0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

8 > Image 8 of Kentucky alumnus, vol. 04, no. 50, 1980

Part of Kentucky alumnus

T fhleilcs. Title IXs ban on sex 'tyirjjici ai.ch_ Docs the First l discrimination is revolutioniz- l`$`$'l'l _ Amendment eover what ing <>1}gi h1i and might be called the iight of i generarmg a hoer of Prob' inquiry"? Scholars hope so lcms. m3Y of which f iid if - because they feel that new A ing their way before courts and govern- - and proposed guidelines for federally E bt ment agencies. In the eight years since lx} V i J \ sponsored research violate such rights. tit thc acts pS3g. b0ti1 1`S and . q' i For example, proposed guidelines to va womerrs athletic associations have filed _ , i _ * \ . protect human subjects in social science I fc suitlto pilod'HlW iilitc spellingrrotit I g ~ and humanistic research have produced l sn i$ Y W ar 15 mifm rm er it . 3 . ,_ Pg outrage in the academic community be- Much of the confusion surrounds the _ \ .=_; ; cause they require researchers who in_ ar applicabilityi of Title.IX to interco1le ,, i` __ ,yy[/ia} tcrviewi Study, Observe, Oi, merely talk i ;; grate athlctlCS. PTlarlY revenue' l A to human subjects to submit projects to Oi prciaducirig spoiitsllilke fgotball. i d d .. . ,"' - the same kinds of peer-review boards T wl t issue is w et er ongress mten e _i or S W . that biological scientists do. Duke Uni- li uanlf edllearlon Program or aerlvlrll re' ~ li e versity political scientist james David in ceiving federal financial assistance" to ` gi _ at Barber suggests such a regulation would Oi mean $PorrS aenvlrles whleh do nor l `v-~- _ mean that he cant go out and talk with tli themselves receive federal dollars, but \ __ some political candidate and note his or W, wiilichl dig] bring in moncyhfcr thi 3 her views without going through some tc sc oo s. omen's groups say t at equa _. J HEW Prior Ccnsorshiptll ca oPPoromlrY means just mar; q1 A A The right of the researcher to confi tn Sh0lPt1Sh1pS. equal gft1t5ji1d ql , , ._ dential notes and records is also being ta coaching staffs and facilities, and equal . V. _; tl P challenged, and a case Soon to be dc. average eXPendlmreS per smdene In ln' .l {_ V ` cided by the U.S. Supreme Court raises S Snmnons wrm blgrlme arllleoes Pro' A the question of whether the public has al grair(li$b$oeh an erilnallzanon Proeess or if the right to see raw research data (in in eon e enormon$Y eXPenSlVe esPe' federally funded projects) under the t- qiailv S w<>m`S Spws w1d mir ;il";;ii;?ai; Freedom of Information Act. ihepievi- Sl; . likely pciodtgce revgiiiiie the way men lj Rcismagl Calils Utmde union ous case involving confidentiality, judge nt $Porr5 o ome msnmrrons Wir . B. Renfrew said: "Much of the raw data - l1t " has also led to a . C2 malor mrereolleglare arhlene Programs mcnla y. on which research is based is sim l n t . have hired a Washin ton ublic rela- Pmllfcralloh of legal Problems m d l b py 0 h' _ g P_ f n d . . . C i b. a e ava1 a le except on the pledge of t tions firm to represent their interests in Ohm gges an uhlverslllee o nm la fd l the legislative and regulatory arenas University tried to cut its budget by fir- Sigia emlaxinogsrggggiign igggsure Jn * . . . . . . . I`- ,. Meanwhile. athletic equality has al- mg a grciuli of unwirslliy inalqi They search into uestions of ublic oli ci ready become a court issue. A federal S;diJl==m{g Sex dleerlmlh*;lhoh and the very Subjcgcts in whjchlihc pugiic li; district court last year ordered Michigan l e nlvcmty was Compe lc to keep terest is the greatest " l State University to give its female bas- the malds and pal] $l00000 in {eee i _ re nketball players the same amount for The _DeParrmenr of Labvr nad $d F i W ( / to transportation as it gives its male varsity henver S Regle College ro roree rr ro PaY r . ; nlaycta And last November, the justice its. student residence-hall counselors the ., . A _ Department took its first legal actions rhlhhhhm wage (and oael"PaY_ allow` lu ` 4 * - . r l, I untlct Title IX by moving against Texas ances). Regis argues that ithe residence- _' i . . A & M University and the University of hall Program le an eelnearlonal Program U A if il AlaSlta_ Charging tbam with disCrimina_ for the students and they receive tuition, i_ r af in ting against female stndanta room, and board rebates. The case V ` V could have significant implications for it . __ tj g V Il J higher education. \_ V V ~ ,, \ So could the Yeshiva University case K A Y ,l C i recently decided by the UZS. Supreme ii . i Court this year. The National Labor j igs ` Relations Board ordered Yeshiva to rec- * V.; * i ognize a faculty collective bargaining ' I unit. Yeshiva went to court, claiming [ ` ~ i that faculty are part of management i [ _ i since they share in decision making in- l i i volving curriculum, hiring and promo- / l` `TT r ;- tion of faculty, and setting and enforc- / ` ing academic standards. A victory by / / l Yeshiva could have curtailed unioniza- tion on all private campuses. 6