Amanda D.

Seals
Final Exam
EDLD 8431-01F Summer 2014
Issue: A Caucasian male student has been denied application to a public, four-year institution
while fellow classmates of different race with lower grades and test scores have been admitted.
Rule: In the U.S. Supreme Court Case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the
court held that (1) a special admissions program based on quotas is unconstitutional; however,
(2) race may be one of several factors that may be considered in making admission decisions,
and (3) where the school could not show that a white applicant would have ben rejected
regardless of the special admissions program, the applicant was entitled to admission.
Analyze: The mother of the denied student was within her right to question the state institution
for denying her son admittance. If the institution was not following its policy that students are
admitted on the basis of scholarship, character, and motivation without regard to race, creed or
sex, and rather was automatically weighting race in its admission, then it would be in violation
of both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Conclusion: Giving the university the benefit of the doubt due to its established policy that does
not give weight to race, the Dean of Admissions was correct in admitting the student based on
his scholarship and not his race.
Issue: A well-meaning parent has notified the university about her sons disabilities against his
wishes.
Rule: Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), the law provides
that students 18 years of age or older, or who are attending institutions of post secondary
education, are accorded the rights rather than the parent.
Analyze: We are not given the students age in the facts of the fact pattern, however; the
student has been granted admission to a public, four-year institution. Therefore, he has rights
over that of the parent.
Conclusion: Even thought we read later in the fact pattern that it probably would have been
beneficial to the student to have filled out the paperwork provided by the Student Disability
Center regarding his disabilities, the student is within his rights to not have completed the
paperwork under FERPA.
Issue: A group of male students start a student organization that excludes females from
membership citing the activities that the club engages in would be dangerous for women to
participate.
Rule: In the key case involving gender discrimination in higher education (United States v.
Virginia), the Commonwealth of Virginia failed to show exceedingly persuasive justification
for excluding women from the citizen-soldier program offered at Virginia Military College
(Alexander, p. 499).

Analyze: Whereas the men who formed this club might have had good intentions, they might not
be aware that they are violating the Equal Protection Clause. If a woman chose to do so, she
could challenge the club citing its failure to show an exceedingly persuasive justification for
excluding women.
Conclusion: The club may wish to amend its bylaws so that membership is open to all students
regardless of sexual orientation to avoid possible legal challenges.
Issue: Several students decide to form a student group.
Rule: According to the text, student associational rights include two basic aspects: the right to
associate in groups and the right to be recognized by the university.
Analyze: If a student organization is recognized by the university, then it is granted permission
to use campus meeting rooms, normal media services and to qualify for funding under the
institutions student fee structure. With university recognition, student organizations are to abide
by reasonable campus regulations, not create situations that will disrupt the normal operation,
activities and educational environment, and to abide by applicable local, state and federal laws
(Kaplin and Lee, The Law of Higher Education, 515). From the reading, it only appears that the
students are utilizing their associational rights to associate in a group.
Conclusion: The fact pattern does not state that the students filed to be recognized by the
university as an official organization. They may wish to do so if they would like to have access
to campus meeting rooms, normal media services or to qualify for funding under the institutions
student fee structure.
Issue: Under the auspices of a student organization, students at a public university offer free
movies to other students in several residence halls.
Rule: Residential areas, such as dormitories, located on a public university campus are not public
forums and activities in those areas can be restricted by reasonable regulations.
Analyze: One of the students in the club thought to ask about the rules regarding the showing of
a movie in a dorm but forgot to seek permission or to clarify the rules. At this time, no one has
complained or cited any rules to enforce. Student organizations are to abide by reasonable
campus regulations, not create situations that will disrupt the normal operation, activities and
educational environment, and to abide by applicable local, state and federal laws (Kaplin and
Lee, The Law of Higher Education, 515).
Conclusion: The student should check with the Resident Life director to make certain the club is
not in violation of any dormitory regulations.
Issue: A student reports to the judicial office the outburst of a fellow student during class, and
shares that the students behavior frightens her. She also informs the judicial office of
conversations she has overheard regarding weapons.

