Running head: FINAL 1

FINAL 5FINAL

Issue: The issue is whether Big State University violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when they initially denied and then admitted Samuel, a Caucasian male, due to an affirmative action complaint.Rule: State universities are constrained under the Equal Protection Clause in their admissions process however, they may use other methods and procedures to create a diverse student body if the methods are narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests as decided inGrutter v. Bollinger.Analysis: Samuels mother would argue that Big State is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause based on her knowledge that African American students with lower GPAs and SAT scores than Samuel were admitted. Her argument would be that these students the Admissions Office made their decisions based on race, as Samuel is more qualified for acceptance based on merit than the other African American students. Samuels mothers argument can be supported by the fact that the Admissions Office changed Samuels decision to that of admit when his mother, an attorney, wrote a letter to the office questioning the policies.The Admissions Office would first argue that the policy states students are admitted on the basis of scholarship, character, and motivation without regard to race, creed, or sex. They would then argue that based on Grutter v. Bollinger, they are not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause as they have narrowly tailored their admission standards to further a compelling governmental interest. Conclusion: Although Samuel was admitted to Big State, the university would probably win the case if they can prove that they narrowly tailor their admissions procedures. However, if the Admissions Office cannot demonstrate a compelling governmental interest, then Samuel would win the case and the Admission procedures at Big State would have to be altered to adhere to the Equal Protection Clause.

Issue: The issue is whether Big State University entered into a contract with Samuel when the Dean of Admissions offered Samuel the opportunity to be the institutions mascot, the Red Rover.Rule: A contract between a student and a university must conform to the requirements of general contract law as well as meet other statutory and case law demands: consists of an offer and acceptance, be between competent persons, supported by consideration, involve legal subject matter, and be in proper form.Analysis: Samuel would argue that by offering him the opportunity to be the university mascot in the fall, that the university entered into a contract with him and that they must adhere to it.Big State would argue that they offered the opportunity to Samuel but that a contract was not entered into because the contract was not in proper form. In addition, the mascot falls under the jurisdiction of Athletics and that Samuel can work with that office to become the university mascotConclusion: Big State would win this case, as there is not enough evidence to support a contract between Samuel and the Director of Admissions in reference to an offer to be the university mascot. In addition, the contract is not in proper form and therefore null and void.

Issue: The issue is whether Big State University is obligated to provide special accommodations based on the Americans with Disability Act when the student, Samuel, mother provided information pertaining to his disabilities of ADHD and Tourette Syndrome.Rule: The Americans with Disability Act Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 defines a disability as a mental, physical or emotional impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. Postsecondary institutions are not required to provide the same accommodations as set forth in a students IEP or 504 Plan, however they must protect the students right to privacy and confidentiality through the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as well as abide by ADA and Section 504 rules and regulations. Analysis: Samuels mother would argue that Big State should have made accommodations for Samuel based on the information that she provided.Big State would argue that because students who attend their institution are considered independent adults, they must self identify themselves as having a disability, which includes disclosing all information to the appropriate office. Students are also protected by FERPA, which means that the student must advocate for themselves and not their parent.Conclusion: Big State is required to adhere to ADA and Section 504 rules and regulations, but can only provide accommodations to provide access once a student self identifies their disability. Because Samuel is considered an adult to Big State, Samuels mother will need to discuss the importance of submitting his paperwork to the disability office to determine if he is in need of special accommodations as FERPA protects Samuels confidential information.

Issue: The issue is whether the campus group called The Walking Red can limit the membership to the organization when they state that membership is open only to male students.Rule: The U.S. Constitution guarantees Freedom of association. Furthermore, as a recognized student organization, student groups on public campuses are held to the same standards of the university, including intent to discriminate as in the Hastings Law School case. Some student organizations such as fraternities and sororities may be exempt under Title IX, gender.Analysis: The student organization would argue that they are only allowing male members to prevent any injury to female members due to the violent nature of the organization. Big State University would argue that as a registered student organization, The Walking Red group could not deny female students membership to the organization under Title IX, as they fall under the institutions jurisdiction. Conclusion: Unless the The Walking Red alters their bylaws to include all students to provide equal opportunity and freedom from discrimination, Big State University has the right to not recognize the student organization as a result; the organization is exempt from university funding, use of facilities, sponsorship, etc.

