The responsibility for preventing too much federal regulation of education rests with the educators themselves. The author urges administrators to assert greater influence on legislators and offers five ways to regulate the regulators. (Editor/LBH)

The Law Division of the proceedings contains the following 8 papers: "The Neutral Reportage Doctrine 25 Years After: An Update on the Still 'Fletdgling' Libel Defense" (Kyu Ho Youm); "Personal Jurisdiction Over Media Libel Cases in the Internet Age" (Robert L. Spellman); "A Framework for Electronic Access to Court Records…

Attacks the Consent Decree (which formally ended the dispute between the Office for Civil Rights and the University of North Carolina, over hiring at the University) as paternalistic and racist. Describes the Decree as resorting to omissions when it is advantageous to Whites and to generalities when it is advantageous to Blacks. (CMG)

In the case of Gabrilowitz v Newman the court used the due process balancing test to conclude that a student has a right to have counsel present at a university disciplinary hearing where the conduct in question is the object of a pending criminal proceeding. Available from J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young U., Provo, UT 84602. (MSE)

During the first four months of 1975, the Supreme Court decided four new sex discrimination cases. Each decision is considered in light of six earlier rulings in order to identify and perhaps clarify some unsettled areas and to evaluate the progress made by the justices in resolving the constitutional issues of gender discrimination. (LBH)

Executive administrators are vulnerable to the malice and defamatory attacks of critics on and off their campuses. Documents the impact of the actual malice standard on public higher education administrators since the United States Supreme Court's 1964 decision in "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan." Reviews "New York Times" and…

A federal appeals court decision ruled in favor of three publishers who had sued the owner of a small copy-shop business for copyright infringement in producing custom-made anthologies for college courses. However, a divided court could not determine willful violation of the law, vacating damages awarded in lower court. Debate over fair use…

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a case that might guide colleges in resolving conflict between campus policies on sexual harassment and free-speech rights. The case involved San Bernardino College (California) and a tenured professor whose explicit classroom discussions college officials felt constituted sexual harassment. An appeals…

Examines the distinctions between protected free speech and discriminatory verbal harassment on college campuses. Cites numerous campus policies and recent Supreme Court decisions. Discusses a proposed guideline based on the direct use of "fighting words" to insult or stigmatize an individual. (FMW)

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court is requiring the University of Pennsylvania to give faculty peer-review documents to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for its investigation into a sex discrimination case. Academics fear infringement of academic freedom and privacy. (MSE)

The texts of the Supreme Court's syllabus and unanimous opinion in the University of Pennsylvania vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is presented. The case involves release of peer-review records in a faculty sex discrimination suit. (MSE)

The Supreme Court has ruled public colleges may not deny funds to student groups because they engage in religious activities. The case, involving the University of Virginia, sets looser standards for separation of church and state in higher education. Some see it as providing new protections against censorship and withdrawal of funds. Text of the…

The Supreme Court's dissenting opinion in a University of Virginia case concerning denial of funds to a religious student newspaper is presented. Justice Souter argues that the ruling supporting funding is in violation of doctrine concerning separation of church and state. (MSE)

Explores the issue of whether minority scholarships are illegal under federal statutes or the Constitution. Concludes that, according to Title VI and Supreme Court decisions, minority scholarships would be legal when offered by private schools and by public schools that could meet the court's requirements. (112 references) (MLF)

Discusses two cases in which federal courts stretched the boundaries of students' constitutional protection to void decisions it saw as palpably unfair. Suggests that the concepts of law and legalization instilled in educators can easily lead them astray. (MLF)