Rule: The First Amendment clearly permits a state institution to ban a true threat. Unprotected
speech includes an incitement of disruption and breach of peace; defamation; true threats of
violence and fighting words; and obscenity.
Analyze: Since the student reported the outburst of another student and expressed her discomfort
by his conversation, the administrators have the burden of determining if what the student yelled
in class falls under the category of a true threat of violence or disruption or was idle and
harmless.
Conclusion: The burden of investigation rests upon the judicial office to do its due diligence by
investigating the claim that was reported by the female student.
Issue: The judicial office located at a public university calls its police department to investigate a
students dorm after a student complaint alleging the student in question speaks frequently about
weapons. The police department contacts the housing office in order to conduct a search of the
room belonging to the student in question. The housing office complies and allows the police to
do an accompanied search of the room.
Rule: Court decisions have shown that university officials have the legal prerogative to enter
dorm rooms for the purpose of determining if anything therein may be harmful to the health and
safety of students or detrimental to the good conduct of the institution. The dorm room is school
property and a student has no right to exclude school officials from entering his or her dorm
room. A student living on campus does not have the same Fourth Amendment Rights as a
student living off campus in private housing.
Analyze: Using the rule of reasonable entry, the housing office and the police department did not
need a warrant to search the room. In addition, a dormitory room at a public institution is not
considered private property of the student and can be searched under probable cause and
reasonable suspicion.
Conclusion: The housing officials and police department did a proper search of a students dorm
room under the premise of determining if anything in the room may be harmful to the health and
safety of students or detrimental to the good conduct of the institution.
Issue: Upon entering a students dorm room, housing officials and campus police conduct a
search looking for weapons. No weapons were found but a pet rabbit and some candles are
discovered both of which are banned under the Universitys dorm regulations. The officials did
not have a search warrant.
Rule: The plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirements permits
a law enforcement officer to seize what is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is
discovered in a place where the officer has a right to be and is clearly in his view.
Analyze: Even though the University Police and Housing Officials were entering the students
room to look for weapons, they discovered other items that are in violation of campus policies.
The fact pattern states that the search did turn up the contraband items one could assume
they were in plain view since there isnt a reference to looking in obscure places for the weapons.

Conclusion: Because the contraband items were in plain view of the officer and housing
officials, there is a clear violation of campus policies that can be held against the student in
questions even though they do not have anything to do with the origin of the search which was to
find weapons.
Issue: A professor adds content to a history course she is teaching which is the root of the
student outburst that this fact pattern is based upon. The Department Chair reprimands the
professor and informs her that she may no longer teach the History of Zombie Film course.
Rule: The particular pedagogy or teaching style of a professor can be regulated and does not fall
within the protection of academic freedom and free speech.
Analyze: There are some pieces missing to this story. The fact pattern states that the student is
taking a History of Zombie Film class that is taught by Dr. Lecturer. Dr. Lecturer is the
professor in question that is being asked to no longer use this topic for a class and to stick with
normal history lessons. If it were a course, I would imagine the Department Chair and Dean
that are asking her to stop teaching the class would have had to approve it being added to the list
of approved courses. If the fact pattern should be alluding that this was rather a lesson as part of
a history course whereas the Department Chair and Dean might not have direct knowledge of
supplemental classroom materials, then the rule stated above is definitely the tool to measure by.
Conclusion: The professor did not have the academic freedom to supplement the course with
materials or lessons that the Department Chair and Dean did not feel was appropriate for study
and did not abuse the professors right to academic freedom.
Issue: From the fact pattern: Edward Editor, who is a student assistant in the History
department, entered Dr. Lecturers office to deliver her mail. He saw her notes of Vickies report
and thought this would make an excellent story for the student newspaper. He decided to do a
little more investigating and began to make phone calls to people who might know Samuel.
Rule: Student disciplinary records unrelated to criminal activity cannot be disclosed to the public
without offending FERPA (U.S. v. Miami University).
Analyze: The student assistant entered the professors office and noticed a report on her desk.
The report included a write-up regarding two students and what one student had reported to the
judicial office in response to an outburst in the professors class. The student assistant took it
upon himself to take the documents, which include the accused students name and Rover ID
number (identification), and started making phone calls to others, disclosing the students name
and the allegations.
Conclusion: At this point, the professor only knows that the judicial office has been notified by a
student in her class that the actions of another student have caused suspicion and fear. The report
that is on her desk is not related to criminal activity and is in the early stages of a campus
investigation. The student assistant is violating the FERPA protections afforded to the student in
question by calling others and turning it over to the student newspaper for publication.

