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