The impact of the Supreme Court decision in the National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University case is considered in this literature analysis. This landmark decision held that the full-time faculty members at the private Yeshiva University exercised supervisory and managerial functions and were therefore not entitled to the benefits of collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The immediate effect of the Supreme Court's ruling on Yeshiva University itself was to suspend, if not terminate, the unionization of the faculty. Although a total of over 20 private colleges and universities have broken off negotiations or refused to bargain with faculty unions, there has not been a widespread movement by college administrations to claim immunity from collective bargaining under the NLRA. The most likely course for the future is judicial rather than legislative or administrative, and the most likely result of this case-by-case approach is a fairly narrow and gradual application of the Supreme Court's holding in Yeshiva. There is not likely to be very much impact of the decision on public colleges and universities. It is suggested that the significant role of faculty in academic affairs, and their relatively minor influence upon economic matters is congruent with a dual track approach. Under this approach shared authority and faculty senates can be preserved in the academic area, and faculty collective bargaining units are allowed, but the scope of bargaining is strictly limited. The role of the professional literature in the legal decisions is considered. (SW)