Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
University News, Vol. 2, No. 3, March 1982
Page 7
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
University News, Vol. 2, No. 3, March 1982 - Page 7. March 1982. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. July 7, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/6335/show/6333.

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.

(March 1982). University News, Vol. 2, No. 3, March 1982 - Page 7. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/6335/show/6333

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. 2, No. 3, March 1982 - Page 7, March 1982, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed July 7, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/6335/show/6333.

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. 2, No. 3, March 1982
Publisher National Organization for Women, University of Houston Chapter.
Date March 1982
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 7
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
File Name femin_201109_223g.jpg
Transcript Aw shucks, it's only the law by Anthony Lewis A THREE-JUDGE federal court, in an opinion by a distinguished judge, decides an important question of federal law. The Supreme Court affirms the decision. Other courts follow it. The federal government incorporates it in rules, and three presidents enforce them over a 10-year period. Then a new president reverses the rules. He explains to a press confer-, ence that he did so because they had "no basis in the law.1' That is what President Reagan said at his press conference last week by. way of explaining his decision to give tax exemptions to schools and colleges that discriminate against black Americans. The only thing more amazing than his explanation was the reaction of the reporters in the room. Nobody laughed. "The Internal Revenue Service had actually formed a social law and was enforcing that social law," Reagan said. He was speaking of the IRS rules, adopted during the Nixon administration, against tax exemptions for discriminatory schools and colleges. But the IRS framed those rules in light of court decisions saying what the law was The leading decision was by the late Harold Leventhal. the highly respected judge of the US. Court of Appeals in Washington. He concluded: "Racially discriminatory private schools are not entitled to the federal tax exemption for charitable, educational institutions.*' Reagan denied that any racism was involved. He said he was opposed to discrimination "at every fiber of my being." But there is no doubt that racism was the movinc fofce in the attempt to reverse the rules against tax exemptions. Southern institutions that exclude or segregate blacks, notably some connected with fundamentalist churches, have been the voices demanding the change. Rep. Trent Lott, R-Miss.. wrote the president urging him to act and got back his memo with a marginal note bV Reagan saying "I think we should"; Lott sent that to high Justice Department and Treasury officials. Another active figure was Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C, a trustee of Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C. Bob Jones and Goldsboro Christian Schools had tax cases that were the particular spur. The president said his action had been "misinterpreted." He did not really want to give tax exemptions to racist schools, he said. All along he had just wanted Congress to pass a statute with explicit language forbidding the exemptions, so "that will be the law of the land." If you can believe that, you can believe anything. The Republican Party platform of 1980 called for an end to the tax rules "against independent schools." Can anyone suppose that the platform drafters wanted Congress to put the rules into a statute? Is that what Trent Lott had in mind when he wrote Reagan and got his encouraging reply? Yes, and goldfish can fly. Even if Reagan's call for congressional action were not the afterthought it so obviously was, it would have grave defects. What the president is actually doing is this: taking a long- settled area of the law, reversing it by executive fiat and then inviting Congress to restore the status quo. The effect of such a tactic is to reverse the burden of changing the law — and that is a heavy burden under our system Even if a majority in Congress wants a certain statute, there are many ways in committee and on No marriage for Barnard, Columbia:they're into free love BOSTON — Last June, on one of those days that serve as lush background scenery for white graduation dresses, I found myself In a procession walking beside a trustee of a small private school. It was something of a special occasion on this campus, because this was the last year for an all-girls graduation. The school was completing its merger. Next year even commencement, the last remnant of separate histories, would be coed. "It will be kind of a shame to lose this," the trustee next to me said as the songs and speeches — the special events of this female ceremony — continued. His assumption, unspoken and unquestioned, was that next year the girls would become a part of the traditional male ceremony, that the females would give up their own rituals to gain access to male rituals. I have thought of this day often in the past months. The trustee wasn't wrong in his assumptions. In fact, over the past dozen years, "going coed" has often meant the admission of women Into gating and unchanging male