United States Student rights in higher education

1 united states

1.1 laws , court precedent regarding institutional regulations
1.2 laws , court precedent on student rights in academic advising
1.3 laws , court precedent on student rights in recruitment
1.4 laws , court precedent on student rights in admissions
1.5 laws , court precedent on student rights in readmissions
1.6 laws , court precedent on student classroom rights
1.7 laws , court precedent on student group rights
1.8 laws , court precedent on student residence or residence hall rights
1.9 laws , court precedent on student privacy rights
1.10 laws , court precedent on student information rights
1.11 laws , court precedent on student rights in discipline , dismissal
1.12 laws , court precedent on student rights , campus police
1.13 laws , court precedent on student safety rights
1.14 laws , court precedent on student constitutional rights

1.14.1 free speech , association rights
1.14.2 equality rights
1.14.3 autonomy rights free choice (26th amendment)
1.14.4 laws , court precedent on student contract rights
1.14.5 laws , court precedent on student consumer rights
1.14.6 laws , court precedent on student employment rights

united states

in us, students have many rights accorded bills or laws (e.g. civil rights act , higher education act) , executive presidential orders. these have been proceduralized courts varying degrees. not, however, have national student bill of rights , students rely on institutions voluntarily provide information. while colleges posting own student bills, there no legal requirement , no requirement post legal rights.

laws , court precedent regarding institutional regulations

right protection arbitrary or capricious decision making

decision making should not arbitrary or capricious / random and, thus, interfere fairness. while case concerned private school, healy v. larsson (1974) found applied private intuitions applied public.

right have institutions follow own rules

institutions required, contractually, follow own rules. institutional documents may considered binding implied-n-fact contracts. goodman v. president , trustees of bowdoin college (2001) ruled institutional documents still contractual regardless if have disclaimer.

right adherence bulletins , circulars

students protected deviation information advertised in bulletins or circulars.

right adherence regulations

students protected deviation information advertised in regulations.

right adherence course catalogues

students protected deviation information advertised in course catalogues.

right adherence student codes

students protected deviation information advertised in student codes.

right adherence handbooks

students protected deviation information advertised in handbooks.

right fulfillment of promises made advisors

healy v. larsson (1974) found student completed degree requirements prescribed academic advisor entitled degree on basis implied contract.

right continuous contract

mississippi medical center v. hughes (2000) determined students have implied right continuous contract during period of continuous enrollment suggesting students have right graduate long fulfill requirements communicated. degree requirement changes unacceptable. bruner v. petersen (1997) found contractual protections not apply in event student, has failed meet requirements, readmitted program. student may required meet additional requirements support success. may avoid issues of discrimination.

right notice of degree requirement changes

brody v. finch university of health sciences chicago med. school (1998) determined students have right notice of degree requirement changes.

right fulfillment of verbal promises

verbal contracts binding. north carolina court of appeals in long v. university of north carolina @ wilmington (1995) found, however, verbal agreements must made in official capacity in order binding (bowden, 2007). dezick v. umpqua community college (1979) found student compensated because classes offered orally dean not provided.

laws , court precedent on student rights in academic advising

right fulfillment of promises , verbal promises advisors

verbal contracts binding. must made in official capacity, however, binding. dezick v. umpqua community college (1979) found student compensated because classes offered orally dean not provided. healy v. larsson (1974) found student completed degree requirements prescribed academic advisor entitled degree on basis implied contract. advisor should, thus, considered official source of information.

right continuous contract during period of continuous enrollment

mississippi medical center v. hughes (2000) determined students have implied right continuous contract during period of continuous enrollment suggesting students have right graduate long fulfill requirements communicated. degree requirement changes unacceptable. bruner v. petersen (1997) found contractual protections not apply in event student, has failed meet requirements, readmitted program. student may required meet additional requirements support success. may avoid issues of discrimination.

right notice of degree requirement changes

brody v. finch university of health sciences chicago med. school (1998) determined students have right notice of degree requirement changes (kaplan & lee, 2011). if student, instance, absent semester , not continuously enrolled need know if degree requirements have changed.

right protection arbitrary or capricious decision making

decision making should not arbitrary or capricious / random and, thus, interfere fairness. form of discrimination. while case concerned private school, healy v. larsson (1974) found applied private intuitions applied public.

laws , court precedent on student rights in recruitment

right basic institutional facts , figures before admission

the 2008 higher education opportunity act (hoea, 2008) requires institutions disclose institutional statistics on department of education (doe) website allow students make more informed educational decisions. information required on doe website includes: tuition, fees, net price of attendance, tuition plans, , statistics including sex, ability, ethnic , transfer student ratios act/sat scores, degrees offered, enrolled, , awarded. institutions required disclose transfer credit policies , articulation agreements.

