94.11 Section 504 and the ADA apply to obesity [the role of suasion and education rather than regulation], p.184

94.38 E-mail, institutional liability and freedom of expression [Electronic Communications Act of 1986],220

94.39 Distinguishing bad treatment from discrimination [Pregnancy Discrimination Act], 222

94.42 Resolving sexual misconduct complaints in the 1990s [OCR investigation at UC-Santa Cruz].

94.58 Disability-related inquiries under the ADA, 254 [ADA will extend to employers of 15 or more].

94.71 Gender motivated violence act adopted, 278

94.73 Gender discrimination against men in college disciplinary cases [Yusuf v. Vassar College], 280

94.75 Evidence of similar acts in sexual misconduct cases, [new rule 413 of the Federal Rules ofEvidence; Nash v. Auburn University], 284

94.82 Hazing and sexual harassment [discrimination must be based on sex; scope of Title IX and"hostile environment" theory], 296

94.84 National sexual assault study [1994 crime bill provision on campus sexual assaults], 299

95.3 Disciplinary records remain confidential--for now [value of confidentiality; initial FERPA effort tolimit "values" education; media hypocrisy; public distrust of higher education], 315

95.4 Balancing rights and obligations [physician with AIDS may be required to show he does not posea threat of infecting others in the workplace], 319

95.5 Dumping what's dumb ["Correction Day" proposed; impact of federal rules on colleges; excerptfrom The Death of Common Sense], 321

95.6 Employee dismissal and after-acquired evidence of wrongdoing [after-acquired evidence ofwrong-doing not a complete bar to recovery under Age Discrimination in Employment Act; strictenforcement of anti-discrimination law], 322

95.9 Retaliation and letters of reference [Former employees may file EEOC retaliation complaints;ways to avoid defamation in letters of reference], 327

95.11 Public access to e-mail [e-mail and open-meetings laws; limits on erasing e-mail; e-mailfrequently sought in discovery; "academic freedom" not a defense to disclosure], 330.

95.13 Stanford speech code unconstitutional [interpretation of the "fighting words" doctrine; hurtfeelings are not enough; "selected" insults may not be prohibited; distinguishing speech fromconduct; alternatives to censorship, including penalty enhancement; application of FirstAmendment standards to private institutions; expansive academic freedom argument rejected;admission of "undesired members" will not limit Stanford's freedom of expression], 332.

95.17 Community service may be required [community service and character education; oppositionfrom the Christian right; failed FERPA provision against "altering . . . personal values"], 341.

95.19 Federal court finds Brown violated Title IX, [Title IX regulations in crisis; possible threat tofootball; danger of growing professionalism in college sports], 345.

95.31 "Special protection" of homosexuals not required [Sixth Circuit upholds Cincinnati charteramendment preventing enforcement of any measure equating sexual orientation with minoritystatus; sexual orientation as a "subjective" characteristic; conflict with Colorado Supreme Courtholding; Andrew Sullivan on the "mythical abstraction" of the gay lifestyle; gay people oftenshare traditional values], 364.

95.35 Computer network can be sued for libel [Prodigy treated as "publisher"; with control comes therisk of liability; campus alternatives to e-mail and bulletin board censorship; CommunicationsDecency Act modified], 369.

95.53 Challenging the ADA [a growing effort to modify the Act, mainly by applying a cost-benefitanalysis to pertinent regulations, and by narrowing the definition of protected disabilities], 394.

95.58 Campus security and religious freedom [school knife ban violated Religious FreedomRestoration Act. Solzhenitsyn on legalistic life and the need for voluntary self-restraint], 405.

95.69 OFFAL strikes Cornell [anarchist group "mailblasts" Cornell with a "satirical" letter written underthe name of Cornell's judicial administrator; application of the Electronic Communication PrivacyAct of 1986; possible tort law implications], 427.

96.5 Indecent communications on interactive computer services [adoption of the CommunicationsDecency Act; the indecency standard and the broadcast medium (1978 Pacifica case); JusticesBrennan and Marshall on "the dominant culture's inevitable efforts to force those groups who donot share its mores to conform to its way of thinking, acting, and speaking"], 443.

96.27 The end of computer decency? [Communications Decency Act declared unconstitutional by threejudge federal panel in Philadelphia; one judge observed that "[a]s the most participatory form ofmass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmentintrusion. . ."; certain forms of expression remain unlawful, including obscenity, threats ofviolence; harassment based on sex, race, disability, or other protected status; electroniccommunication has become an important means of expression for gay men and lesbians;surveys show Americans increasingly concerned about civility; ostracism often a better optionthan formal punishments], 497.

96.34 Sexual harassment by teachers and peers [the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S.Department of Education issued a "Dear Colleague" letter, stating that schools and colleges maybe liable under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 for peer harassment that creates ahostile environment; Economist on dangers of over-regulation], 517.