Issue: From the fact pattern: She confronted him, saying Eddie, you better not print anything
about this in tomorrows paper. I could lose my job if they find out where you got this
information! If this story runs, you will be fired as a student assistant!
Rule: The professor has given her student assistant an edict to not run a story in the student
newspaper. If he does so, she will fire him. This would fall under the rule of insubordination.
Insubordination is defined by the Supreme Court of Nevada as willful disregard or express or
implied directions or defiant attitude. Rebellious, mutinous, and disobedient are often
quoted as definitions or synonyms of insubordinate.
Analyze: A female professor returns to her office and overhears her male student assistant on the
phone discussing a students record for the purposes of a news article. Concerned that she would
be reprimanded for leaving out confidential data on her desk for discovery, she in turn retaliates
against the student assistant by threatening to fire him if he prints the material in the student
newspaper.
The professor has threatened the employment of the student assistant. From his perspective, this
speech could be considered a threat however, it does not fit the definition of a true threat and
is not a violation of the professors freedom of speech.
Conclusion: This is a tricky scenario. The professor is threatening the student assistant for his
actions and is using intimidation to stop his investigation for the student paper, and the student
assistant is violating the accused students rights but snooping on the professors desk. The
professor should have filed the report away before leaving it exposed on her desk. Both parties
are at fault for their negligent actions.
Issue: A student is called to the judicial office and is informed that he is being dismissed from
the campus immediately due to statements that he made earlier in one of his classes. The student
remarks that there is a misunderstanding and may his mother be called to meet with the judicial
office. He is told no.
Rule: Under procedural due process, each party must have the chance to present his or her
version of the facts and make submissions relevant to the case (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of
Education). The process applies to universities, colleges, schools and other governmental
agencies against a student, teacher or other employee. The student may decide if the hearing is
public or private. In addition, the student should be given an opportunity to have counsel present
at the hearing and to seek advice during the proceedings.
Analyze: The student is being immediately dismissed from the university without prior notice or
right to a hearing so that he may present his side of the story regarding the allegations against
him. Under Dixon, a student has a right to a notice and a hearing in a university disciplinary
proceeding when the charges could lead to expulsion of the student.
Conclusion: In this case, the judicial office clearly did not use procedural checkpoints to make
sure that the students rights were not violated. The student was not given a notice of the
specific charges and grounds justifying his expulsion, which is in violation of his constitutional
rights. The student will have a case against the University for being dismissed without
procedural due process.

Issue: A student has been notified that he is being immediately dismissed from his University
due to allegations that have been brought against him by another student. The student asks the
judicial office for specifics regarding the threats that were made and attributed to him. The
judicial officer responds that the report only says threats.
Rule: As outlined in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, the court states that a student
should be given the names of the witnesses against him and an oral or written report on the facts
to which each witness testifies. A student has a right to a hearing; to be given notice; to have an
opportunity for oral hearings; to have an opportunity to review the evidence against him; to have
an opportunity for cross-examination; and only be punished on the basis of substantial evidence.
It is his minimum due process.
Analyze: As stated above, the student that is being dismissed has not been given his right to a
hearing. In addition, he has not been given a report detailing the allegations against him or been
given the information about who made the report against him. The student has not been given
the opportunity the review the charges that have been made nor has he been able to crossexamine any witnesses or challenge the evidence that has been brought against him.
Conclusion: Again, the judicial office has made a mistake in handling this particular case. The
student that is being dismissed has yet another set of actions to use in a case against the
University regarding this right to procedural due process.














Issue: After students learn of the dismissal of their fellow classmate, they decide to protest the
decision by gathering in front of the administration building to hold a demonstration. The
demonstration is loud and large enough to crowd the street in front of the campus, disrupting
traffic.
Rule: Freedom of speech, expression, and association will not be extended to allow students to
disrupt a university. Students are free to speak and advocate any position whatsoever, but
physical actions which disrupt are not to be interpreted as protected advocacy. There is plenty of
case law to support this: Blanton v. State University of New York, Herman v. University of South
Carolina, and Kister v. Ohio Board of Regents, for example.
Analyze: It is understandable that friends of the dismissed students are angry upon learning of
his dismissal without due process. However, students do not have a First Amendment right to
protest while disrupting the day-to-day activities of their university or to cause safety issues for
the campus.
Conclusion: The students may have been better off seeking a meeting with the administration to
discuss their frustration with the decision of the judicial office or to hold a silent protest that did
not disrupt the operations of their institution.
Reference:
Alexander, K. W., & Alexander, K. (2011). Higher education law: policy and perspectives. New
York, NY: Routledge.