HIED 849: Discussion Posts
Great Pumpkin Riot
Imagine that you are a senior legal advisor to the president of Keene State University, who promised that students at the university involved in the incident would be sanctioned.Â
Discuss the possible legal issues and questions that the university would need to consider in taking any action against students. Here are a few questions to prompt your discussion:
- Under what basis could they be sanctioned?
- What kinds of steps would the university need to follow in handing out sanctions?
- What kinds of punishment or sanctions do you feel would be appropriate?Â
If you have trouble identifying the relevant legal issues at this point, that’s okay. The exercise is meant to help illustrate the kind of topics and issues that we’ll cover during the semester and to get you thinking about what kind of legal issues can arise in higher education settings.
Â
Under what basis could they be sanctioned? Students who enroll in a university must contractually agree to abide by that institution’s code of conduct. Therefore, Keene State can impose sanctions on the students involved in actions that violated the institutional code of contact. What kinds of steps would the university need to follow in handing out sanctions? The university would first need to assess the jurisdiction it has regarding these riots as they occurred at an off-campus, non-university event. Likely both internal and external governance structures would need to collaborate to first identify the individuals involved, and second, gauge the severity of their offenses. The university could hand out sanctions following a code of conduct hearing for each student involved. What kinds of punishment or sanctions do you feel would be appropriate? Since the offenses vary in severity, the students should be treated as individuals and sanctioned based on their offenses. Those who committed violent offenses such as assault or serious destruction of property should face suspension or expulsion as well as face fines or other sanctions from local law enforcement. On the other hand, those who committed minor infractions should face minor sanctions such as lost privileges to participate in extracurricular activities or financial penalties to help fix the damaged property. Â |
Â
Research Paper: Topic Selection
By Sunday at 11:59 ET, you will be tasked with selecting a topic for your research paper.
You will submit this information via the Discussion Forum below.
For this assignment, you are not required to engage in a discussion. You will be required to post your topic in the subject line and then in the text space provided, write a brief rationale regarding the selection of your topic. This should be no more than one to two paragraphs in length.
I would like to investigate the potential legal issues universities who enroll international students might encounter and how they might avoid potential pitfalls. A brief search into court cases related to international students revealed perceived discrimination cases, misconduct and academic integrity cases, and sexual harassment cases to name a few. It seems as though many of these court cases stem from either cultural differences and misunderstandings or academically struggling students. Conducting further research into these cases and this field of academic legal issues could give me starting insight into issues I will likely encounter while working with international students. |
Â
Regents v. Students
The focus of this discussion will be the Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus case. Please make sure to complete your case brief prior to joining the forum. This case brief will be turned in, so plan ahead.
Research Prompt: For this discussion take the time to look at your undergraduate institution’s firearm policy. Feel free to start your discussion with your findings.
My undergraduate institution is Meredith College in Raleigh, North Carolina. The Student Handbook states, “Possession of weapons/firearms (either openly carried or concealed) is strictly prohibited on campus and at College-sponsored functions. Violators will be reported to campus police and to the Honor Council. Violators are subject to arrest and prosecution” (Meredith College, p. 48). Directly following is a statement regarding withholding grades “at the discretion of College officials for lack of payment of College fees and fines and for failure to complete other College obligations”. It is worth noting that in 2013 North Carolina legislation passed “a new weapons bill, allowing guns in locked cars on public college campuses”. So, in addition to the clause in the student handbook, Meredith’s President, Jo Allen, announced that, “private institutions like Meredith College have the right under the new North Carolina law to restrict weapons on campus” and that Meredith “will continue its policy to prohibit all weapons on campus” (Allen, 2013). It seems this policy is intentionally vague in its definition of “weapons” while being specific in what violation of this policy will result in. The Honor Council, a board of students, faculty, staff, and alumni is taken very seriously at Meredith College. When any infractions of the student code are brought before the Council, there is a hearing where the situation is evaluated thoroughly including listening to accounts from involved parties, taking statements from character witnesses, and other proceedings. I have no doubt that the Honor Council would take details from their hearing to external authorities if the situation was deemed serious. Since my undergraduate institution is a private college, it does not have a clear connection to the Regents v. Students case. However, I do find it interesting that the college officially responded to new State legislation reminding their students that Meredith is private and does not need to adhere to this policy. References: Meredith College. (2017). Student Handbook. College Policies and Regulations. https://www.meredith.edu/assets/images/content/CollegPolicy_Regulations_section_for_website.pdf (Links to an external site.). Melyssa Allen. (September 23, 2013). Meredith College to Continue Prohibiting Weapons on Campus. https://www.meredith.edu/news/meredith-college-to-continue-prohibiting-weapons-on-campus/ (Links to an external site.).  |
Â
Attorney Poll
This activity marks the conclusion of Week One for Lesson 5.
Please be sure to conclude your discussion by Sunday at 11:59 pm ET. Your responses to the poll on the previous page will be taken into consideration.
Come prepared to discuss the pros and cons of having attorney representation for students on campus, in a variety of situations.