96.37 Sexually abusive "horseplay" as sexual harassment [courts split on same-sex harassment assexual harassment; danger of trying to regulate good manners], 527.

97.7 Recent cases on the ADA and sexual harassment liability [courts reluctant to expand the ADAinto areas never contemplated by Congress; scope of supervisory liability for sexual harassmentor other violations of federal law limited], 574.

97.11 The resurgence of common sense [implied waiver of privacy protection under FERPA], 583.

97.13 The unintended consequences of ACCRA [The "Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act" of1997 would insert the current style of "gotcha" journalism into the heart of the campusdisciplinary process], 586.

97.27 Psychiatric disabilities in the workplace, part I [excerpts from the EEOC "Enforcement Guidance"],623.

97.28 Psychiatric disabilities in the workplace, part II [primary aim of the ADA is to challengestereotypes; people with disabilities are not exempt from reasonable conduct standards; views ofpsychiatrist Kay Redfield Jamison on manic depression and creativity, 626].

97.29 The First Amendment in cyberspace: implications for higher education, part I [excerpts from Reno v.American Civil Liberties Union; practice implication commentary from William Kaplin], 628.

97.30 The First Amendment in cyberspace: implications for higher education, Part II [practiceimplication commentary on Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union from Ohio State UniversityAssociate Legal Counsel Steven J. McDonald; ""Ten Principles of Civility in Cyberspace"], 631.

97.39 The Boston University case: reading past the headlines, part I [excerpts from Gluckenberger et. al v.Boston University], 646.

97.40 Reading past the headlines in the Boston University case, part II [the essence of federal disabilitylaw is individualized assessment; verification and assessment are essential; students shouldhave the opportunity to fail; college curricula need assessment too; the danger of portrayingstudents with learning disabilities as wards of big government], 649.

97.41 Accommodating religion in the workplace [America in the midst of a religious revival; new federalguidelines for religious expression in the federal workplace: some proselytizing may be allowed;"hostile environment" theory may be used by the religious right; Alan Wolfe: "I crave religiousstudents"], 651.

97.44 Defining limits in sexual harassment law [three recent cases define limits in sexual harassmentlaw, pertaining to off-campus internship assignments, honoring requests for confidentiality bysexual harassment complainants, and institutional liability for peer harassment by students(Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education en banc decision)], 659.

97.47 A reflection on ACCRA and the media ["entertainment" now appealing to the most base humanpursuits; the of privacy; a modest proposal to apply ACCRA to Congress], 668.

98.2 The media and student privacy [news coverage of the controversy surrounding President Clintonhighlights what could happen to complainants or respondents in sensitive campus disciplinaryproceedings that federal legislation might open to the media; the current cycle of coarseness inthe media; advice for college journalists], 687.

98.3 Defining "due process" under heightened media scrutiny [pending federal legislation may opencampus disciplinary proceedings to the media; key court decisions on due process in studentdisciplinary cases; the merits of "investigatory" proceedings; Judge Marvin Frankel on "thesearch for truth;" The Fifth amendment and drawing a "negative inference"; holding in Piarowskiv. Illinois Community College Dist. suggests that colleges and universities have an economicinterest in retaining students], 689.

98.18 Internet service providers shielded by federal law, again [federal district court decision inBlumenthal v. America Online holds that the Communications Decency Act protects Internetservice providers against publisher or distributor liability in defamation cases; right of Virginiastate employees to access sexually explicit material affirmed in Urofsky v. Allen],725.

98.19 The Foley Amendment and student disciplinary records [pending legislation would allowcolleges to disclose personally identifiable information from disciplinary records ofstudents who have admitted to or been found responsible for a "crime of violence," asdefined by federal law; public access likely through state freedom of information laws],728.

98.21 Spam relief coming [proposed limitation on junk e-mail], 732.

98.22 Sexual harassment requires discrimination based on sex [Title IX "hostile environment" casedismissed in Bosley v. Kearney: offensive behavior distinguished from discrimination based onsex; list of cases on whether Title IX holds schools accountable for student peer harassment],733.

98.27 Defining the law of sexual harassment [In Gebser et. al. v. Largo Vista Independent SchoolDistrict the Supreme Court held that a school would not be liable for sexual harassment of astudent by a teacher, unless school officials had "actual notice of, and [were] deliberatelyindifferent to, the teacher's misconduct"], 744.

98.28 Sexual harassment in the workplace [In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City ofBoca Raton the Supreme Court held that employers will be liable for the tangible, discriminatoryemployment actions of supervisors. However, in cases where a discriminatory "hostileenvironment" is created by a supervisor--but no tangible employment action is taken against aplaintiff employee--employers may escape liability by proving that they used "reasonable care toprevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior" and that "the plaintiff employeeunreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided bythe employer or to avoid harm otherwise"], 747.

