Term
|
Definition
Date: 1803
Background: John Adams appointed Marbury as Justice of the Peace; however, when Jefferson won the presidency, he directed Madison (the new Secretary of State) not to deliver Marbury’s commission. Marbury sued, asking the court to issue a mandamus that directed Madison to deliver his commission.
Principals: Marbury (Appointed Justice of the Peace), Madison (Secretary of State), John Marshall (Supreme Court Justice)
Facts: John Marshall delivered a decision that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which allowed the Supreme Court to issue mandamus against executive officers. Therefore, he could not issue a mandamus to commission Marbury.
Implications:
1) U.S. Constitution rules
2) Supreme Court decides what is constitutional
3) anything against US constitution is void
4) defined non-justiciable
5) result is judicial deference for higher ed |
|
|
Term
| Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward |
|
Definition
Date: 1819
Background: the King of England chartered Dartmouth College to educate Native Amercians. After the Revolutionary War, the king transferred the charter to the state of New Hampshire. Upon receiving the charter, the state amended sections of the charter and appointed new board members for political reasons.
Principals: Dartmouth College (represented by alumnus), Woodward (The newly appointed secretary of the board)
Facts: The court ruled that a charter is considered a contract and under the contract clause, a contract cannot be amended by the state after it is completed.
Implications: This decision protects private colleges from state interference. |
|
|
Term
| Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire |
|
Definition
Date: 1957
Background: Sweezy, a known Marxist, was a guest lecturer at the University of New Hampshire. After serving in that role, the state asked him to testify on two separate occasions. During his testimonies, Sweezy refused to answer several questions pertaining to his political views and lectures.
Principals: Sweezy (plaintiff), State of New
Hampshire (respondent)
Facts: The court ruled that the state of New Hampshire violated Sweezy’s academic freedom and free speech rights by forcing him to testify. The court ruled that all American are entitled to political expression under the First Amendment.
Implications: 4 essential freedoms (on separate notecard) |
|
|
Term
| Keyishian v. The Board of Regents of the University of New York |
|
Definition
Date: 1967
Background: Keyishian, a non-tenured English instructor at the University of Buffalo, was asked to sign a document claiming that he was not a member of the communist party. Keyishian refused to sign the document, and his contract was not renewed the following year.
Principals: Keyishian (plaintiff), Board of Regents of the University of New York (respondents)
Facts: The court ruled in favor of Keyishian, establishing that the document he was asked to sign was a violation of his academic freedom.
Implications: academic freedom is "a special concern of the First Amendment which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. |
|
|
Term
| Pickering v. Board of Education |
|
Definition
Date: 1968
Background: The school board attempted to pass a grant that would raise taxes to fund two new schools. The grant was not passed on two occasions. Prior to the second attempt, Pickering wrote a letter to the newspaper, criticizing the allocation of funds towards athletics rather than education. Pickering's contract was not renewed after that incident.
Principals: Pickering (plaintiff), Board of Education (respondent)
Facts: Pickering sued, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated. The court ruled in favor of Pickering, stating that he had the same rights as any other tax paying citizen to comment on public issues. His statements were not detrimental to the efficiency of the school.
Implications: The Pickering Balancing Test |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 1983
Background: Connick terminated Myers when he refused to accept a transfer and distributed an inner office questionnaire. Myers sued Connick, claiming a violation of his right to free speech.
Principals: Connick (plaintiff) Myers (respondent)
Facts: The court original ruled in favor of Myers, but the ruling was later reversed. The Supreme Court used the Pickering Balancing Test to determine that Connick's need for an efficient work environment outweighed Myer's right to free speech. |
|
|
Term
| Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle |
|
Definition
Date:
Background: Doyle, a public school instructor, was terminated for derogatory statements, arguments with other faculty members, and complaining about the school dress code on a public radio station.
Principals: Doyle (plaintiff), Mt. Healthy City School District (respondent)
Facts: The court originally ruled in favor of Doyle; however, the school district appealed, and the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff must prove that his/her protected action is a significant factor in the employment decision. While the radio broadcast was a fact, many other factors contributed to Doyle’s dismissal.
Implications: The court put the burden of proof on the plaintiff. Thus, any individuals claiming a violation of First Amendment rights must have proof. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 1972
Background: Roth was hired at the University of Wisconsin for a one-year term. He made comments critical of the administration, and his contract was not renewed for a second term.
