You are on page 1of 4

Briana McNeil EDLD 8431 May 10, 2013 Final Exam

Directions: Read the fact pattern below and identify as many legal issues as you can. For each issue, (1) identify the issue, (2) explain the rule that applies to the issue, (3) analyze the application of the rule to the facts here and (4) state a conclusion regarding how the rule should be applied to the facts. 1. Sally Student, a freshman, attends Big State University, which is a public 4-year institution. The school requires all freshmen to live on campus, even though Sally would rather live off campus with her older brother, who is a senior.

The issue raised is whether or not universities can deny students free choice to live off campus and require them to live on campus. The prevailing view of the courts is that such parietal rules of universities requiring students to live and dine on campus are constitutionally valid. A state universitys regulation of student housing, eating, and student life is a vital part of a states interest in assuring that college-age citizens are properly educated (Alexander, 2011). A federal district court in Oklahoma held that the state, by virtue of its interest in education, well-being, morals, health, safety and convenience of its youth has the power to provide university housing facilities for students and has the attendant power to promulgate over-all rules providing for payment of the facilities (Alexander, 2011). Sally is not allowed to live with her older brother because the school requires freshman students to live on campus. The fact that her brother is a senior has nothing to do with Sally. She must abide by the school regulations and policies. Therefore, a university can deny a students choice to live off campus if their denial is based on the students best interest. In this situation, the school has the right to require freshman students to live on campus because students do not have a fundamental constitutional right to live off campus (Alexander, 2011). Sally must live on campus her freshman year of school because Big State University requires it and feels that it is in her best interest to do so.
2. Sally is having a hard time adjusting because her best friend, Robin Reject, was not admitted to Big State and is stuck in their hometown going to the community college. Big State has a policy that students are admitted on the basis of scholarship, charac ter, and motivation without regard to race, creed, or sex. The girls are unsure of why Robin was rejected and Sally was accepted because they had similar high school grades and activities.

The issue raised here is whether or not the school was in breach of contract by not accepting Robin Reject. A contract is an agreement between competent parties, upon a consideration, sufficient in law, to do or not to do a particular thing. An offer, an acceptance and consideration are basic ingredients of a contract. Consideration is a basic element for the existence of a contract; any act or promise which is of benefit to one party or disadvantage to the other is sufficient consideration to support a contract. A contract requires a meeting of the minds, that is, both parties understand what they are agreeing to (Alexander, 2011). Robin agreed to the terms of the being considered for admission into the university. Robin agreed to submit all applicable materials and submit an application fee. The school agreed to review and consider the application. The school has the right to reject or not accept any student since they never agreed to accept any student. They agreed to review and use its admission policy to determine what students to accept for admission. An agreement entails an offer and an acceptance. Every valid

Briana McNeil EDLD 8431 May 10, 2013 Final Exam contract contains an offer and acceptance. For example, a university offers a student admission. There is no agreement unless and until the student accepts the offer. An offer, an acceptance and consideration are basic ingredients of a contract (Alexander, 2011). Therefore, the school was not in breach of contract as there was no contract established in the first place. We do not know the reasons why Robin Reject was not offered admission to the university but I am sure she was given a fair chance. If Robin would like to know why she was not admitted she has the right to contact the school.
3. Sally is also upset because she spent a lot of time writing an in-depth article for the extracurricular student newspaper about the arrest of Pete Professor, a prominent member of the faculty, while he was participating in a march for animal rights. Sally even discovered that the school fired Dr. Professor immediately, even though he has tenure.

The issue here is whether or not the dismissal of the tenured professor immediately was in violation of any of his rights. The rule regarding tenured faculty and termination is very clear. Tenured faculty can only be dismissed by following certain statutory procedural steps, and any deviation from the procedures invalidates the dismissal. The procedures generally contain the following procedural requirements: (1) The faculty committee is to be given notice in writing of the proposed dismissal in sufficient time to ensure an opportunity to prepare for a hearing, (2) the teacher is to reply in writing within a given time whether he wishes to have a hearing, (3) a hearing is given the faculty member during which he should have an opportunity to testify and present evidence and witnesses and hear and question adverse witnesses, (4) the results of the hearing are made to the faculty member for possible appeal to the courts (Alexander, 2011). Also, Before Pickering, 1968, professors and school teachers were hesitant to become too much involved in politics for fear that they would be penalized or even dismissed for such activities. Teachers may not constitutionally be compelled to relinquish First Amendment rights they would otherwise enjoy as citizens to comment on matters of public interest in connection with operation of public schools in which they work. Comments by teachers on matters of public concern that are substantially correct may not furnish grounds for dismissal even though they are critical in tone. Absent any proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by a teacher, the teachers exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish basis for his dismissal from public employment (Alexander, 2011). Dr. Professors involvement with animal rights activities should not have led to his dismissal both because he has a right to express his views on matters of public concern and he is a tenured professor. The court must weigh the employees interest in speaking on matters of public concern against the states interest in providing efficient public services. Speech or expression exercised by a public employee, not as a citizen, concerning matters of private or personal interest upon matters of public concern is not protected by the First Amendment (Alexander, 2011). As long as the professor was speaking as a citizen and not as a public school employee his rights should be protected.

