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

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

Part of Kentucky alumnus

T fhleilcs. Title IX’s ban on sex 'tyirjjici °a°¤i.ch_ Docs the First l ‘ discrimination is revolutioniz- ’l`$`$'l'l• _ Amendment eover what ing ¢<>1}¢gi¤¤¤ ¤¤h1¤¤i¤¤ and ‘ might be called ··the iight of i generarmg a hoer of Prob' inquiry"? Scholars hope so lcms. m3¤Y of which ¤f€ ii¤d· 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 act’s p¤S§3g€. 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'Hl£W iilitcé 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` __ ,y·y[/ia} tcrviewi Study, Observe, Oi, merely talk i ;; grate athlctlCS. P¤T¤€¤larlY 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 $PorrS aenvlrles whleh do nor l `v-~- “ _ mean that he “can’t go out and talk with tli themselves receive federal dollars, but \ ·__ some political candidate and note his or W, wiilichl dig] bring in moncyhfcr thi 3 her views without going through some tc sc oo s. omen's groups say t at equa _. ‘ J HEW Prior Ccnsorshiptll ca oPPoro·mlrY means just mar; ¢q¤¤1 A A The right of the researcher to confi— tn S€h0lPt1‘Sh1pS. equal g‘f¤t1t5ji¤·¤1d» €q¤¤l , , ._ dential notes and records is also being ta coaching staffs and facilities, and equal . V. _; tl P challenged, and a case Soon to be dc. average eXPendlmreS per smdene In ln' .l’ {_ V ` cided by the U.S. Supreme Court raises S Snmnons wrm blg‘rlme arllleoes Pro' A the question of whether the public has al grair(li$·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 w¤¤1d mir ;il";;ii;’?’a‘i;‘ 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;°diJ¤l==¤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] $l00·000 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