Principals: Board of Regents (plaintiff), Roth (respondent)
Facts: Initially the courts ruled in favor of Roth; however, when the case made it to the Supreme Court, the court ruled in favor of the Board of Regents. The right to due process under the 14th Amendment only applies when the right of protection of liberty and property is deprived. Roth was provided advanced notice to search for other jobs and the university followed through with its one-year contract.
Implications: State contract is binding as long as it conforms to state laws. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 1972
Background: Roth was hired at the University of Wisconsin for a one-year term. He made comments critical of the administration, and his contract was not renewed for a second term.
Principals: Board of Regents (plaintiff), Roth (respondent)
Facts: Initially the courts ruled in favor of Roth; however, when the case made it to the Supreme Court, the court ruled in favor of the Board of Regents. The right to due process under the 14th Amendment only applies when the right of protection of liberty and property is deprived. Roth was provided advanced notice to search for other jobs and the university followed through with its one-year contract.
Implications: State contract is binding as long as it conforms to state laws. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 1972
Background: Sindermann, a non-tenured professor at Odessa Junior College, was employed for 10 years at various institutions before arriving at Odessa. The Board made the decision not to renew his one-year term contract, and Sindermann assumed this decision was made because of critical remarks he had made about the Board.
Principals: Perry (plaintiff, Odessa Junior College President), Sindermann (respondent)
Facts: Sindermann sued Odessa, claiming a violation of his 1st and 14th Amendment rights. When the case arrived at the Supreme Court, the court ruled, once again, in favor of Sindermann. The court stated that Sindermann had de facto tenure under guidelines in the faculty handbook and the length of is employment as a professor.
Implications: employment policies regarding tenure and teacher contracts must be carefully worded and legally sound. A hearing should be granted for any non-tenured faculty member who has been in his/her position for more than one year. Institutions must have fair performance evaluation procedures. Administration must carefully document instances of neglect of duty. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Background: A nurse was terminated after making negative remarks about her supervisor to a fellow coworker. The nurse sued for violation of free speech.
Principals: Waters (plaintiff), Churchill (respondent)
Facts: The court determined that government employees are held to a different standard than private citizens; therefore, Waters’ free speech rights were restricted at the time of employment.
Implications: The court can weigh the need for an institution to have an efficient workplace over the Free Speech rights of an individual. |
|
|
Term
| Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association |
|
Definition
Background: Lehnert refused to contribute to the faculty union because he disagreed with the political advocacy of the union. He sued the Ferris Faculty Association, stating that requiring him to pay union dues was a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Principals: Lehnert (Plaintiff), Ferris Faculty Association (respondent)
Facts: The court ruled that an Agency Shop fee can be required to support the union’s representation of faculty, but those funds can not be used for political advocacy.
Implications:This decision made financial decisions difficult on unions as they had to separate funding. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down a policy that prohibited university professors from taking employment as consultants or expert witnesses, even when doing so could create a conflict with the interests of the state. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Background: Levin was criticized for publishing writings that criticized the intelligence of African Americans. As students complained about Levin, the university created alternative courses without consulting with Levin.
Principals: Levin (plaintiff), Harleston (respondent)
Facts: Levin sued the university, claiming that the creation of alternative courses was a violation of his Free Speech rights. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Levin, stating that the creation of alternative courses, which reduced his class sizes, was a violation of free speech.
Implications: A faculty member at a public university enjoys a First Amendment right to speak and write on controversial subjects. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date:
Background: a state university terminated a nontenured professor after he behaved inappropriately in a bar at an academic conference. The professor sued, claiming that his discussion was academic and intellectual and his termination was a violation of his free speech rights.
Principals: Trejo (plaintiff), Shoben (respondent)
Facts: The seventh circuit court determined that Trejo's comments were not of public concern, rather they were of private interests. Therefore, his speech was not protected under the First Amendment. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Background: Martin was terminated after students' complained about profane remarks made inside the classroom. After the institution terminated Martin, he sued the college for violation of his right to free speech and academic freedom.
Principals: Martin (plaintiff), Parrish (respondent)
Facts: The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals ruled in favor of the institution, stating that a professor's free speech rights are more circumscribed inside the classroom. A professor cannot attack a captive audience.
