G U BERN A TO RIAL ELEC TION
Ruling on sex bias may cause financial problems
BY LARRY TUCK
Staff Writer
Although proposed federal rules outlawing discrimination against women in schools will improve some areas, some provisions may cause financial difficulties for universities, Barbara Pearson, director of Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action, said in a recent interview.
The university will recommend to the Department of Health. Education and Welfare that three sections of the regulations be changed. They deal with benefits for part-time employees, scholarships and pregnancy leaves and benefits.
The proposed rules are intended to implement Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972 which reads, “No person in the United States shall on the basis of sex .... be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Universities were invited to submit their suggestions for changes in the regulations, which will be revised before final approval. The deadline for comments is Oct. 15.
“No one is arguing with the basic premise that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of sex. but there are problems of interpretation,” Pearson
said.
One of these problems involves equalization of fringe benefits such as insurance. Because a disproportionate number of part-time employees at many universities are women, HEW interprets this section to mean that all part-time employees must receive the same benefits as full-time employees.
The cost of providing these benefits to all employees, however, is likely to be so high that some ofthe benefits will have to be discontinued entirely, Pearson said.
Insurance rates for full-time employees, for instance, may have to be raised to offset the additional cost of providing equal service for part-time employees.
Another section ofthe regulations requires that pregnancy be treated the same as any other temporary disability and that the same kind of sick leave and other benefits must be provided.
Pearson said that because the California Supreme Court ruled that pregnancy may be treated under separate rules, this point needs to be clarified.
Thethird problem deals with a section specifying that sex may not be used as a criterion in the selection of scholarship recipients.
Many scholarships offered here and at other universities
Stanford tickets on sale
Student rooter tickets for the USC-Stanford football game at Palo Alto Nov. 9 are on sale today through Friday at the Ticket Office, Student Union 200.
Unreserved rooter seating will be $3.25 to holders of student season tickets. One activity book punch card will be required for each ticket purchased.
Reserved tickets are available to the public at $4.00_^
are specifically designated for one sex or the other. Often these requirements had been established by donors who are now dead, and these requirements cannot be changed. It is possible that the scholarship money could not be used at all.
Pearson said that if scholarships may not be awarded on the basis of sex, then race should not be used either. This could result in the loss of scholarships for minority students.
Even though the federal rules have been the source of some complications, there has been some good fallout, such as increased interest in giving better quality to women’s sports, Pearson said.
Spending for women’s athletics has increased from $11,000 last year to $100,000 this year. There are now seven full-time coaches for women’s sports at
(Continued on page 6)
. ■
mm*
MAKING A POINT—Edwin Koupal, founder ofthe People's Lobby, spoke to a Political Science 100 class about the need for an amendment to the Constitution that would let the people draft and vote on their own laws. He said this could be a reality by 1976. DT photo by Bob Chavez.
CITIZENS WOULD DRAFT LAWS
Lobby seeks legislative reform
BY KEN COOPER
A 27th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow citizens to draft and vote on their own laws is being proposed by the People’s Lobby, Edwin Koupal, the organization’s director, said Monday in a speech at Founders Hall.
Koupal, who started the People’s Lobby in 1968, said that its goal is to make the initiative process of lawmaking available on a national level by 1976.
Koupal told the students in Political Science 100 that the initiative is a necessary alternative to the nation’s present means of legislating.
He called the initiative process a “legislative end run” which would help bring an isolated public back to the heart of self-government.
“For the first time in history, a magnifyingglass is on the whole horrible mess in D.C., and through that glass we see that you and I are left out,” he said.
“W’e have more right to write laws than (the legislators) do because we’re the employers and they’re the employees.”
Koupal criticized the delays involved in changing laws by changing or pressuring representatives: “Our wants and needs are on a much more immediate daily basis.”
With the initiative process, a group of citizens must submit a copy of their proposed law to the Attorney General and pay a $200 fee. The Attorney General has ten days to submit a summary of no more than 100 words to the legislature.
The sponsors ofthe law then have a maximum of five months to obtain the signatures of at least 5% of the number of people registered to vote in the last gubernatorial election.
W’hen this last requirement is met, the proposed law is voted on in the next state election. If passed, it goes directly into the statute books, and only by the same process can it be altered or removed.
Through the initiative process, the People’s Lobby produced the Political Reform Act of 1974. It has also waged campaigns concerning F-310 advertising, ex-Lt. Gov. Ed Reinccke’s right to remain in office, the Standard Oil Company’s wide-spread use of pesticides, and is currently opposing proposition A—mass transit funding—arguing that the motion is not backed by a solid plan.
Koupal said that the organization is more than just reactionary. He preferred “actionary” to describe its desire to complain while offering potential solutions to problems.
University of Southern California
Vol. LXVII, No. 17	Los Angeles, California	Tuesday, October 8, 1974
dean acts as campaign arbiter
BY MARJIE LAMBERT
Assistant Editor
“The arbitrator shall also have the authority to inspect demand copies, and subpoena records, agreements, bills, and reports whenever he deems that such action is reasonably required for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of any reports relating to any expenditures subject to the spending limitation agreement.” —Campaign spending agreement between gubernatorial candidates
The role of arbitrator between Edmund G. Brown. Jr. and Houston Flournoy, gubernatorial candidates, is a powerful one. It will undoubtedly help determine the future of campaign spending laws. That role is being played by Dorothy W. Nelson. dean of the Law Center.
A 17-page agreement signed by both candidates on July 26 limits the funds they can spend on their advertising campaign, and lists the six debates they will have.
The spending agreements were reached in an effort to comply with the Political Reform Act which the voters approved in June, although the measure has not yet taken effect.
As arbitrator. Nelson is responsible for seeing that the candidates do not overspend their limits—$900.000—on expenses related to television, radio, newspaper and magazine advertisements. statewide mailings, recorded telephone messages and billboards.
Brown and Flournoy are required to file reports on spending with Nelson Oct. 10, 21, 25, and every day thereafter, and the media have been asked to send copies of any bills related to such expenditures to Nelson.
Should either candidate overspend. Nelson has the power to impose sanctions on him, including directing him to cancel space or time already contracted for.
Although she is not paid, Nelson is authorized to hire anyone she deems necessary to fulfill her function. She has hired two law students who are certified public accountants to review the reports and investigate spending practices by the candidates.
Nelson said she has had complete cooperation from both parties as well as the media. “I find they are only too anxious to participate and cooperate,” she said.
Nelson sees herself in a reviewing role, not a policing role, and said that the candidates would watch each other for infractions.
One of the main reasons Nelson~took the job, however, was to see whether it is possible to regulate campaign spending as delineated in Proposition 9.
“I wanted to see what potential there was for enforcement of Proposition 9. No one has had this experience before,” she said.
(Continued on page 5)
Daily
Trojan
Law Center
DOROTHY W. NELSON