I support attorney access during student conduct hearings, but must admit that I had a difficult time deciding to be pro or against it. Depending on the severity of the student’s conduct violation, it could do more harm than good to deny access to an attorney. In the case of Harwood vs Johns Hopkins University, murder being the most severe violation of student conduct, external courts were involved in the processing so of course attorneys were involved. If a lesser offense was being evaluated such as hazing, sexual misconduct, or substance abuse, although egregious offenses, students should have the opportunity to seek legal counsel before incriminating themselves further. I say this assuming that students, just as citizens, should be seen as innocent until proven guilty. In my college I was once a character witness to a student, and I was once the subject of a student conduct council hearing. The hearings were fair in both instances, but I remember being terrified and not informed on what to expect or how to proceed. If the violations were major, rather than minor, I think students have the right to be advised professionally. This being said, my classmates’ arguments that allowing attorneys in student conduct hearings could present problems to equal access are completely valid and do truly make me question my choice to support attorney access. However, the potential of self sabotage seems too high if external legal systems can be involved during or following the student conduct hearings.  |
Â
Axson-Flynn v. Johnson and Tatro v. University of Minnesota
The focus of this di;scussion will be the Axson-Flynn v. Johnson and Tatro v. University of Minnesota cases.
For this discussion put yourself in the role of administrator and think about how you would/could have handled these situations differently. Offer one or two alternative methods you may have taken in the course of the events.
As the administrator in the Axson-Flynn v Johnson case: ·       I would require the instructors in my department to undergo training on diversity and inclusivity in the classroom. It is one thing to insist that the curriculum be followed and that an actor’s boundaries should be pushed. It is another thing to assume that you understand a student’s religion and point them to “good” students who are succeeding in the program despite sharing this religion. There are ways to hold fast to your teaching curriculum without making students feel as though they are being discriminated against based on religious views. As the administrator in the Tatro v. University of Minnesota case: ·       I would have required introductory Mortuary Science classes and labs to emphasize that what students post online or discuss with people outside of the classroom is a reflection of not only themselves but also the university. This kind of “off-campus” speech can cause sanctions to be placed on the institution by external governing bodies like the state health department (para. 521). Incorporating this into orientation and throughout the program could reinforce that what they share regarding their practical experience within the program could affect them in their professional endeavors such as earning the license or working in the state they studied in. Perhaps there could be an additional code of conduct for students who are in this program that includes similar restrictions as nursing students agree to regarding patient confidentiality and maintaining a patient’s dignity. ·       I also believe that the correct action was taken in this case. Tatro’s actions did warrant concern for the safety of other students in the institution. They also were certainly “unprofessional conduct includ[ing] the ‘failure to treat’ ‘the body of the deceased’ or ‘the family or relatives of the deceased’ ‘with dignity and respect'”(para 522).   |
Â
Liberty v. Williams Case
This discussion will focus on University of Cincinnati Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty v. Williams case.
You have a case brief due on this case, so it might be helpful to brief the case prior to the discussion board.
Â
Research Prompt: To start this discussion look up your undergraduate institution at The Fire.org to see their speech code rating.
North Carolina State University (NCSU) has a “green” speech code rating indicating that its policies do not seriously imperil speech in written policies at the time of evaluation by FIRE. NCSU has an overall ranking of 24 out of the 154 institutions surveyed. The policies NCSU’s speech code rating is based on are: -Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination (Yellow) If the University of Cincinnati’s policies surrounding free speech were rated at the time of the University of Cincinnati Chapter of Young Americans for Liberty v. Williams case, I believe they would have received a “red” speech code rating. FIRE states, “institutions receive an overall red light rating when they maintain at least one policy that earns a red light rating”. The University’s policy to require prior notice and permit scheme and restrict all demonstrations, picketing, and rallies to a Free Speech Area declares the entire campus as a limited public forum. Meaning, that all on-campus speech is subject to limited topics that the University allows. This presents clear free-speech concerns because the policy, “essentially ban(s) spontaneous speech”.  |
The Future of Tenure
Now that you’ve had the chance to read and think about tenure and other types of faculty employment arrangements, what are your thoughts about tenure? Should it remain as a feature of U.S. higher education? Or should it be eliminated?
One proposal that has been touted as a replacement or alternative to tenure is to award multi-year contracts. Advocates point to such a contractual arrangement as an improvement over tenure in providing some degree of employment security to faculty members while permitting institutions to remove unproductive individuals and to respond to changing educational and financial needs. What are your thoughts about this idea?
If I was basing my thoughts on tenure purely on the textbook reading and lesson reading, I would say that both tenure and non-tenure track faculty’s speech is protected sufficiently by the First Amendment freedom of expression, so tenure should be eliminated in order to respond to changing educational and financial needs.  However, last semester I wrote a paper analyzing John Carrol University’s decision to effectively eliminate tenure protections in March 2021 in response to recent budgetary deficits. When tenure protections were removed, the faculty governance structure became nearly obsolete. The faculty senate voted with an overwhelming majority to not change this policy, but the executive leadership of the institution ignored their opposition. Now, without tenure, teachers will hesitate when approaching controversial topics in class, and as a result, the teaching quality will suffer and ultimately the brand of the institution may be weakened (Noce & Scully, 2021). So, although removing tenure protections would be a way to remove unproductive individuals and respond to financial deficits, it also would likely result in more First Amendment violation claims from faculty who now must worry about their job security while deciding what material to teach. Instead, I think some form of performance review or other evaluations for productivity and relevance to pursuing the institutional mission could be implemented so efficiency could be ensured without jeopardizing the freedom of speech that is so foundational to higher education in America. References:  |