Implications: Limited free speech inside the classroom. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date:
Background: Bishop, a professor of exercise physiology at the University of Alabama, made comments in class about his religious views. After receiving several complaints from students, Bishop's department chair asked him to refrain from discussing his religious views in class.
Principals: Bishop (plaintiff), Aronov (respondent, department chair)
Facts: Bishop sued for violation of his First Amendment rights. The court ruled in favor of the institution, stating that academic freedom belongs to the institution and it may dictate what is taught in the classroom and how it is to be taught. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Background: Parate refused to change a students grade, who had cheated on an exam, from a B to an A, and he was terminated for his refusal to change the grade.
Principals: Parate (plaintiff), Isibor (respondent, administrator)
Facts: Parate sued for a violation of his First Amendment rights. The court ruled that a grade is a professor's expression of a student's work; thus, an institution cannot force a professor to change the grade.
Implications: Administrators can change the grades of students, but they can not force a faculty member to award a grade to a student. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A public university professor does not have a First Amendment right to expression via the school's grade assignment procedures. Grading is subsumed under the university's freedom to decide how a course is to be taught. An institution has the right to change the grade of a student. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Background: A Virginia state law prohibited the use of state computers to download sexually explicit material.
Principals: Urofsky et al. (plaintiffs), Gilmore (respondent)
Facts: 6 professors from Virginia institutions claimed that this law violated their First Amendment rights. The court ruled that the law did not regulate employee speech on matters of public concern and, therefore, was not entitled to First Amendment protection.
Implications: Academic Freedom belongs to the institution |
|
|
Term
| 3 historical phases in the relationship between higher education and the state govt. |
|
Definition
Phase 1: (1636) creation of autonomous, private colleges, organized by religious groups and chartered by private corporations under state laws.
Phase 2: (1862) Land-grant colleges and the evolution of stat universities. Expanded access to higher education (agricultural and Mechanical sciences)
Phase 3: Creation of state systems of public higher education. Increased dependence on financial (federal) resources and increased access to women and non-traditional students. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Segmented: independent governing boards for each institution
Unified: single governing board for all public institutions
Federal: includes both types of governing boards |
|
|
Term
| What does the constitution say about public education? What is the significance of the 10th Amendment? |
|
Definition
| The constitution does not specifically address education. According to the 10th Amendment, authority not expressly delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states; therefore, the states make provisions for public institutions. |
|
|
Term
| 5 duties of a public college board |
|
Definition
1) hire and terminate employees
2) award tenure
3) fix compensation of employees
4) appoint a president
5) establish tuition |
|
|
Term
| 4 institutional actions that assist board members in fulfilling fiduciary responsibilities |
|
Definition
1) policies and procedures that reflect state laws
2) recruit knowledgeable board members (financial, programmatic)
3) educate board members regarding duties
4) internal controls to make sure that significant events are reported |
|
|
Term
| 4 topics that may be discussed by public college board members in executive (or closed) sessions. |
|
Definition
1) personnel issues
2) collective bargaining matters
3) purchase/lease real estate
4) establishment of emergency security procedures |
|
|
Term
| 3 types of faculty contracts |
|
Definition
1) employment at will - employee can be terminated at any moment.
2) fixed term- contact is fixed for a specific time period, usually one year.
3) continuing - tenure |
|
|
Term
| Significance of Marbury v. Madison |
|
Definition
| Established that the court does not have authority to appoint executive positions, judicial review, and the Constitution as the law of the land. |
|
|
Term
| Significance of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward |
|
Definition
| Charters are considered contracts, under the contract clause, and the state can not interfere with a private institution's charter once it is established. |
|
|
Term
| 3 institutional functions for federal regulation |
|
Definition
1) institution as employer
2) institution as recipient of federal funds
3) consequence of research and teaching mission |
|
|
Term
| Title VII at religiously affiliated institutions |
|
Definition
| Even the most sincerely held religious beliefs can be overridden when got has important interests, such as eradicating discrimination, to pursue. |
|
|
Term
| What is the difference in constitutional rights of private employees and public employees? |
|
Definition
| Private employees do not have an constitutional rights. The 14th amendment only applies to state actions. |
|
|
Term
| Academic Freedom (Keyishian and book definitions) |
|
Definition
the freedom of all faculty members to research, write, teach, and publish without fear of retribution based on unpopularity of their ideas.