Issue: The issue is whether Samuel and his friends are infringing on copyright laws when they offer free screens of epic zombie movies in their residence hall rooms.Rule: Copyright law protects literary and artistic expression, including movies, and gives the author the right to prevent separate and independent creation of a similar or even identical work. In addition, fair use of copyrighted materials allows some use of materials by those who are not the copyright holder.Analysis: Samuel would argue that he is not infringing on copyright laws because he and his friends showed the movies for free and in his residence hall. He would also argue that he was not making any money off of the copyrighted material.Big State would argue that although they offered free screenings of the movie, they are still violating copyright laws; the students advertised for the screening without gaining permission to do so.Conclusion: Big State would win this case. However, if Samuel and his friends want to screen pre-approved movies in conjunction with the department teaching the course, then copyright permission would have already been gained. But if Samuel is going to advertise for screenings of these epic zombie movies, he will need acquire proper copyright permission.

Issue: The issue is whether Samuel shouting the word die during a presentation is considered a true threat and action should be taken as a precautionRule: A true threat lies outside the speech protection of the Constitution and is a statement that a reasonable recipient would interpret as something serious and as an intent to cause harm or injury another.Analysis: Vickie Vigilant will argue that Samuels outburst of the word die is a threat to her and the class and that their safety is compromised. Samuel will argue that he did not shout, die as a threat to the class and that his has the freedom to speak out in class based on the Frist Amendment.Conclusion: Because of the word die being shouted during the class and that one of the students felt threatened, Samuel would lose this case, as universities must take threats by students very seriously. However, Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District has helped set forth a non-exhaustive five-part test to help aide university officials with evaluating threats and if they may be considered a true threat of violence that is not protected speech.

Issue: The issue is whether Big State University Police had the right to search Samuels residence hall room when a fellow student reported that she had heard Samuel talk about having weapons in his possession. Rule: The Fourth Amendment provides citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, however, public institutions have justified reasoning for lower standards of privacy for students as administrators are responsible for maintaining discipline, health and safety of the students.Analysis: Samuel would argue that the University Police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching and seizing some of his possessions from his residence hall room without his consent.Big State University would argue that there was reasonable suspicion to search Samuels residence hall room, as there was belief that he was in possession of weapons that may be harmful to the health and safety of students on campus.Conclusion: Big State University did have a right to search Samuels residence hall room. Although it did not turn up any weapons as suspected, other prohibited items were discovered and disciplinary action from Housing may follow, but Samuel would not be charged with possession of harmful weapons.

Issue: The issue is whether Samuels FERPA rights were violated when Dr. Laura Lecturer left disciplinary notes about Samuel, including his Rover ID number, in sight of a student who after reading the note, decided that they would compose a story about Samuel for the school newspaper.Rule: FERPA pertains to a students educational records rights and at the post secondary level, these rights are afforded to the student rather than the parent. Student records in the form of criminal investigation records are excluded from FERPA as decided in Bauer v. Kincaid, and are therefore available to the public.Analysis: Samuel would argue that his FERPA rights were violated as Dr. Lecturer provided access to his personal and educational records by leaving his Rover ID and name with notes about a disciplinary action out in plain sight.Dr. Lecturer would argue that Edward Editor does not have a right to publish the story about Samuel as the notes she took pertain to the students disciplinary record and is not considered a criminal activity, and therefore would be in violation of FERPA.Edward Editor would argue that he does have a First Amendment right to speech and to publish the story if there is a criminal investigation record on Samuel Conclusion: If Samuels disciplinary action is considered criminal activity, then Edward does have a right to release the story in the school newspaper. However, if it is not, then printing the story will be deemed unconstitutional. Also, Dr. Lecturer would be found in violation of FERPA by providing identifiable information without prior consent from the student.

