Law Review-UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING
Clay Calvert, Freedom of Speech & the High Price of College Textbooks: Do Laws Affecting Disclosure of Textbook Information Go Too Far and Violate the First Amendment? 2008 Mich. St. L. Rev. 637. This article examines recently passed state legislation designed to combat skyrocketing college textbook prices. It seeks to determine whether the disclosure requirements, commonly included in the new laws, violate the 1st Amendment. The author is concerned that the laws will unconstitutionally compel speech from book publishers and distributors and that they impermissibly regulate protected commercial speech. The author concludes that the new laws would likely be found unconstitutional under the commercial speech doctrine.
Toni Lester, Talking about Sexual Orientation, Teaching about Homophobia - Negotiating the Divide between Religious Belief and Tolerance for LGBT Rights in the Classroom, 15 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 399 (2008). This article provides a detailed analysis of the subject matter and teaching methods employed in a college course entitled "Intolerance, Culture, and the Law." The author, who is also the course teacher, encourages students to engage in "ruthless self-reflection" while she facilitates and mediates the experience. The article highlights the importance of getting students to talk openly and think freely about homosexual rights.
Steve D. Shadowen, Sozi P. Tulante and Shara L. Alpern, No Distinctions Except Those Which Merit Originates: The Unlawfulness of Legacy Preferences in Public and Private Universities, 49 Santa Clara L. Rev. 51 (2009). The authors argue that the privilege of legacy preference in university admissions should be rejected based on constitutional and public policy grounds. The authors also argue that case law suggests that the decision to admit legacy students at public and private universities should be subjected to a strict scrutiny standard of review. As the authors find that legacy admissions do not survive strict scrutiny, they conclude that legacy admissions at public and private universities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Michael J. Davidson, Court-Martialing Cadets, 36 Cap. U.L. Rev. 635 (2008). This author discusses the cadet court-martials of famous generals, academy racial controversies, and other notable West Point incidents. The author then outlines the ranking of cadets in military jurisdiction, reviews the academy culture of hazing, and analyzes the jurisdictional problems with cadets' susceptibility to court-martial. The author concludes that cadets are inchoate officers and thus, hold the rights and privileges of officers, even if not their commission.
Jennifer Elrod, Critical Inquiry: A Tool for Protecting the Dissident Professor's Academic Freedom, 96 CaI. L. Rev. 1669 (2008). This article describes controversial comments regarding the September 11th terrorist attacks made by Ward Churchill and the subsequent University investigation that led to his termination. Since the American Association of University Professors' (AAUP) deems extramural comments a principle of academic freedom but does not provide a mechanism for protecting that freedom, the author argues that the process of critical inquiry may be a solution. The author concludes that the critical inquiry process allows for a wide-ranging debate within a set of defined rules, and thus, is an apt solution as it preserves the value of debate characteristic of higher learning and protects and enhances our democratic system of governance.
Notes & Comments
Eliminating Harmful Suicide Policies in Higher Education, 19 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 328 (2008). The author addresses the current legal landscape regarding university suicide policies. The author states punishing students by banishing them is improper. The author maintains that legislative action is the most appropriate tool and establishes a legislative approach that requires the institution take reasonable steps toward treatment for students at risk of committing suicide. The author also provides a model statute.
Fixing the "Undue Hardship" Hardship: Solutions for the Problem of Discharging Educational Loans through Bankruptcy, 70 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 217 (2008). The author begins by giving a summary of the history of bankruptcy. He then discusses the standards and tests for discharging student loans through bankruptcy including the Johnson, Bryant, Brunner, and Totality of Circumstances Tests. The author suggests a uniform law as well as a shift in responsibility of repayment from the government to the schools.
Who's Looking at Your Facebook Profile? The Use of Student Conduct Codes to Censor College Students' Online Speech, 45 Willamette L. Rev. 261 (2008). This comment discusses cyberspeech and examines how universities are changing their policies and penalizing speech, which the author insists is protected by the 1st Amendment. The author suggests that if student cyberspeech is designated "off-campus speech" it should only be subject to discipline if it presents a true threat or violates an existing law. It concludes that most cyberspeech is made offcampus, where 1st Amendment protections are stronger, and therefore, schools should have to meet a high threshold to justify penalties.
One Student, One Vote? Equal Protection and Campus Elections, 35 J.C. & U.L. 217 (2008). The Supreme Court has instituted a "one person one vote" requirement for legislative districts, which has been extended to local governments. The author notes that when the "one person one vote" principle is applied to campus elections, the requirement of state action is usually fulfilled due to the public function of student government associations (sga's). The author then assesses compliance with "one person one vote" through examination of sga's at the University of Georgia and the University of Michigan. The author concludes that these universities are not in compliance with the "one person one vote" requirement.
The Mainstreaming Requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in the Context of Autistic Spectrum Disorders, 35 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1225 (2008). This note discusses the IDEA's requirement that disabled students be placed in the "least restrictive environment" whereby they interact with non-disabled peers. This process is known as "mainstreaming." The author then analyzes tests adopted by the Sixth, Fifth, and Ninth Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals to determine whether "mainstreaming" has occurred. The author concludes that the tests involve substantially similar inquiries and argues that the underlying premise of "mainstreaming" may be incongruent with the needs of disabled children.
Reevaluating Privacy and Disability Laws in the Wake of the Virginia Tech Tragedy: Considerations for Administrators and Lawmakers, 87 NCL. Rev. 305 (2008). This comment examines an increasing judicial willingness to hold universities liable for student suicides where a special relationship between faculty and student existed. The author argues that if universities are to face liability, federal policies must offer universities the proper tools to care for mentally-ill students. The author suggests the inclusion of clear, safe harbors for health and emergency exceptions in existing federal privacy laws, the implementation of preenrollment screening, and mandated counseling.
Institutes of Higher Education, Safety Swords, and Privacy Shields: Reconciling FERPA and the Common Law, 35 J.C. & U.L. 145 (2008). This note discusses the court-imposed duty of institutions of higher education (IHE) to use reasonable care to prevent foreseeable acts of harm to and by students. The author notes, however, that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) does not allow access to student mental health information, except in very limited circumstances. The author argues that the courts should create a foreseeability framework, that includes student mental health because university personnel are not mental health professionals. The author also makes suggestions to reconcile safety and privacy issues.
Public Citizens, Public Servants: Free Speech in the Post-Garcetti Workplace. 7 First Amend. L. Rev. 1-144 (2008). Robert M. O'Neil, Academic Speech in the Post-Garcetti Environment; Ruben Garcia, Against Legislation: Garcetti v. Ceballos and the Paradox of Statutory Protection for Public Employees; Sheldon, Nahmod, Academic Freedom and the Post-Garcetti Blues; Helen Norton, Government Workers and Government Speech; Ramona L. Paetzold, When Are Public Employees Not Really Public Employees? In the Aftermath of Garcetti v. Ceballos; Paul M. Secunda, Garcetti's Impact on the First Amendment Speech Rights of Federal Employees.…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Law Review-UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING. Contributors: Not available. Journal title: Journal of Law and Education. Volume: 38. Issue: 3 Publication date: July 2009. Page number: 530+. © Jefferson Law Book Company Jan 2009. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.