Keyishian- a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the right of a faculty member to continuous employment, which cannot be terminated without adequate cause or due process. |
|
|
Term
| Sweezy v. New Hampshire 4 essential freedoms |
|
Definition
the institution may determine:
1) who may teach
2) what is to be taught
3) how it will be taught
4) who may be admitted to study |
|
|
Term
| Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education |
|
Definition
Date: 1961
Facts: Court ruled that state supported institutions had the right to notice and a hearing prior to an disciplinary action that might result in dismissal. Publicly funded higher education is an entitlement protected by due process of law.
Implications: the death knell of in loco parentis
private college students rely more heavily on a contractual analysis |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 1979
Background: Bradshaw was rendered a quadriplegic when a car in which he was a passenger struck a parked vehicle on the return trip from a class picnic. Bradshaw sued the institution (Rawlings, the driver).
Facts: The court ruled that no special relationship was found between Bradshaw and the institution; therefore, the college cannot be held liable for Bradshaw's injuries.
Implications: students are considered adults, and institutions are no longer liable unless a special relationship is found. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 1979
Background: The University of Missouri at Kansas City, did not allow religious student groups to use its facilities because of the Establishment Clause. A student group sued for violation of First Amendment rights.
Facts: The court ruled in favor of the student organization, stating that access to facilities is an equal right to all student organizations. In order to prevent a religious organization from using them, they must close the facilities to all organizations.
Implications: This decision ensured greater access to public facilities by religious organizations. The state was not assumed to be in support of all messages that were communicated in their facilities. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Harwood v. Johns Hopkins University |
|
Definition
Date: 2000
Background: Harwood completed all his degree requirements and was expected to receive his diploma from Johns Hopkins. Harwood was convicted of murder, and Johns Hopkins refused to confer a degree on him.
Facts: The court ruled in favor of the university, stating that a private university has the right to withhold a degree from an individual who has completed all degree requirements. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 2003
Background: University of Michigan Law School admitted minority students who had lower GPA and LSAT scores over majority students with higher scores.
Facts: Court ruled that increasing diversity is a valued state interest. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 2003
Background: University of Michigan gave 20 points to minority undergraduate applicants on a 100 point scale.
Facts: Court ruled that this was illegal discrimination because giving a significant amount of points is not narrowly tailored to increase diversity. |
|
|
Term
| Causes for dismissal of tenured faculty |
|
Definition
1) immorality
2) incompetence
3) insubordination
4) neglect of duty |
|
|
Term
| 4 statements that count as defamation per se |
|
Definition
1) come from third party
2) made public
3) interpreted as defamatory message
4) understood to be referring to the plaintiff |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| freedom of faculty members to research, write, teach, and publish w/out fear of retribution based on the unpopularity of ideas. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| court considers the ability of the defendant to pay a specific sum of money for torts. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| civil wrong for which the court may provide a remedy in damages to the injured party |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
statement that injures a persons reputation and diminishes the respect and esteem in which he/she is held in the community. libel (written); slander (oral)
truth is the one absolute defense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
do not have to prove harm, loss, or injury.
words that impute:
1) a criminal offense
2) loathsome or communicable disease
3) one's inability to perform job/profession
4) lack of chastity of a woman |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| plaintiff must prove actual damages |
|
|
Term
| Fiduciary Responsibilities of Board |
|
Definition
| Legal obligation to act in the best interest of the university. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Contracts and transactions - should not have any financial interest in decisions that affect the institution. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| personal interest of board member intersects with best interest of university. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| One's freedom to select and learn what he/she wants |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) Negligence- must establish that institution has duty, there was a breach of that duty, the breach was the cause of the harm, and whether there were actual damages.
2) intentional tort acts - defamation
3) strict liability injuries - unusual hazard |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 1969
Background: Students wore black arm bands to protest Vietnam war. institution suspended students.
Fact: students sued for violation of free speech rights. Court ruled that institution cannot punish students in fear of what may happen. Institution can only punish when students create substantial disruption. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Date: 1972
Background: SDS was punished for fear of what may happen.
Court decision: fear is not enough grounds to restrict free speech, even when speech condones violent disruption. Until students disrupt school actions, institution cannot suppress free speech rights. |
|
|
Term
| Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin v. Southworth |
|
Definition
| a public university can require fees from all students as long as they distribute them in a viewpoint neutral manner. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the court abstains from academic matters; court allows institution to make decisions. |
|
|
