>
i l
il
E y  
l
I l ‘ niivll   -. " ’i~- s%·l.iii.__f`
» l 8. T H E C O U R T S .t.»-··~»;'¤ TT T   T T I     T T    T» T 
n {  
1
1
i
py i Once ¤ sunciuuryl Higher education is not, of course,
w ( plone iphbeingplagued withkjegal prob-
of i • • • ems. e nation seems to e preoccu-
f. I   unlversnly IS pied with litigation, and most American
id   • institutions have become tar ets for law-
;h ' novv   vvlih suits. The rise of consumerisin, the pas-
in , , , sage of sweeping civil rights measures,
grovvlng InTerV€nTI°n and a growing sense of alienation from .
es y the "establishment" on the part of many
ld     CQU |‘1'$, have made us, in the words of Stanford
to President Richard Lyman, "the greatest
ge I   iitigaters in world history."
m Govermnent-mandated social legisla- justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once
to   tion and the related directives and warned his fellow jurists to  
rn   guidelines from federal agencies are the prepared in their careers to   \
il- l most rapidly expanding source of col- oversee the dismantling of      
ew lege law. Titles VI and VII of the Civil much in life they held dear.    
e- Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Edu- In America, he noted, “the    
»w cation Amendments of 1972 banning orderly change of law" sup-    
n- sex discrimination, Sections 503 and plants revolution.     *1
us 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1978 Intense, often painful ex-    E3  
ir- forbidding discrimination against the amination of our values and       -
handicapped, the Age Discrimination directions as a Society has        
ng in Federally Assisted Programs Act of produced a revolution of A         .
3- 1975 and a number of Executive sorts. And even justice  [  ii  .;= "  -.     
ii- Orders—all of these and more (some Holmes might be star.         3 
ras 60,000 pages of new federal require- tled by how readily we  ij        A_,p     _`i?m%_ 
of ments) have paved the way for con- Americans are turning   ,;__            
w, tinuous legal action against institutions to the courts to resolve   `i°'*        
l a of higher learning. our problems. Questions       A V          ‘
IA State governments, too, are getting that once were settled          ,. ._ ;_ in
ral €0\1gh€I` in their dealings with colleges  ; ,       iw    gl v i 
and universities. Last year, national            -     
aw education groups were disappointed   `_ ;    g ggv ié  W  U 
wo ` when the Supreme Court let stand a     i __
ia- 1976 Pennsylvania law requiring all       L —  *  
nd y federal funds coming into the state to be        ; `i`i  i fi     
by l funneled through the state legislature. "     _ s  A_ ?; F$Y;*    i . I
a E Alamred educators see the Pennsylva— [wl;  _-.- Q  Ki ki g _
on   nian case as a "dangerous precedent" '    . `‘`‘        
ch   that risks politicization of academic re-   gi'?  
nd l search and management. A number of ``'`   _ /   ;
in- { other states have passed or are consider-   _  jg Ei  
of I ing similar legislation, although most  i `
A have worked out compromises or ex- 4
‘he emptions with their colleges and univer— ,,7   4_  
17 i MCS- t   s‘·· I  w z-*’If’i   A
ies     "
1 ` E .
.>’;-   ak ii  
I ellusirohon inn wcluscoll        
i   ,‘l.   °