Final Exam

IRAC

Priyal Morjaria

Issue: Should Sportsman Bible Group be recognized as an official student organization?

Sportsman Bible Group is a student organization recognized by Big State University and it
accepts members that are interested in hunting sports and bible study.
Rule: Big State University recognizes SBG as a student organization which in turn provides the
organization with funding from Big State University.
Analysis: Some students may not agree with Sportsman Bible Groups ideologies and beliefs.
Abby Activists did not agree to university funding for a religious group that uses firearms;
however like many other faith, sport or cultural based organizations does SBG not have the right
to be recognized as a student organization?
Conclusion: In the case of Widmar v. Vincent the court ruled that a university remains a public
forum when it allows student organizations the freedom of expression. Big State University
cannot discriminate against SBG for religious freedom and expression. The court assessed that a
public university generally possesses most of the characteristics of a public forum even if its a
limited public forum. With regards to the use of rifles other student organizations such as the
men and womens rifle teams also use rifles.

Issue: Is requiring students to forgo sleep as initiation into a student organization not considered
a form of hazing? For an entire week pledges of SBG are not allowed to sleep more than 3 hrs.
This occurs during initiation week.
Rule: The Sportsman Bible Group at Big State University has an initiation period for new
members. The SBG president rents off campus housing where new members are required to stay
for a week. Members are not allowed to sleep more than 3 hours; however they are not put in any
other physical danger.
Analysis: The SBG initiation period seems innocent since sleep deprivation is the only thing that
they impose on willing members. Some may even state that they require students to complete
tasks related to community volunteering and bible study. Whats the harm in that?
Conclusion: Even though the current members of SBG dont think that they are putting initiating
members in harms way if a student is hurt, hospitalized or dies and sleep deprivation plays a
role in this then due to tort laws the group could be held as being negligent. SBG should
restructure their initiation process so that members are not put through hazing like situations.
Issues: Should a students letter be shared with an entire team with her name included? Abby
wrote a letter to the SBG advisor regarding her opinions on the organization. The letter was
shared with several team members.

Final Exam

IRAC

Priyal Morjaria

Rule: Abby Activist has a constitutional right to freedom of speech. She can share her views on
the SBG organization to the advisor as long as her letter does not show proof of any clear and
present danger.
Analysis: Abby did not nothing wrong by writing a letter to the SBG advisor; however the
advisor shared that information to other students. Abby Activists should have a right to privacy.
Conclusion: The SBG Advisor shouldve spoken to Abby privately regarding her concerns and
made it known to her that the University is complying to all legal and constitutional standards
instead of sharing her information with other students along with her name. An act like this could
motivate other students to defame the student.
Issue: Can Brian and other students publically rebuke Abby for making a stand? Brian and
several other team members posted remarks on Abbys Facebook page rebuking her for sending
the letter.
Rule: Defamation Law states that defamation is considered communication where an
individuals reputation is put on line and effort has been made to damage their esteem, respect
and confidence.
Analysis: Brian and some of his teammates publically humiliated Abby with their posts on her
Facebook wall. Even if they never intended to harm Abbys reputation their act of posting
something on her Facebook wall could be considered defamation.
Conclusion: Brian and the other students that posted rebuking remarks on Abbys personal
Facebook wall should be reprimanded for their behavior. The correct and necessary steps should
be taken against these students however these steps should be taken with all legal precautions
taken.
Issue: Should the womens rifle team and mens rifle team be given equal accommodations?
Abby reported to the Title IX coordinator regarding the differences in the mens and womens
rifle teams. The womens rifle team that not get as much training time as the mens team and the
womens team was forced to share lockers while the mens team enjoyed individual lockers.
Rule: The Title IX of Education Amendments Act of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on
gender in educational programs that receive federal financial aid. Public universities receive
federal funding and have to comply with Title IX requirements.
Analysis: Universities have to meet Title IX standards based on a three part test. Intercollegiate
athletic participation for both genders is proportionate to their enrollment in the institution. When
one gender is underrepresented in intercollegiate athletics the institution can show proof that they
are trying to expand programs for which interest has been shown. When a gender is
underrepresented in intercollegiate athletics and no proof of expansion is shown then the

