Testing for unequal variances is usually performed in order to check the validity of the assumptions that underlie standard tests for differences between means (the t-test and anova). However, existing methods for testing for unequal variances (Levene's test and Bartlett's test) are notoriously non-robust to normality assumptions, especially for small sample sizes. Moreover, although these methods were designed to deal with one hypothesis at a time, modern applications (such as to microarrays and fMRI experiments) often involve parallel testing over a large number of levels (genes or voxels). Moreover, in these settings a shift in variance may be biologically relevant, perhaps even more so than a change in the mean. This paper proposes a parsimonious model for parallel testing of the equal variance hypothesis. It is designed to work well when the number of tests is large; typically much larger than the sample sizes. The tests are implemented using an empirical Bayes estimation procedure which `borrows information' across levels. The method is shown to be quite robust to deviations from normality, and to substantially increase the power to detect differences in variance over the more traditional approaches even when the normality assumption is valid.