College and Research Libraries 74 I College & Research Libraries • January 1973 a good first step. More discussion on the use of specific analytical tools (Latin square de- sign, regression analysis, marketing research techniques, etc.) would have added im- measurably to the text. Sections 12.4 and 13.1 on elementary statistical measures and experimental design should be moved to the front of the book. These are prerequisites if the reader is to fully grasp what he reads. It would also have strengthened the ties between author and reader if someone with a background in the traditional disci- plines of library science (cataloging, ref- erence, acquisitions, etc.) could have been allowed to comment on the manuscript be- fore publication. Aside from those points mentioned earlier the methodology is ba- sically sound and a second edition should see a further refining of both the strategy and tactics for studying document transfer systems. The book is strongly recommended to the experienced systems person having no previous background in document trans- fer systems, as well as to the beginning li- brary analyst or administrator with suffi- cient background (calculus, economics, sys- tems analysis) who needs assistance in planning the experimental design for a sys- tems study.-Robert W. Burns, ]r., Colo- rado State University, Fort Collins, Colo- rado. Woman and the Equal Rights Amend- ment: Senate Subcommittee Hearings on the Constitutional Amendment, 91st Congress. ed. by Catherine Stimpson in conjunction with the Congressional In- formation Service. New York and Lon- don: R. R. Bowker Company, 1972. xvi, 538p. $12.50. A news story from South Africa a couple of years ago reported the case of a civil ser- vant named Sylvia who underwent a series of sex change operations, switched to the name Andre, and upon returning to work medically certified as a male, received an immediate p ay increase. Less bizarre, but possibly more startling because they occurred here under our laws, are the patterns of sex discrimination re- vealed in these U.S. Senate subcommittee hearings on the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Testifying in May 1970, witnesses point- ed to the legal distinctions between men and women for jury service (women in only "28 states . . . serve under the same terms as men") ; and to differing penalties for men and women who commit identical crimes ("the legislative rationale seems to have been that it required longer to reha- bilitate a female criminal than a male") . Another of many illustrations was the dou- ble standard for admission to certain state educational institutions (during one recent period 21,000 women were turned down for admission to the University of Virginia, while not one male was rejected); and in some states "women attain the age of ma- jority at 21, while men attain majority at 18." The ERA says simply: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex." At one sweep, the mea- sure would declare men and women equal before the law. "Even if the equal rights amendment did nothing but state the prin- ciple," declared witness Caroline Bird, "it would be worth it." Yet both opponents and proponents agreed that constitutional adop- tion would affect a substantial array of fed- eral and state laws, including the draft and a large body of family law and protective legislation whose benefits and obligations are applied selectively, to one sex or the other. Major controversy centered around ERA's ramifications for protective legisla- tion. This covers wages and hours and oth- er working conditions such as rest p eriods, seating provisions, weightlifting limitations, etc. Advocates of the amendment strongly urged the extension of these laws to men, but viewed the protections as "restrictions" on opportunity when applied to women only. Basically, proponents of ERA pre- ferred to risk the possibility that it might eliminate such legislation than to qualify ERA in any way. Representing labor's ob- jections however, one AFL-CIO witness summarized labor's serious concern that "enemies of labor legislation powered by a combination of middle class feminists and employers, could speedily wipe out all forms of protections afforded specifically to women, whether they are 'restrictive' or not .... " A majority of the labor movement h as firm ly opposed ERA from the start, al- though the hearings include some testimony in support. A momentary glance backward to Melvil Dewey's nineteenth century justification of unequal pay for equal work indicates how the concept of protection has been used to women's disadvantage. Referring to librari- ans, Dewey claimed that since man, in con- trast to woman, can in an emergency lift a heavy case, or climb a ladder . . . or can act as fireman or do police duty, he adds direct value .... Woman . . . almost always receives, whether she exacts it or not, much more waiting on and minor assistance than a man in the same place and therefore, with sentiment aside, hard business judgment cannot award her quite as much salary. Although this argument is rarely used to- day, in practice its consequences endure, and its philosophical underpinnings remain tenacious. (If anyone doubts this, just read some of the testimony in this volume, or turn to page 527 where a senator quotes Kipling on motherhood.) The ERA would undoubtedly help to shake loose this Vic- torian holdover. Throughout the May 1970 hearings there were lively and dramatic interchanges, and sections of the testimony bear out the edi- tor's introductory suggestion that the con- gressional committee room is "an authentic source of American theater." Some of the scenes are as revealing as the official docu- ments. The preface states: "Our purpose in pub- lishing this volume is to make accessible to the public in a hardcover edition the record of influential government operations, to make obtainable what might otherwise be ignored." A commendable idea! But priced at nearly four times the $3.25 original, this edition may be ignored, too. Edited by a Barnard English professor in conjunction with Congressional Informa- tion Service, the book is, essentially, a somewhat shortened reproduction of the 800-page hearings with a reorganized plan of arrangement, and a few additions. It pre- serves most of the original text, including the occasional typographical errors. Unlike its model, in this edition the complete oral testimony is brought together in one, smooth-running flow, and most of the docu- mentary material is reassembled in a sep- Recent Publications I 75 arate section organized in pro and con se- quences. Deleted are those documents and statements the editor deemed repetitive, along with almost all of the prepared testi- mony (about 200 or so pages, all told) . The result is a much more readable vol- ume, whose essential content has, with a few exceptions, been maintained. The revised and added indexes however, lack the important identifying information about witnesses and documents provided in the original; and because of the rear- ranged textual sequence, more link-up be- tween documents and documents and testi- mony is required than these indexes supply. First introduced in 1923, shortly after the 19th amendment extended the vote to women, an equal rights amendment was in- troduced again in nearly every subsequent session of Congress. The hearings reprinted in this book contain the first legislative tes- timony on the amendment since 1956; but it is unfortunate that the otherwise informa- tive introduction does not mention later rel- evant hearings which took place before this book was completed. Hearings were held by a Senate committee in September 1970, and by a House subcommittee in March and April 1971. However, the editor does include some colorful excerpts from the Congressional Record not in the GPO edi- tion, which neatly convey the character of the longer range ERA controversy. Ap- proved by Congress forty-nine years after it was first introduced, the constitutional amendment now awaits ratification by the states.-Anita R. Schiller, University of California, San Diego. Hyman, Richard Joseph. Access to Library Collections. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1972. 452 p., index, bibliography. ISBN 0-8108-0434-4. LC 77-169134. Of the three parts to Hyman's Access to Library Collections-a "documentary analy- sis," a definition of browsing and browsabil- ity and a "questionnaire analysis"-only the definitions are of sufficient substance to bear study. The documentary analysis merely re- hashes at intolerable length the century-old arguments of librarianship, especially clas- sification theory. Hyman's intentions were to bring together a great deal of literature on the various questions of librarianship rei-