Briana McNeil EDLD 8431 May 10, 2013 Final Exam The tenured faculty has grounds to sue the school. The school should have followed the procedural steps to properly dismiss Dr. Professor and made sure his rights were protected. Since they did not, the school should follow the policies they have in place for dismissal of a tenured professor and give him his time in court.
4. Arnold Advisor, who is the faculty advisor to the student newspaper, personally called Sally to his office and strongly suggested that she withdraw her article before publication. He said that the school could be sued if the article were published. Sally isnt sure if that is true, but she felt compelled to withdraw her masterpiece from the upcoming issue because she is taking a class taught by Dr. Advisor next semester and she was afraid he would fail her if she printed the article.

There are two issues here in this situation. First, the first issue relates to the first amendment rights of Sally and the threat of retaliation. The major purpose of the First Amendment guarantee of free press is to prevent prior restraint (Alexander, 2011). Tinker established that students retain their First Amendment rights when in a public school, and that such rights cannot be restrained or taken away unless school administrators can reasonably foresee that exercise of the rights will cause substantial and material disruption to the school (Alexander, 2011). Sally has a right to publish a story concerning any issue she feels is relevant upon approval from the faculty. However, Dr. Advisor does have the right to stop her article from being published in the student newspaper. Public school officials do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities, as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns (Alexander, 2011). If the school published her article in the newspaper and it could potentially harm the school or make the school look bad then they can stop the article form being published. Therefore, Dr. Advisor must protect the school and exercise his right to have control what gets published in the student newspaper. The fact is also an example of retaliation that may involve a teacher and student relationship. In this situation a student may have to complain about a professor. Sally has written an article and has been told by Dr. Advisor that the school could be sued if it were published. Sally feels the need to withdraw her paper because she is afraid that if she does not she may face retaliation from Dr. Advisor the next semester. A student should be free from fear of retaliation under any circumstance. The school should enact policies that will discourage this type of environment. 5. On top of everything else, Sally was publicly humiliated in class this week when her math
professor, Ina Instructor, posted her test answers with her name visible on the screen in front of the class and announced, Those of you who are struggling as badly as Sally here better think about whether you need to drop this class now, while you can withdraw without academic penalty!

The issue raised here is FERPA compliance. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) imposes upon universities a direct obligation not to disclose education records (Alexander, 2011). Under FERPA, universities cannot release information containing personally identifiable information without prior consent from the

Briana McNeil EDLD 8431 May 10, 2013 Final Exam student or parent (Alexander, 2011). This situation is most definitely a violation of FERPA. The purpose of FERPA is to protect the privacy of a students educational record. In this situation, the students privacy of her grade was not protected. Here, the instructor should have gained permission from Sally before announcing her test answers and grade on the screen in front of the entire class. The instructor could have made the same point about dropping the class without mentioning any one of the students name in class. Therefore, the instructor is in violation of FERPA and can face legal consequences. The instructor also puts the institution at risk for legal action is the family chooses to address the issue. The school needs to address the instructor as well as the violation of FERPA with all faculty and staff. Maybe the school can conduct a workshop where staff and faculty can learn more about things like FERPA and how to take appropriate measures inside and outside the classroom.
6. All in all, Sally is wondering why she even came to Big State in the first place. She is so stressed out that she has been openly talking in her residence hall about wanting to hurt herself. Her residence hall advisor, Cammie Concerned, is worried about Sally and isnt sure what to do. Cammie has considered calling Sallys parents and sharing her concerns. She is also thinking about reporting Sallys behavior to Big States crisis intervention team. Cammie has offered to take Sally to the counseling center and has also asked Sally to come to church with her next Sunday, but Sally has refused both offers.

The issue raised here is whether or not Cammie has a responsibility to share the information of Sally wanting to hurt herself with her parents and the school. In the case Jain v. The State of Iowa the issue arose of whether or not the duty of negligence lied with the school. The court decided that there was no legally recognized relationship existed between the university and the plaintiff. According to this case the university has voluntarily adopted a policy of notifying parents when a student engages in selfdestructive behavior (Alexander, 2011). Although the university has this policy in place the student counselor along with the dean and university at their discretion have the right to use their own judgment as to what is best. Generally, there exists no duty requiring an individual to protect another person from self-inflicted harm in the absence of a special relationship (Alexander, 2011). My understanding is that it is based on school policy and procedures and whether or not a legally binding relationship has been established. In this situation Cammie should share this information with the schools crisis intervention team. It will be then be up to the intervention team and school to decide what steps to take next based on their policies and regulations. The school must decide whether or not to talk to Sallys parents or to hold that information until more information from Sally can be obtained.