right protection ability discrimination in academic recruitment

the 1990 americans disabilities act (ada) , section 504 of 1973 rehabilitation act prohibits ability discrimination in academic recruitment. includes ability discrimination in recruitment. individuals designated disability medical professional, legally recognized disability , deemed otherwise qualified entitled equal treatment , reasonable accommodations. supreme court defined otherwise qualified individual can perform required tasks in spite of rather except disability.

laws , court precedent on student rights in admissions

right protection sex discrimination in admissions

title ix of 1972 higher education act amendments protect sexes pre-admission inquiries regard pregnancy, parental status, family or marital status. can seen act protects against such inquiry regarding inter-sexed, transsexual, transgender or androgynous individuals.

right protection ability discrimination in admissions

the 1990 americans disabilities act (ada) , section 504 of 1973 rehabilitation act. includes ability discrimination in admissions. individuals designated disability medical professional, legally recognized disability , deemed otherwise qualified entitled equal treatment , reasonable accommodations in both educational , employment related activities. supreme court defined otherwise qualified individual can perform required tasks in spite of rather except disability.

right protection racial discrimination in admissions

individuals may not discriminated against on basis of color in either undergraduate or graduate school admissions.

right testing in admissions accommodations

protection discrimination in admissions entails students receive accommodations required prove otherwise qualified, protection unfair testing practices, testing accommodations speech, manual , hearing disabilities , access alternative testing offered in accessible facilities. alternative testing must offered standard tests. no alternative testing exists, institutions, however, not responsible accommodations.

right protection sex discrimination in admissions testing

educational tests biased in favor of 1 gender, may not relied upon sole source of information decision making.

right protection racially segregating testing policies

students equality entails individuals not treated differently individuals or systematically institution. thus, testing policies systematically discriminate, unlawful according constitution. united states v. fordice (1992) prohibited use of act scores in mississippi admissions, instance, because gap between act scores of white , black student greater gpa gap not considered @ all.

right race conscious affirmative action in admissions correct discrimination

when school has engaged in racial discrimination in past required law take race conscious affirmative action correct it.

right protection reverse discrimination

white students protected racial discrimination @ historic minority institutions. racial equality calls equal treatment of individuals; not permit, however, lower admissions test requirements or subjective judgments racial minorities when there objective standards in place applicants.

right protection subjective interviews

there may no segregation in admissions process including subjective interviews when there objective standards in place applicants.

right protection differential testing requirements

students protected use of lower admissions test scores.

right protection admissions quotas based on demographics

students protected use of quotas set aside seats demographics.

right adherence registration materials

students protected deviation information advertised in registration materials. may binding implied-in-fact contract. goodman v. president , trustees of bowdoin college (2001) ruled institutional documents still contractual regardless if have disclaimer.

laws , court precedent on student rights in readmissions

right equality in readmissions

institutions must careful readmissions after students have failed complete necessary program requirements. readmission raises questions why individuals removed program in first place , whether future applicants may admitted under conditions. discrimination may alleged regarding both initial removal , in case other students not readmitted under circumstances. kaplan & lee , lee (2011) recommend institutions, if wish avoid breach of contract , discrimination accusations, have explicit readmission policy if policy denies readmission. if students take voluntary leave of absence, institutions must have valid reason refuse readmission.

laws , court precedent on student classroom rights

right adherence class syllabi

students protected deviation information advertised in class syllabi. may binding implied-n-fact contract. goodman v. president , trustees of bowdoin college (2001) ruled institutional documents still contractual regardless if have disclaimer.

right advertised course content

students entitled receive instruction on advertised course content. institutions have right require coverage of designated course material teachers , faculty , students protected if adhere syllabus guidelines.

right advertised level of course instruction

students may expect teaching in conformity course level advertised. andre v. pace university (1994) awarded damages on grounds of negligent misrepresentation , breach of contract.

right attention course objectives

teachers must give reasonable attention stated course subjects.

right advertised content covered in sufficient depth

students may have advertised content covered in sufficient depth.

right uniformity across class sections

scallet v. rosenblum (1996) found tight control on curriculum necessary ensure uniformity across class sections .

