The University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case in 1989 revolved around the issue of whether peer review materials used by universities to make tenure decisions could be subpoenaed by the EEOC as part of an investigation into alleged discrimination. The University argued that academic freedom protected these documents from disclosure, while the EEOC contended they were necessary for their investigations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the EEOC, stating that there was no scholarly privilege exemption under federal law which would protect such documents from being disclosed during an investigation into potential discriminatory practices. This decision underscored that institutions cannot use claims of academic freedom to shield themselves from scrutiny over possible violations of anti-discrimination laws.

In the dissenting opinion for University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Justice Blackmun argued that academic freedom should not exempt universities from providing peer review materials in discrimination cases. He contended that the majority's decision was based on an overbroad interpretation of "academic freedom," which could potentially shield discriminatory practices under its guise. Furthermore, he pointed out that other professional fields also have confidential peer evaluations and yet are still subject to EEOC inquiries. Therefore, there is no compelling reason why academia should be treated differently. Moreover, he emphasized that federal courts already have mechanisms in place to prevent unnecessary disclosure or misuse of sensitive information during litigation processes; thus making it possible to balance both interests - preventing discrimination and preserving confidentiality within academic institutions.