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.
Does requiring a university to disclose confidential peer review materials in an investigation violate the First Amendment?
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.
Decisions
Decision: 9 votes for EEOC, 0 vote(s) against Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Sort by Ideology
Full Opinion by Justice Harry A. Blackmun