Issue: The issue is whether Big State violated Dr. Lecturers First Amendment rights by eliminating her class on the History of Zombie Film to something considered more normal.Rule: As ruled in Bradley v. Pittsburgh Board of Education, no court has found that teachers First Amendment rights extend to choosing their own curriculum or classroom management techniques in contravention of school policy or dictates.Analysis: Dr. Lecturer would argue that her First Amendment rights are violated because she is not allowed to control the content of her curriculum.Big State would argue that they have not violated Dr. Lecturers First Amendment rights as it has a right to regulate the content of what is or is not expressed in the content and education it provides. Big State is not preventing Dr. Lecturer from speaking about her views on the History of Zombie Film as a citizen, but as an instructor of a state university, she must abide by university content-based decisions.Conclusion: Big State would win this case based on the ruling from Edwards v California University of Pennsylvania in which a professor does not have academic freedom First Amendment rights to choose classroom materials and subjects in contravention of the universitys dictates. And since the department chair has informed Dr. Lecturer that the content of the class is inappropriate, and will be removed from the curriculum, Dr. Lecturer must abide.

Issue: The issue is whether Dr. Lecturer could fire Edward Editor, a student assistant, when he gathered and planned to use some student information from her desk.Rule: Failure to allow the opportunity for a hearing would violate the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process if the respondent could show that they had an expectancy of reemployment as in Perry v. Sindermann.Analysis: Dr. Lecturer would argue that Edward doe not have the right to procedural due process because the position is not one of reemployment.Edward would argue that he could not be fired base on retaliation for his exercise of free speech for wanting to use the student information in a newspaper article.Conclusion: Both parties have strong cases, but because this case is dealing with a student assistant as opposed to a full-time instructor, it is difficult to say who would win this case. It would be best to refer to the student assist code/handbook and contract that was developed when Edward begin his position with Dr. Lecturer.

Issue: The issue is whether Samuel should have been immediately dismissed from Big State when he was brought before the judicial office for threating statements and violations of the housing rules.Rule: A student has a right to notice and a hearing in university disciplinary proceeding when the charges could lead to suspension or expulsion as established in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education.Analysis: Big State judicial office would argue that there is substantial evidence for the dismissal of Samuel based on his educational disciplinary records of threating statements and violations of the housing rules.Samuel would argue that he has a right to Procedural Due Process before he can be dismissed. This would include the right to notice, oral hearings, evidence, crossexamination, and fairness.Conclusion: Samuel would win a case against Big State and his dismissal. Big State would be found in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by not allowing Procedural Due Process to Samuel in reference to his dismissal. In accordance with Dixon, Big State would have to provide fair and reasonable opportunity to Samuel to make is defense to his charges and to receive a hearing if applicable to both the school and he.

Issue: The issue is whether Samuel has access to the said threats that he made, which are resulting in his immediate dismissal from Big StateRule: A student at a publicly funded institution is afforded the right to Procedural Due Process before being dismissed as well as they have a right to view their educational disciplinary records through FERPA regulations.Analysis: Big State judicial office would argue that Samuel does not have to know what the threats were that he is being charged with, as they were considered harmful to the health and safety of students on campus. Big State is also concerned with releasing any information that might lead Samuel to the student who turned him in for the threats.Samuel would argue that based on FERPA, he has a right to his educational records, which includes disciplinary records. He would also state that Big State must meet certain requirements of Procedural Due Process, which defined through Dixon, Due, and Esteban would include that prior to the hearing, Samuel should be given a list of witnesses and a copy of their statement or complaints, along with other evidence, and affidavits which the university intends to submit against him.Conclusion: Big States actions would be found arbitrary and in violation of Samuels right to Procedural Due Process.

Issue: The issue is whether Big State University police were within their jurisdiction to force protestors to leave when they began to disrupt the orderly flow of campus traffic during a protest on campus.Rule: Students at public institution have a constitutional right of association to organize and join campus groups however; their freedom of speech, expression and association cannot be disruptive to the university. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is an integral case to students ability to association. In addition, student speech that surpasses passive speechmaking can be limited or stopped if they escalate into disruption or substantial disorder.Analysis: The protestors would argue that they have a constitutional right to assembly, association and free speech and that the University police violated their constitutional rights when they forced the protestors to leave.The University Police would argue that they did not violate any of the students constitutional rights as they were trying to protect the students for their own safety from vehicular traffic. In addition, the University Police and other officials could argue that the students were causing a substantial disruption on the campus.Conclusion: The University Police did not violate the students right of expression and dissent as their protest escalated into a disruptive assembly that interfered with the appropriate discipline of the school. In addition, a students right to free speech cannot prevent access to campus facilities, which resulted from the overflow of students into the street

ReferencesAlexander K.W. and Alexander K. (2011), Higher education law: Policy and perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge

J GoreJ Gore