something of the gigantic task that has confronted the Commission, and likewise brings us to a point now of seeing how we can stay up to date. But as I view the future, I would think so much depends upon the reaction of Congress to our budget, to additional powers for the Commission as we work together on this program.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, though, I am on the Appropriations Committee, I cannot comment on that; I am not on the subcommittee that handles it. I do know that we have on the floor of the Senate this afternoon amendments where the Postmaster General is recommending that because of budget stringencies, that we abolish the jobs of several hundred special delivery mail carriers and thousands of letter carriers in the United States, and cut delivery of business mail by one-third. That will be voted on today in the Senate, so that illustrates I think the budget difficulties.

Mr. HOLCOMB. I cannot speak about other agencies, Mr. Chairman, but speaking of individuals employed by this Commission you would be mindful that a large number come not only with dedication but come out of years of training.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

The next question of Senator Kennedy's is this. I understand that after the public hearings in New York City on discrimination in whitecollar employment, in January of 1968, several of the employers who testified and other companies as well made substantial gains in reducing discrimination. I gather that this has been the experience from some of the other public hearings as well. Is that correct?

Mr. HOLCOMB. I think definitely, Mr. Chairman, there are areas that reflect real progress, but we must not be content until we make wider gains.

The CHAIRMAN. "Do you feel that public hearings are helpful in focusing attention on areas of discrimination and in encouraging action to end discrimination?”

Mr. HOLCOMB. I think the public hearings has a place, but you must consider the very limited authority that we have. In fact, I am not certain that the word "hearing" is the proper word, because anytime we hold a hearing it is almost an invitation to come. I am not endeavoring to speak for Chairman Brown, but I think I did read a statement that he has made recently that we will immediately evaluate the public hearings that we have had. We had one in Charlotte, N.C., one in New York and one in Los Angeles. There have been other special types of hearings, but I know that he has that in mind, and I certainly share his feeling that we should do a very realistic evaluation.

We must think, Mr. Chairman, not just about the wisdom of a public hearing, but coming back to this question of a backlog, I think we as commissioners must determine the wisest use of our staff.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Holcomb, Senator Kennedy's next question is: Will you support moving ahead soon to identify worthwhile areas for further public hearings?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Will you repeat that, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. "Will you support moving ahead soon to identify any worthwhile areas for further public hearings?"

Mr. HOLCOMB. Oh, I will do so with enthusiasm.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you mentioned the staff. He has questions about the staff.

8

Mr. HOLCOMB. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. And I am sure this is probably something that you are very much interested in:

Do you feel that it is important for the EEOC to have adequate staff and funds to thoroughly and firmly carry out its mandate under title VII?

Mr. HOLCOMB. As you know, I stated that in an informal comment to you a moment ago, but in answer to Senator Kennedy's question, again, I would state not only with enthusiasm but with real vigor do I favor such a program.

The CHAIRMAN. As you know, there are a great number of vacancies in high level staff positions at the EEOC. I believe at present if I am correctly informed there is no general counsel, no director of research, no director of education, no director of public affairs, no director of compliance and beyond this there is not even a staff director. This is extremely disturbing to those of us who worked for and voted for and support the EEOC and want to see it properly functioning. Is that correct, those positions are vacant?

Mr. HOLCOMB. As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, we are in period of transition. I would think there are individuals under very serious consideration for each of those positions, and I think it is just a matter of days until they will be filled. In other words, we are not marking time. We are moving vigorously in that realm.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you consider these positions important?
Mr. HOLCOMB. Of utmost importance.

The CHAIRMAN. And do you favor filling them promptly?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Favor filling them yesterday.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you do what you can to see that they are filled as soon as possible with persons committed to ending discrimination and to a strong EEOC?

Mr. HOLCOMB. If you approve me, I will return immediately and start working with Chairman Brown and the other commissioners in behalf of prompt action.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, this is changing to a slightly different point in the discrimination, Dr. Holcomb, to section 6 discrimination. I am again reading Senator Kennedy's questions. He has two on this point: I am disturbed by your apparent position on sexual discrimination in employment. I notice that you dissented from the guideline adopted last August which said that the placement of job advertisements under separate male and female column headings violates the law unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the position advertised. Could you clarify your views on this matter?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes; I will be happy to do so, Mr. Chairman. That was somewhat of a technical question. It was a question as to whether the newspaper publisher is to be considered as an employer in this instance, and there was a 3-to-2 vote, as I recall, and it is true that I dissented. On the question of the rights for women, again, I think there are those who have known of my background who realize my belief that it is not only just important, but it is one of the No. 1 questions facing America today. My wife, who is present today, is employed as a professional. My daughter in Garland, Tex., is likewise employed. My daughter-in-law in Houston, Tex., is employed as a professional. The only professional on my personal staff

is a female lawyer. A great many of my speaking engagements have been before schools where I have spoken on this question. I do have some statements from a speech that I made before the press association where I just cannot begin, Mr. Chairman, without taking too much time to--I would certainly want to alleviate any fear or concern that anyone might have about a vote that I cast which I cast because of a technical aspect. And, Mr. Chairman, it should perhaps be noted that that particular issue is now in the courts to clarify the question as to whether the newspaper is an employer or whether the advertiser should be held responsible for the content of the advertisement.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if we have passed a law that says that we cannot find out whether the secretary that we hire in our office is a man or a woman, I would say the Congress was at fault rather than the Commission we have set up.

Do you feel that the EEOC should make strong efforts to end sex discrimination in employment?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Randolph. And I would like for you to preside for a few moments. I am called by the Chairman of another committee to the phone. It is very urgent. I will be back in just a moment, if you will excuse me.

