- Plaintiffs always have a choice of filing their lawsuits in state or federal court without regard to their cause of action.
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 US 78 (1978) and Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 US 214 (1985), both stand for which of the following principles? Choose the best answer.
|A.||students subject to dismissal for academic reasons always are entitled to a hearing in order to satisfy due process requirements|
|B.||colleges and universities are well advised to afford students subject to academic dismissal opportunities to retake qualifying or other high stakes examinations required to fulfill graduation requirements|
|C.||academic institutions, not courts, are best equipped to made academic evaluations so long as they are made conscientiously and consistent with the institution’s policies|
|D.||Students who are punished for misconduct are entitled to due process.|
- Students at public institutions have a First Amendment right to organize and join student groups. Students at Central Connecticut State College attempted to form a chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). When the President did not approve the students’ application for recognition as a student group, they filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging a denial of their First Amendment free expression and free association rights. The Supreme Court in Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), determined that: [select from among the following choices]
|A.||all students are free to associate as they please and are free to engage in peaceful advocacy and, therefore, the application to recognize this student group had to be approved.|
|B.||the President had a good faith belief and a legitimate basis to conclude based on the evidence before him that the students posed a substantial threat of material disruption to the campus and that they would not engage in disruptive activity and, thus, the student petition for recognition was properly denied.|
|C.||the First Amendment does not recognize the freedom of association and, therefore, the SDS group on campus was not entitled to recognition.|
|D.||while several reasons for the President denying recognition to this student group were inadequate to support his decision to deny recognition, it was permissible to deny recognition until it was determined whether the student group would affirm in advance its willingness to adhere to reasonable school rules regarding conduct.|
- Constitutional provisions limit what the government can do, not what private institutions can do.
- From the perspective of most faculty members, the decision in Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000) was a positive outcome.
- A cause of action is:
|A.||a legally acceptable reason for bringing a lawsuit|
|B.||the reason that juries decide as they do|
|C.||the charge against the defendant in a criminal case|
|D.||the jurisdiction in which one files a civil lawsuit|
- Common law refers to the statutes enacted by Congress
- Mandatory student fees are a common feature of higher education. These fees fund a variety of academic and extracurricular activities and initiatives. In Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000), the Supreme Court examined a mandatory nonrefundable student activity fee at the University that plaintiffs objected to paying because the fee funded political and ideological expression that was offensive to their personal beliefs. The Court held that the University could charge mandatory student fees so long as the principle of “viewpoint neutrality” applied. The Court said that when a university “requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students it may not prefer some viewpoints to others.” 529 U.S. at 233.
Respond to both of the following:
ANALYSIS: Describe the significant policy rationale (not the holding) relating to the mission of higher education that the Court discussed in its decision permitting the University of Wisconsin to charge the student activity fee. (worth up to 2 points)
OPINION: Do you agree with the Court’s discussion of this policy rationale? Why or why not? (This is where I am asking for your own personal opinion of the policy rationale articulated by the Supreme Court.) (worth up to 2 points)
- The thesis discussed in the article “Kneecapping” Academic Freedom by Robert R. Kuehn and Peter A Joy is which one of the following? Choose the best answer. Be careful. This is a close one. But one of the answers is better than the others.
- state legislatures properly may exercise oversight of law school clinics in public universities to assure that there is proper accountability for the expenditure of public funds
- clinical legal education and service learning opportunities provide valuable experience for students and should not be subjected to interference by political forces or by economic interests that may be challenged by these educational activities.
- governmental intrusion into the teaching and discussion of controversial topics in college classrooms is not a positive development for the education of America’s college students
- academic freedom is at risk where clinical legal education and service learning opportunities are threatened or curtailed at the behest of political or corporate interests
- Private institutions are always required to provide constitutional due process protections before imposing student discipline.