98.38 Higher education amendments, part I [selections from amendments to the Family EducationalRights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and a non-binding "sense of Congress" statement on "BingeDrinking on College Campuses"; issues and suggested policies], 770.

98.39 Higher education amendments, part II [policy considerations that have to be addressed in light ofnew FERPA amendments; social forces prompting greater governmental intervention in campuslife; parental activism in shaping living and learning environments for students; sociologist AlanWolfe on "morality writ small;" "consensus conference" as a means to solicit communityperspectives], 773.

98.40 Fraternities and the "right of association" ["sense of Congress" statement on Protection ofStudent Speech and Association rights; review of court opinions defining scope of the "right ofintimate association"], 776.

98.41 Understanding and applying the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [interview withLeRoy Rooker, Director of the Family Policy Compliance Office for the U.S. Department ofEducation; editor's note on parental activism], 779.

98.42 Defining the scope of the ADA, part I [asymptomatic HIV can be a protected disability; "significantthreat" defined; no compensatory damages without proof of intentional discrimination; defendantmust have notice of the plaintiff's disabling condition; learning disability does not excuse plaintifffrom academic integrity regulations; decision not to allow students with learning disabilities tosubstitute other courses for a foreign language requirement did not violate the ADA], 782.

98.43 Defining the scope of the ADA, Part II [U.S. Civil Rights Commission critical of "misleading"news coverage; employers won 92 percent of ADA cases decided by judges, and 86 percent ofthe cases resolved by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; court critical of "pricklystudent who is using federal law as a weapon;" special issues to address when considering ADAcoverage; when issues of misconduct arise, focus should be on the behavior, not the disability;interview with attorney Jeanne M. Kincaid], 785.

98.44 Planning for December 31, 1999, part I [some Y2k-related problems may be overlooked; a mediastampede may be on the horizon, creating a sense of panic; Y2K not a matter not to be left in thehands of technicians; interview with Bryan Savage, Testing and Compliance Manager for theYear 2000 project of the Government of the District of Columbia], 788.

98.45 Planning for December 31, 1999, Part II, 791.

98.48 "Education records" narrowly defined in Maryland [in Kirwan v. The Diamondback, Maryland'shighest court held that FERPA did not preclude release of records related to student parkingoffenses--and perhaps all student disciplinary records], 800.

99.3 "Copyright law and the Internet: Law and policy issues in 1999" [an interview with Steven J. McDonald, Associate Legal Counsel at Ohio State University], 812].

99.4 Sexual harassment: Law and policy issues in 1999 [William Kaplin's analysis of two cases recently decided by or pending before the U.S. Supreme Court: Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education; impact of Jones v. Clinton ], 815.

99.5 The unpredictable fortunes of academic freedom [in Urofsky v. Gilmore the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a Virginia law restricting state employees from using state computers to access sexually explicit material; in Hoover v. Morales the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the rights of faculty members at public institutions to serve as expert witnesses in litigation against the state. Analysis by Diana Krejsa], 818.

99.6 Common sense and the ADA [in Montalvo v. Radcliffe the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Americans with Disabilities Act did not require a martial arts school to admit an HIV-positive boy, since the boy's condition posed a significant risk to other students-and no reasonable modification could significantly reduce the risk without fundamentally altering the school's program. Related research on the ADA by Barbara Lee shows that employers prevailed on the merits in 79 percent of federal appellate cases], 822.

99.8 Parents and student conduct [parents seek more structure for their children; proposed parental notification legislation in Maryland], 828.

99.10 EEOC policy guidance on "reasonable accommodation" [SWR commentary: students with disabilities may be held accountable for disciplinary violations; First Circuit opinion on disciplinary codes as "an integral aspect of a productive learning environment"], 831.

00.10 Protecting student privacy�and the college disciplinary process [decision in The Miami University v. the Chronicle of Higher Education rejected claim that personally identifiable information in student disciplinary records should be available to the public; court also found enforceable federal right under FERPA], 955.

00.19 Defining the limits of congressional power [In Brzonkala v. Morrision the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the private civil remedy provision in the Violence Against Women Act], 980.

01.16 Another reason why "e-mail privacy" is a contradiction in terms. [What‘s the best way to protect your e-mail privacy rights in the workplace, as defined by federal law? The current answer appears to be: Don't read your e-mail messages. Once you've read them, they're no longer being "transmitted," and aren't protected by the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). That's the current interpretation of the ECPA, reaffirmed on March 27, 2001 by a federal district court in Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (E.D. Penn. No. 98-CV-6726). ], 1097.

01.24 Defamation, invasion of privacy, and fundamental fairness in sexual misconduct cases. [Review of the Washington State Supreme Court decision in John Doe v. Gonzaga University; subsequently reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court], 2017.