institutions. The merging of men's and women's organizations has often resulted in the submerging of women. You can see this in the business world, where women are allowed in, even up, if they'll play by men's rules. You can see it in the professional organizations, when the acceptance of women Into men's groups has meant the end of the women's organization. But it's most stark in the college' world. Men's colleges like Yale, Prince* ton and Dartmouth admitted women, believing they could, indeed should, be treated the same as men. Brother and sister colleges like Brown and Pembroke AT LARGE/Ellen Goodman married, and the women lost their names. Once I went to Radcliffe College; now women go to Harvard. Among women's colleges the urge to go coed (In 1980 there were 296 women's colleges, today there are 116) slowed and then virtually stopped as this evidence mounted. Separate was sometimes better for women's equality. Women's colleges are now less carried away by proposals, more interested in contracts. I suppose the latest chapter in this curious history of coeducation was written just last week by Barnard and Columbia colleges. Barnard, like so many other women's colleges, came into existence because Columbia wouldn't accept women* Almost 100 years later, Columbia ardently wanted women. But Barnard was reluctant This wasn't just a case of bad romantic timing. Barnard has, many believe, the best of both worlds. They have their own faculty (59 percent female), their own curriculum, their own finances. Admissions are up 51 percent; they are operating in the black. Yet they can also share Columbia's dorms and dining rooms, libraries and courses. As Barnard's new president, Ellen Futter, put it carefully: "One might describe as ideal the notion of two single- sex insltutiotts with a relationship." But it was not Ideal to Columbia. And as Futter said, "There's a difference between what is structurally ideal and practically Ideal." Columbia wanted women for its men and its classes; Barnard wanted a measure of independence for its women and itself. There was talk of merger and suspicions of submerger. In the end they made what Futter called "a long-term stable arrangement" Others might call it a curious arrangement, like two lovers who can't reconcile their separate needs, Barnard and Columbia will go on together, but Columbia will be free to go looking for other women. Barnard will survive as a private liberal arts college with a special affiliation to Columbia (and more control over, faculty tenure). Columbia will admit; women It can call its own. Both colleges profess pleasure at this' arrangement. Barnard will survive. Columbia will get its women. They will' all live happily ever after in the same dormitories and dining halls. But there is something odd in this, a peculiar example of the times, of Ideals. Columbia longed for an intimate rela- tionship, but never offered partnership. Barnard was wary of compromise. Now, young women applicants can choose between the female institution of Barnard, separate but dedicated to equality, and them ale institution of Columbia, integrated but not equal. Somehow orother their choices seem familiar. BIOLOGY IS NOT DESTINY the floor to prevent its enactment. And this is not the only case in which the Reagan administration is using the tactic, 'interpreting" long-established law effectively out of existence while saying blandly that Congress can act if it wishes. The lawlessness of the whole affair is breathtaking. A president on his own motion upsets a decade of law. Then he says he will continue to apply the long-understood rules for a while in case Congress acts — but will go ahead and grant tax exemptions to the two institutions whose cases the Supreme Court had been about to decide, Bob Jones and Goldsboro Christian. Tax exemptions were notlhe only legal subject treated in terms of fantasy at this press conference. Reagan also sought to justify his big new cam-; paign against leaks of information on* government policy by saying, "It is against the law for anyone to release this information." No it isn't — not in the United States. Presidents can try to silence their subordinates. But except for particular oensitive material, there is no "law" forbidding,disclosure of government information; If Richard Nixon had misrepresented the law in the same way, there would have been instant outrage. But Reagan gives us his aw shucks look, and we forgive him. There is just that nagging thought: Is it really "conservative" to play fast and loose with the law? IN THE SENATE Hbw Texans voted Did he mesh skewperson? Maybe he's thinking of the straw vote. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass , stretching to avoid any appearance of sexism, corrected himself hastily in mid- sentence last week: "As far as I'm concerned, we're propping up a lot of straw men," be said, stopping short and stammering. "Er, uh, that is straw men and straw women, and knocking them right down," he went on. WASHINGTON - Here's how Texas' senators voted on the two major roll calls last week: L Basing. Approved 58 to 38 a ban to prohibit federal courts from ordering the busing of students for purposes of desegregation for more than 30 minutes or 10 miles roundtrip. The ban would be retro active 1 Broadcasting. Approved 92 to 3 a motion to consider a bill authorizing radio and television coverage of the Senate. Lewis is a columnist for the New York Times and Pulitzer Prize winner for national reporting.