. Rossi, Director, National Opinion Research Center, Chicago

Honorable Kathryn H. Stone, Virginia House of Delegates, and Director, Human Resources Program, Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies

Honorable Tyler Thompson, Director General of the Foreign Service, U.S. Department of State

Dr. Kenneth O. Warner, Director, Public Personnel Association

Technical Secretary, Mrs. Catherine S. East

Committee on Home and Community

Dr. Cynthia C. Wedel, Chairman and Commission Member

Mrs. Marguerite H. Coleman, Supervisor of Special Placement Services, New York State Division of Employment

Dr. Rosa L. Gragg, President, National Association of Colored Women's Clubs, Inc.

Mrs. Randolph Guggenheimer, President, National Committee for Day Care of Children, Inc.

Mrs. Viola H. Hymes, Commission Member

Mrs. Emerson Hynes, Arlington, Va.

Maurice Lazarus, President, Wm. Filene's Sons Co., Boston

Mrs. Martha Reynolds, United Community Services, AFL-CIO, Grand Rapids

Charles I. Schottland, Dean of Faculty, Brandeis University

Miss Ella V. Stonsby, Dean of College of Nursing, Rutgers University

Dr. Caroline F. Ware, Commission Member

Dr. Esther M. Westervelt, Instructor, Guidance and Personnel Administration, Teachers College, Columbia University

Technical Secretaries, Miss Ella C. Ketchin and Mrs. Margaret M. Morris

Committee on Private Employment

Dr. Richard A. Lester, Chairman and Commission Member

Jacob Clayman, Administrative Director, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO

Miss Caroline Davis, Director, Women's Department, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America

Miss Muriel Ferris, Legislative Assistant to Honorable Philip A. Hart, U.S. Senate

Charles W. Gasque, Jr., Assistant Commissioner for Procurement Policy, General Services Administration

Miss Dorothy Height, Commission Member

Joseph D. Keenan, Secretary, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Norman E. Nicholson, Commission Member

Frank Pace, Jr., General Dynamics Corp., New York

Mrs. Ogden Reid, Former President, Board Chairman, New York Herald Tribune

John A. Roosevelt, Bache and Co., New York

Samuel Silver, Industrial Relations Adviser, Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, U.S. Department of Defense

Technical Secretary, Sam A. Morgenstein

Committee on Protective Labor Legislation

Miss Margaret J. Mealey, Chairman and Commission Member

Mrs. Margaret F. Ackroyd, Chief, Division of Women and Children, Rhode Island State Department of Labor

Dr. Doris Boyle, Professor of Economics, Loyola College, Baltimore

Mrs. Mary E. Callahan, Commission Member

Dr. Henry David, Commission Member

Mrs. Bessie Hillman, Vice President, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Mrs. Paul McClellan Jones, Vice President, National Board, Young Women's Christian Association of the U.S.A.

Mrs. Mary Dublin Keyserling, Associate Director, Conference on Economic Progress

Carl A. McPeak, Special Representative on State Legislation, AFL-CIO

Clarence R. Thornbrough, Commissioner, Arkansas State Department of Labor

S. A. Wesolowski, Assistant to President, Brookshire Knitting Mills, Inc., Manchester, N.H.

Mrs. Addie Wyatt, Field Representative, United Packinghouse, Food and Allied Workers

Technical Secretary, Miss Ella C. Ketchin

Committee on Social Insurance and Taxes

Honorable Maurine B. Neuberger, Chairman and Commission Member

Honorable Jessica M. Weis, Associate Chairman and Commission Member (deceased )

Dr. Eveline M. Burns, Professor of Social Work, New York School of Social Work, Columbia University

Mrs. Margaret B. Dolan, Chairman, Department of Public Health Nursing, University of North Carolina

Dean Fedele F. Fauri, School of Social Work, University of Michigan

Dr. Richard B. Goode, Brookings Institution

Miss Fannie Hardy, Executive Assistant, Arkansas State Insurance Commissioner

Miss Nina Miglionico, Attorney, Birmingham, Ala.

J. Wade Miller, Vice President, W. R. Grace & Co., Cambridge, Mass.

Dr. Raymond Munts, Assistant Director, Social Security Department, AFL-CIO

Mrs. Richard B. Persinger, Chariman, National Public Affairs Committee, Young Women's Christian Association of the U.S.A.

Technical Secretary, Dr. Merrill G. Murray