Lee Bollinger, Seven Myths About Affirmative Action in Universities, 38 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 535 (2002). The author succinctly outlines the myths that underlie arguments against affirmative action and asks the essential question: Is our nation still committed to the role of education in integration?
Eugene H. Bramhall & Ronald Z. Ahrens, Academic Freedom and the Status of Religiously Affiliated University, 37 GONZ. L. REV. 227 (2002). The thesis of this article is that institutions may reasonably limit academic freedom and still be considered legitimate universities. It first identifies the chief characteristics that have historically established an institution's status as a university. Second, the authors argue that no university has limitless academic freedom. Lastly, the authors explain the philosophical justifications for academic freedom and show that those justifications support the right of a religious institution to limit academic freedom while claiming university status.
Notes & Comments
Disparate Treatment of Students in a Similar Class: The Constitutionality of Kentucky's Method of Determining Residency Status for Admissions and Tuition Assessment Purposes, 40 BRANDEIS L.J. 1037 (2002). This note traces the history of law relevant to residency status. The note focuses on the standard of review used by the United States Supreme Court in analyzing residency requirement issues. The note concludes by determining that Kentucky's rule used in determining university students' residency status, Title 13, Section 2:045 of the Kentucky Administration Regulations would most likely, if challenged, be deemed an unconstitutional method of determining a student's status.
The New Star Chamber: An Illusion of Due Process Standards at Private University Disciplinary Hearings, 35 SUFFOLK U.L. REV 169 (2001). The author discusses how private universities often do not offer students due process during disciplinary proceedings and criticizes courts that have applied a traditional contract analysis, despite students' lack of bargaining power when they commit to these contracts.
Reevaluating Amateurism Standards in Men's College Basketball, 35 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 861 (2002). This note argues that courts should interpret NCAA conduct under the Principle of Amateurism as a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and that courts should order NCAA deregulation of student athletes' indirect financial activities. It begins with a discussion of the history of NCAA regulations, and specifically its Principle of Amateurism. The author argues that the NCAA regulations violate antitrust laws because the Principle of Amateurism's overall effect is to discourage competition. …