Senator RANDOLPH. (presiding pro tempore). Luther Holcomb
Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH (continuing). I have talked with you informally prior to the hearing today.

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes, Senator.

Senator RANDOLPH. I think it is a very good practice. It is no unique practice for you or another person who has been designated to come in and discuss these matters with the members of the committee. It gives an opportunity to question you and talk with you in a way that we cannot always do in a hearing because sometimes there are conflicts, such as this morning, that break the continuity of the colloquy. Mr. Holcomb, are you familiar with the words of Thomas Wolfe in reference to a man's desire to live a life in which there was no discrimination? Do you know those lines?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes, I am familiar with them, and he was one of my favorite writers.

Senator RANDOLPH. Well, he said as you know, in writing of America:

To every man his chance; to every man regardless of his birth, his shining golden opportunity; to every man the right to live, to work, to be himself and to become whatever his manhood and vision can combine to make. This, seeker, is the promise of America.

When did Wolfe write those words?

Mr. HOLCOMB. The exact date I could not

Senator RANDOLPH. Do you have an idea when he wrote them?
Mr. HOLCOMB. Well, it would be rather general.

Senator RANDOLPH. 1920, would it be that?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Well, they sound like they are needed now, but whenever they were written, they are certainly very appropriate for today. Senator RANDOLPH. Yes. The challenge of the words remain, is that right?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Correct. In fact, Senator, if I may say, an effort to fulfill those words would be my main motivation in responding to the appointment of the President of the United States. With my background, I have been interested in this throughout my career, and I would like to think that I bring compassion and dedication to a fulfillment of what you have quoted from Mr. Wolfe.

Senator RANDOLPH. We have these periods of not only challenging statements but strides that help us to realize that promise of America which Wolfe was expressing.

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. You may recall that there was a period in the history of governmental employment when there were certain agencies of the Government which would not employ women. Is that true? Mr. HOLCOMB. I am certain; yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. I give you a specific example. There were five women working in the U.S. Patent Office, and it was determined that this was not the type of employment that was "proper for female workers. There was one Member of Congress who made an effort to retain one of these women in her employment. He was unsuccessful, so the five female workers were discharged from the U.S. Patent Office. One of the workers not qualified apparently to do the job was Clara Barton who founded the American Red Cross.

I give you that historical background only for an indication that so very often we are inclined to fail, as of a certain period in our development, to determine how really worthwhile are the contributions of people regardless of race, color or creed who are brought into the Federal structure.

Now, Mr. Holcomb, I am not upset with your decision that has been discussed here today. If you wish to clarify it further, I would be very pleased to have it on the subcommittee record. As has been said by our able chairman of the full committee, I would want to know if I were hiring a secretary in an office whether she was a male or he was a female. You know, a minister married a couple of hippies recently, and after the ceremony he looked at one of them and he said, "Will one of you please kiss the bride?"

What I should like to know is if I have the right to know if the person I was to employ was male or female in a secretarial position or in some other position. There are certain positions where the skills, the attitudes of the employee do rest in part on the person being either man or woman; is that not true?

Mr. HOLCOMB. Yes; I dissented, Senator and Mr. Chairman, because I thought that separate headings would be of aid to the jobseeker if someone was going to a city seeking a job. I really thought it would result in a larger number of jobs for ladies. As I have said, also, the question was whether you are going to hold the advertiser responsible or the publisher. And then another point to consider is the problem in enforcement, considering the size staff that we had. I am more than happy to discuss that particular issue, Senator, if there are any further questions.

Senator RANDOLPH. No; I have no desire to have the matter gone into any further from the standpoint of my questioning. I do not believe that any rule must be an absolute inflexible rule where we are dealing with matters of personnel. I think there have to be guidelines

that have to be clearly understood, but I do feel there must be, as I have indicated, a certain amount of flexibility. What is your thinking on this?

Mr. HOLCOMB. You have expressed my feeling better than I could. I mean I think that is true.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I indicated in your necessary absence from the chair that I previously talked with Mr. Holcomb.

I discussed with him in quite some detail his assignment, his obligation, and I am prepared, Mr. Chairman, to endorse his nomination and to give it my vote in the committee.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I think, too, Senator Randolph, that the Commission was very fortunate in having his membership from the beginning and very fortunate in having him bring to the Commission not only his dedication but now his experience, continuity of experience, and we all learn from these positions we hold. Of course, the longer we are here the more we know about it and the more we are able to accomplish what we set out to do.

Mr. Holcomb, I now have a question for you from Senator Eagleton, who is tied up and unable to be here:

What have you found to be the most effective means of motivating firms to comply with guidelines under EEOC jurisdiction?

Mr. HOLCOMB. By bridging what I have termed, Mr. Chairman, the management gap, making certain that the one who establishes the policy of a given company thoroughly understands any guidelines and, likewise, that he is conversant with the intent of title VII.

The CHAIRMAN. How many times has this means been used? His question is, most effective means of motivating them to comply. And then he asked how many times

Mr. HOLCOMB. It has become increasingly used in the past year. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions of Dr. Holcomb from any one?

Minority counsel, any questions?

Any questions from the majority?
Well, that completes the hearing then.

Thank you, Dr. Holcomb.

Mr. HOLCOMB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. And the committee will stand adjourned. We have an executive committee meeting tomorrow morning of the full committee. This committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. I will reconvene the Health Subcommittee at 10 o'clock. Thank you, Dr. Holcomb, for your appearance.

(Whereupon, at 9:40 a.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., on Tuesday, July 1, 1969.)