right fair grading in accordance course syllabus

students may graded , in accordance criteria set forth course syllabuses , may protected addition of new grading criteria. institutions have responsibility of preserving quality in grade representations , comparability between classes , prevent grade inflation. teachers have right, under first amendment, communicate opinions regarding student grades, institutions required meet students implied contract rights fair grading practices. departments may change grades issued teachers not in line grading policies or unfair or unreasonable.

right learn

students have right learn. teachers not have free rein in classroom. must act within departmental requirements ensure students right learn , must considered effective. sweezy v. new hampshire (1957) found teachers have right lecture. not have academic freedom under law. academic freedom rules put in place school.

right protection misuse of time

students may expect protection misuse of time; teachers may not waste students time or use class captive audience views or lessons not related course. riggin v. bd. of trustees of ball st. univ. found instructors may not wast[e] time of students have come there , paid money different purpose.

right effective teaching

students can expect effective teaching if requires departmental involvement in teaching , curriculum development. kozol (2005) observed curriculum development may not beneficial students since students come disadvantaged backgrounds not every student has equitable opportunities succeed in school. if there departmental involvement in students learning departments need acknowledge students different when belong minority group. ogbu (2004) argued effective teaching take place, departments need understand students @ group level @ individual level because students within same minority groups different. given students have right effective teaching, department involvement needs understand cultural diversity , cultural differences before curriculum development considered.

right protection written or verbal abuse

teachers have right regulated expression may not use first amendment privileges punitively or discriminatorily or in way prevents students learning ridiculing, proselytizing, harassment or use of unfair grading practices.

right protection ability discrimination in learning

the 1990 americans disabilities act , section 504 of 1973 rehabilitation act prohibit disability based discrimination in classroom. act includes ability discrimination in learning , deemed otherwise qualified entitled equal treatment , reasonable accommodations in both educational , employment related activities. supreme court defined otherwise qualified individual can perform required tasks in spite of rather except disability.

right ability accommodation in classroom facilities

disabled students entitled equal access classrooms facilities required achieve degree.

right protection testing policies racially segregate

students equality entails individuals not treated differently individuals or systematically institution. thus, testing policies systematically discriminate, unlawful according constitution. united states v. fordice (1992) prohibited use of act scores in mississippi admissions, instance, because gap between act scores of white , black student greater gpa gap not considered @ all.

laws , court precedent on student group rights

right equality in provision of student activities

institutions have obligation provide equal opportunities in athletics, bands , clubs. includes equal accommodation of interests , abilities both sexes, provision of equipment , facility scheduling such activities games , practices, travel allowance , dorm room facilities. includes equal quality facilities including locker rooms, medical services, tutoring services, coaching , publicity. ensure sufficient opportunities made available women, institutions responsible complying title ix in 1 of 3 ways. must provide athletic opportunities proportionate enrollment, prove continually expanding opportunities underrepresented sex or accommodate interests , abilities of underrepresented sex.

right disclosure of athletics plans , expenditures

the 2008 higher education opportunity act requires disclosure of athletics information including male , female undergraduate enrollment, number of teams , team statistics including number of players, team operating expenses, recruitment, coach salaries, aid teams , athletes , team revenue (heoa, 2008). information required ensure equality standards met.

laws , court precedent on student residence or residence hall rights

right have visitors in residence hall rooms

good v. associated students univ. of washington (1975) found students have right have visitors , solicitors in residence hall rooms.

right sex equality in housing standards

students entitled housing of equal quality , cost , equal housing policies.

right protection gender segregation in residence

until nineteen nineties gender segregation permissible long institutional rationale doing narrowly defined , justifiable. precedent officially reversed, however, after supreme court in united states v. commonwealth of virginia (1992) found woman mistakenly admitted men s military college entitled remain enrolled.

right disability accommodation in residence facilities

students disabilities entitled equal quality dormitories living accommodations (section 504 rehabilitation act, 1973; kaplan & lee, 2011. accommodations free student if student has financial means pay them.

right protection age discrimination in residence

students entitled equal treatment in housing regardless of age unless there narrowly defined goal requires unequal treatment , policy neutrally applied. prostrollo v. university of south dakota (1974), instance, found institution may require single freshmen , sophomores live on campus. did not discriminate between age groups.

right protection dorm search , seizure

piazzola v. watkins (1971) established students not required waive search , seizure rights condition of dormitory residence. random door sweeps impermissible.

right defined terms of dorm search , seizure

institutions may enter rooms in times of emergency, if have proof of illegal activity or threat educational environment. both these terms must stipulated in advance. otherwise institutions must ask permission enter. when dorms rooms legally searched narrowly defined reasons or officials legally permitted enter student rooms, students not protected property damage incurred in search process or action taken when evidence in plain sight.