Final Exam

IRAC

Priyal Morjaria

institution should at least demonstrate that interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex
have been fully accommodated.
Conclusion: Based on the Title IX of Education Amendments Act of 1972 if Big State University
does not meet at least one of the three standards that it needs start the process to provide the
Womens rifle team with equal practice time and accommodation.
Issue: How long does the Dean of Students have to address Abbys allegations? Abbys
allegations were not addressed earlier because the Dean of Students did not have time until fall
semester.
Rule: For due process to legally take a place an institution has to address student allegations in a
timely manner.
Analysis: If Abby Activist is making allegations of defamation against Brian and his teammates
then they have a right to due process which is harder to implement the longer the dean of
students takes to review and address Abbys allegations.
Conclusion: The Dean of Students should be required to review Abbys allegations or have a
review board take a look at her allegations, inform her of their receipt of the letter and that they
are in the process of reviewing the claim she made against some SBG members. The Dean of
Students also needs to provide Abby with a time frame of when her allegations will be addressed
and she should be required to speak to the board members as well as dean of students regarding
her allegations.
Issue: Was Brian rightfully suspended? In September Brian and his other teammates were called
into the Dean of Students office and Brian was immediately suspended for his comments on
Abbys wall.
Rule: Brian was informed that his comments violated the Student Conduct Provision against
harassment and his comments called for an immediate suspension.
Analysis: Procedural Due process gives students like Brian the constitutional right to the rule
against bias and the right to a hearing. Based on the case of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of
Education Brian should have been sent a statement with charges that would justify suspension.
Conclusion: I am not arguing that Brian did nothing wrong and hence he should not have to face
the consequences of his actions; however Brian was not fairly notified of any wrong doing in a
urgent manner nor was he provided with a right to a hearing. Before being suspended Brian
should have his due process rights met. There was also no mention of the action taken on the
other team members that also posted on Abbys wall.

Final Exam

IRAC

Priyal Morjaria

Issue: Should Brian have the right to appeal his suspension? Brian could not see any information
in the student handbook regarding a provision to appeal Big State Universitys decision to
suspend him.
Rule: Big State University makes immediate decisions on student conduct violators and does not
provide a known means to appeal an institutional decision of suspension.
Analysis: Taking due process of law into consideration in the case of Esteban v. Central Missouri
State College the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals set precautionary safeguards to
protect a students constitutional rights. Written Notice and Hearing are a requirement of
procedural due process however courts recommend that Institutions provide students with other
safeguards. One of the recommended safeguards is an appeal process.
Conclusion: Big State University needs to create a better process and constitutionally correct
steps to ensure that a students rights are not being violated. A system needs to be created where
students are notified of misconduct and allegations, they are given proof of evidence against
them, they are given the opportunity to state their side and prepare a defense and they should not
be told a decision until they have opportunity to a hearing. Big State University also needs to
create an appeals process and include this information in the student handbook. All steps need to
be taken in a timely manner not based on the calendar of the overseeing officer.
Issue: Can a parent interfere in a students acceptance into an athletic team? Edgars dad made a
few phone calls and due to his relationship with Big State University Edgar was accepted into the
football team.
Rule: Current students typically have to tryout before they can be accepted to participate in an
athletic team and sport. Students also have to meet academic requirements to be eligible.
Analysis: Legacy admissions into colleges and universities have been discussed time and again;
however not much litigation exists with regards to this issue. In Edgars case he may have been
admitted into Big State University due to his fathers legacy with the school and he may also
have been accepted into the football time based on the same relationship.
Conclusion: I would advise Big State University to make their admissions and athletic tryout
opportunities fair, merit based and just for all prospective students and current students; however
with very little litigation in this area most schools get away with the preferential treatment.
Issue: Can a parent make a decision regarding a students medical wellbeing if this could
potentially harm the student or should the students wellbeing take precedence? Edgar was
diagnosed with a concussion and asked not to play the rest of the game. Edgars dad insisted that
he play and the trainers felt that they could not argue with him.
Rule: When a player is hurt during practice or in the playing field he or she has to be medically
evaluated and can return to the game only if they are fit to play.

Final Exam

IRAC

Priyal Morjaria

Analysis: Edgars return onto the playing field could increase the likelihood that his injuries
worsen. Tort Liability could be used against the trainers, Edgars father or even Edgar himself.
Negligence could be used as an argument in court. The trainers unintentionally put Edgar in
danger by allowing him to play knowing that it could bring him harm. His fathers intentional
interference also played a role in his decision to continue playing with injury. His father could
be liable. Edgar could also be liable because he was asked not to continue after injury by his
trainers and yet he chose to return to the game. Edgar could be called out for contributory
negligence.
Conclusion: Edgars trainers and coaches should not have allowed Edgar to play even though his
father insisted and Edgar agreed to it; however because Edgar contributed to the negligence by
not complying to the medical advice he was given then the other two parties may be absolved
from liability.
Issue: Does the health center have to release information to the math professor? The Health
Center refused to release information regarding Edgars migraines to the math professor without
Edgars permission. The math professor gave Edgar an F because he missed more than 2 days of
class.
Rule: Students have to comply with their instructors attendance policies unless they can prove
formal medical excuse for absences.
Analysis: The Health center has to comply with student privacy laws related to release of
medical records. FERPA laws safeguard educational and conduct related student information not
medical records however medical records are protected under medical laws regarding patient
privacy.
Conclusion: In the math professors defense students create fake documentation all the time so
without any real proof and information from Edgar the professor should be able to give him a
grade he deserves. Many institutions have health related withdrawal policies that Edgar could
have looked into. The professor should however have requested that Edgar allow the health
center to provide him or her additional information so they could better assess the situation.