The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, November 7, 1989
Decision: Tuesday, January 9, 1990
Issues: First Amendment, Miscellaneous

Advocates

Rex E. Lee (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Kenneth W. Starr (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Rosalie Tung was an Asian-American professor who believed that she was denied tenure because of her sex and her race. To investigate her claim, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked the University for access to Tung's confidential peer review file. Citing the protection of academic freedom, the University refused to cooperate so as to avoid breaching the confidentiality promised to reviewers.

Question

Does requiring a university to disclose confidential peer review materials in an investigation violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

A unanimous Court held that the need to ferret out invidious discrimination served a compelling government interest which justified inspection of confidential files. Since the EEOC was not interested in forcing the University to accept specific standards for promotion and it did not attempt to control the content of speech on campus, Justice Blackmun dismissed Pennsylvania's argument that the EEOC's actions violated academic freedom.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for EEOC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Wrote the majority opinion
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Full Opinion by Justice Harry A. Blackmun

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (1990),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_493/>
(last visited ).