Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
University News, Vol. 1, No. 7, December 1981
Page 2
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
University News, Vol. 1, No. 7, December 1981 - Page 2. December 1981. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. June 20, 2021. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/4747/show/4742.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(December 1981). University News, Vol. 1, No. 7, December 1981 - Page 2. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/4747/show/4742

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

University News, Vol. 1, No. 7, December 1981 - Page 2, December 1981, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed June 20, 2021, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/4747/show/4742.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title University News, Vol. 1, No. 7, December 1981
Publisher National Organization for Women, University of Houston Chapter.
Date December 1981
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Women--Texas--Periodicals
  • Women--Texas--Houston--Periodicals
  • Feminism--United States--Periodicals
  • Newsletters
Subject.Name (LCNAF)
  • National Organization for Women
Genre (AAT)
  • periodicals
Language English
Type (DCMI)
  • Text
Original Item Location HQ1101 .N684
Original Item URL http://library.uh.edu/record=b1476015~S11
Digital Collection Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters
Digital Collection URL http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist
Repository Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries
Repository URL http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections
Use and Reproduction Educational use only, no other permissions given. Copyright to this resource is held by the content creator, author, artist or other entity, and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the copyright owner. For more information please see UH Digital Library Fair Use policy on the UH Digital Library About page.
File Name index.cpd
Item Description
Title Page 2
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
File Name femin_201109_234b.jpg
Transcript JAPAN Business feels the heat of U. S. antibias laws Hitachi Consumer Products of America, a producer of color TVs in Compton, Calif., miu* 1979, is joining a |fro*iii)i list of Japanese-owmnJ companies accused of violating T. S. federal e^ja! employment opportunity laws. On the strength of six individual complaints j lodged against Hitachi, the California - Fair Employment & Housing Dept. on * Oct. 16 charged the company with dis- J criminating against blacks and other ■ non-Asians. Because the company's 300- person work force is about 50% Asian and 25% black in a city that is 75% black and 1.7% Asian, state officials want to determine if a "broad pattern of discrimination" exists at the plant. At Hitachi, officials are refusing to discuss the investigation or a possible out-of-court settlement. But Hitachi is not the first Japanese company to run afoul of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Other current cases involve such well-known names as Sumitomo Corp. and C. Itoh & Co. And the issue is so timely that two San Francisco attorneys, Bruce A. Nelson and E. Anthony Zaloom, recently visited Japan and lectured to more than 100 Japanese businessmen on equal employment opportunity laws in the U. S. "The unwary (Japanese] manager may violate these laws just by doing what comes naturally," Nelson observes. "Certain employment practices that are standard in most of the world—especially the relegation of women to subordinate roles—are illegal in the U. S." Th« 1953 treaty. In Japan, managers are almost always male. In the U. S.. this practice is frequently denounced as sex discrimination. In defending their right to import managers from home, Japanese companies have pointed to a 1953 trade agreement that stipulates that Japanese companies can hire executives, technical experts, and other specialists "of their choice." What has remained uncertain is whether this treaty excuses Japanese companies from abiding by the same equal employment opportunity laws that govern U. S. companies. That point, however, should be clarified soon. On Nov. 2, the U. S. Supreme Court announced that it would rule on the issue in a class action case brought against Sumitomo America Inc. in New York. Female secretarial employees charge that Sumitomo's practice of hiring only male Japanese nationals for management-level jobs discriminates against them. Previously, a court of appeals held that the 1953 treaty does not exempt Japanese businesses in the U. S from antidiscrimination laws. But in a similar Texas case against C. Itoh, another appeals court, held that the treaty d(x?s permit discrimination in fa- vor of Japanese citizens—at least for executive and technical positions. However, American employees who sued the company recently had their request for a rehearing of the case accepted by the same court. So C. Itoh now is in a legal situation where it has nothing to gain— and something to lo9e—from a reexamination of its employment policies. ■ 58 BUSINESS WEEK: November 23. 1081 A&M gay recognition By DENISE RICHTER B.n-ikw Staff After a four-year battle, the Cav Student Service. Organization Monday will appear in a Houston court again seeking University recognition. Texas A&M University is the defendant in the civil triaj which will be set during a Monday morning docket call in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Houston Division. W_ re on the docket and well probably go to triaj that afternoon."' defense lawyer jenny Graffeo said. "We're not certain about (the trial date) but we re preparing for it as if we go on trial Monday." Texas A6cM applied for a continuance in the trial several weeks ago, a motion which was not opposed by the GSSO. However, US. District Judge Ross N. Sterling, who will preside during the trial, denied this motion. Representing Te*a« A&M in addition to Craffeo will be Lonnie Zwiener and Ann JCraatz, assistant attorneys general; Jamn B Bond. v*c« chancellor for legal affair*; and Ted Hajovsky. Patrick Wiseman, of the Nelson and Mallett law firm in Houston, will represent the GSSO. Defendants cited In the case are: Dr. John }. Koldus, vice president for student services; the late