Anne S. Emanuel, Turning the Tide in the Civil Rights Revolution: Elbert Tuttle and the Desegregation of the University of Georgia, 5 MICH J. RACE & L. 1-30 (1999). Breaking stride with general sentiment and tradition in the Fifth Circuit, Judge Elbert Tuttle took the lead not only in wrenching into the practices of southern universities the mandate of Brown, but also in giving pointed and precise vitality to the equal protection clause of the Constitution and the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. The crucial moment came when Judge Tuttle, in Holmes v. Danner, reversed the district court order granting a stay in the lower court's ruling that the University of Georgia must integrate. His ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court and a permanent injunction was granted.
Leslie Gielow Jacobs, The Link Between Student Activity Fees and Campaign Finance Regulation, 33 IND. L. REv. 435-473 (2000). Challenges to student activity fees and campaign finance regulation are closely related in theory with regard to the government's role in supporting public forums and facilitating full and free public speech. As long as the government's action is designed to promote expressive opportunity throughout its constituency, and as long as such action does not favor or disfavor particular types of expression, then the claims of dissenters will fail. However, in practice, the government's interest will be judged on the precision with which the means of creating such public forums are designed.
Note, Are State-Supported Historically Black Colleges and Universities Justifiable After Fordice?-A Higher Education Dilemma, 27 FLA. ST. U.L. REv. 547-567 (2000). In the Fordyce decision, the Supreme Court chose to undercut the intent of Brown v. Bd. of Educ., that African Americans be allowed to attend the colleges or universities of their choice, by calling into question the viability of historically black colleges and universities, in direct conflict with the 1954 Brown decision. HBCUs should be judged on the "freedom of choice" standard, since they embody an important option for African-American (and other) students. They do not represent the promotion of racial inequality, but, instead, enhance opportunities for all students.
Meredith R. Miller, Southworth v. Grebe: The Conservative Utilization of "Negative" First Amendment Rights to Attack Diversity of Thought at Public Universities, 65 BROOK L. REV. 529-583 (1999). The Southworth decision (holding that the funding of political and ideological groups through a university's mandatory fee program violates the objecting students' negative speech rights) enhances the political potential of one group (in this case right-wing fundamentalists opposed to diversity of expression) to misuse the First Amendment and to undercut the intellectual mission of the university, which is to be, in Justice Brennan's words, "a marketplace of ideas."
Casenote, The Recognition of Proposition 16's Misplaced Use of Standardized Tests in the Context of Collegiate Athletics as a Barrier to Educational Opportunities for Minorities, Cureton v. NCAA, 37 F. Supp. 2d 687 (E.D. Pa. 1999), 35 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 445-480 (2000). The district court, in holding that the minimum test score component of Proposition 16 disproportionately excluded minority athletes from entering colleges and universities, wisely moved to counter the NCAA's minimum SAT or ACT initial-eligibility mandates. However, the Third Circuit, in holding that the NCAA is not an indirect recipient of federal funds, improperly reversed the decision of the district court.
Hazel Glenn Beh, Student Versus University: The University's Implied Obligations of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, 59 MD. L. REV. 183-224 (2000). The emphasis on consumerism and marketing practices in today's society makes clearer than ever the imbalance between the educational needs of students and the lack of accountability on the part of institutions of higher education to attend to the expectations of students as consumers. …