Jack JO Williams, former president of Texas A&M; Clyde Freeman, executive vice president, and the Texas A&M System Board of Regents, individually and as representatives of the University. The plaintiffs. Michael Minton, Keith Stewart and Patricia Woodridge, were members of the GSSO when the original federal civil rights suit was filed in 1977. The organization requested official University recognition in April 1976, a request which was denied the following month. In November 1976, Koldus stated the University s position in a letter to the CSSO explaining the reasons for the refusal. In the letter he said according to Texas A&M regulations the University can only recognize organizations whose goals are consistent with the philosophy and goals of Texas A&M. The CSSO conflicts w»th those goals, Koldus said. * Homosexual conduct is illegal in Texas. ' the letter said. and, therefore, it would be roost inappropriate for a state institution officially to support a student organization which is likely to Incite, promote and result in acts contrary to and in violation of the Penal Code of the State of Texas." Koldus said another reason for denying recognition is that the group wanted to provide services to students, including referrals, educational information and speakers. "Student organizations do not have the educational experience, the responsibility nor the authority to educate the larger public, the letter said. The responsibility for the education of the students at Texas A&M resides by law with the University administrative staff and faculty." The CSSO filed a civil rights suit against the University Feb. 2S, 1977. The suit stated denial of recognition forced the group to find off-campus meeting sites which was expensive and Limited the number of persons who could attend meetings. The organization also sought damages to compensate for the lack of recognition and to cover court costs and legal fees. On March 22, 1977, the Board of Regents said they would "proceed in every legal way'' to keep gay groups "from orga-. nizina or operating on this or any other campus for which this Board ts responsible." The University argued that it could not be sued for money damages and in November 1977, Judae Sterling dismissed the case. However, in February 1980, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court <A Appeals set aside the federal court decision. The appeals court cited a 1978 Supreme Court ruling which stated that local governing bodies could be sued for money damages under federal civil rights laws. Local governing bodies include universities, the court ruled. Texas A&M appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court in March 1980, arguing that the appeals court decision was in error and conflicted with other rulings. Lawyers argued that if Texas A&M — "which has no existence independent of the state" — can be sued under a federal civil rights law, then any other agencies of the state of Texas could be subject to the same type of suit. On Dec. 8. 1980. the Supreme Court refused to hear Texas A&Ms appeal. This action meant that the case finally could be heard on its merits in federal district court in Houston. Church of England votes to allow female deacons LONDON i AP) — Leaders of the Church of England who oppose ordaining women to the priesthood, decided that women may become deacons — members of a holy order without the full authority of priests. Deacons are allowed to perform all the duties of a clergyman below the rank of pnest. They can conduct weddings and funerals but cannot celebrate Holy Communion nor administer blessings and absolution. The decision was made Thursday by an overwhelming show of hands at a London session of the church's general synod, a leadership council of bishops, clergy and lay members. Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie supported the move and said the position of deacon could be kept separate from ordination to the priesthood, a pressing question throughout the 65 million-member Anglican Communion worldwide. Some provinces, such as the Episcopal Church in the United States, ordain women as priests, but the majority do not — for reasons that are mainly biblical-histori- % cal and theological. Besides male deacons, the church has 320 "deaconesses," — laywomen not admitted to holy orders but allowed to assist at services. The rank of "deaconess,' which is not a female deacon, will remain. Church sources said a major reason for Thursday's decision to admit women to the diaconate was the difficulty of finding enough male priests in England — and the enthusiasm and dedication of the deaconesses. The Rt. Rev. Maurice Wood, Bishop of Norwich, said the issues of women deacons and women priests were separate, adding that some people fear "that if we agree this then we are doing something toward the debate for women priests." Canon Frank Telfer, who favors ordination of women as priests, opposed the change, saying: "We cannot separate it from the wide issue of the admission of women to holy orders. I just hope that women will have the courage to refuse this spurious offer and go for the real thing." Due to time pressures and technical problems, we were unable to print the second part of the Lavender Menace. If you would like to see the remainder of the article in the newsletter or receive a copy, please call me at 521-282^. Jeanne ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■•I ■■•■■••■■■■■■■■ 2._ $ MEMBERSHIP AND NEWSLETTER REQUEST FORM I wish to join the National Organization for Women, NOW at the University of Houston, Central Campus. (Dues for NOW are on a sliding scale from $11.00 to $35.00. This amount is divided among the Chapter, Texas NOW, and the National. Please send an amount for your dues according to your circumstances.) Enclosed are my dues in the amount of _^r«CmcT *&- 4. Make your check payable to "NOW at the University of Houston, and send to: NOW at the University of Houston (Membership) Box 509, University Center 4800 Calhoun Houston, TX 77004 I would like to continue receiving a Courtesy Copy of the Newsletter. (U of H campus mail address only - use address listed in UH phone book.) I would like to talk to someone to get more information. NAME HOME ADDRESS TOWN, STATE,21 P_ PRECINCT NUMBER^ HOME PHONE (from voter registration card) OTHER PHONE (hours) (Please mail this form to at address above.)