right protection illegal police search , seizure

evidence found in student dorm rooms institutional employees cannot used in court of law , institutions cannot allow police conduct search , seizure out warrant. students may not punished refusing warrantless search institutional authorities or police officers. when students freely allow institutional officials enter institutions can hold students accountable evidence in plain sight.

laws , court precedent on student privacy rights

right privacy in higher education

griswald v. connecticut (1965) found third, fourth, , fifteen amendments constitute inalienable right privacy. students extended same privacy rights extended community @ large.

right privacy of student records

the 1971 family rights , privacy act , 2008 higher education opportunity act protect student information. students have right access records, dispute record keeping , limited control on release of documents third parties.

right approve release of student information

frpa , hoea require students sign release before student records provided third parties (e.g.: parents , employers tec.). legislation allow schools, however, release information without student approval purpose of institutional audit, evaluation, or study, student aid consideration, institutional accreditation, compliance legal subpoenas or juvenile justice system officers or in order comply laws requiring identification of sex offenders on campus. institutions may disclose information student guardians if student declared dependant tax purposes (ferpa).

right notice of information disclosures

under ferpa, schools may publish directory information, including students name, address, phone number, date of birth, place of birth, awards, attendance dates or student id number, unless students ask school not disclose it. institution must inform students entitled these rights.

right use pseudonyms on public internet forums

individuals may use pseudonyms online , not required identify (kaplan & lee, 2011). drug testing random national collegiate athletic association (ncaa) urine testing legal protect athlete health, fair competition , opportunities educate drug abuse in sports. officials allowed watch athletes urinate. overturned earlier ruling prohibited urination watching.

laws , court precedent on student information rights

right basic institutional facts , figures before admission

the 2008 higher education opportunity act requires institutions disclose institutional statistics on department of education (doe) website allow students make more informed educational decisions. information required on doe website includes: tuition, fees, net price of attendance, tuition plans, , statistics including sex, ability, ethnic , transfer student ratios act/sat scores, degrees offered, enrolled, , awarded. institutions required disclose transfer credit policies , articulation agreements.

right financial aid information disclosures

the 2008 hoea requires institutions of higher education provide financial aid information disclosures, advertise financial aid program, pre eligibility disclosures pertaining individual student, information differentiating federally insured or subsidized , private loans, preferred lender agreements, institutional rational establishment of preferred lender agreements , notice schools required process loan chosen students.

right information full cost of attendance

according 2008 hoea, financial aid information disclosures must include average financial aid awarded per person, cost of tuition, fees, room, board, books, supplies , transport.

right information full cost of loan repayment

according 2008 hoea, financial aid information disclosures must include amount of aid not requiring repayment, eligible loans, loan terms, net required repayment.

right detailed federal student loan information

pre-eligibility disclosures must include notice of repayment, lender details, principle amount, fees, interest rate, interest details, limits of borrowing, cumulative balance, estimated payment, frequency, repayment start date, minimum , maximum payments , details regarding deferment, forgiveness, consolidation , penalties.

right standards terminology in financial aid forms

institutions required utilize standard financial terminology , standard dissemination of financial aid information, forms, procedures, data security , searchable financial aid databases ensure students can understand contractual rights , obligations. forms must clear, succinct, readable , disability accessible.

right detailed third party federal student loan information

the hoea (2008) requires third party student loan lenders disclose information concerning alternative federal loans, fixed , variable rates, limit adjustments, co-borrower requirements, maximum loans, rate, principle amount, interest accrual, total estimated repayment requirement, maximum monthly payment , deferral options.

right financial aid awareness campaigns underrepresented students in high education

the hoea (2008) requires institutions of higher education engage in financial aid eligibility awareness campaigning make students aware of student aid , realities of accepting it.

right information on use of student fees

van stry v. state (1984) found institutions may not use student fees support organizations outside university. teachers, likewise, have right refuse pay union fees when allocated objectionable political purposes. implies students have right know activities being allocated towards.

right disclosure of athletics plans , expenditures

the 2008 higher education opportunity act requires disclosure of athletics information including male , female undergraduate enrollment, number of teams , team statistics including number of players, team operating expenses, recruitment, coach salaries, aid teams , athletes , team revenue (heoa, 2008). information required ensure equality standards met. ensures institutions abiding title ix of 1972 higher education act amendments limits sexual discrimination , requires institutions offer equal sport, club , opportunities.

there many other implied information rights. if legislation states students entitled information in pre-eligibility loan disclosures, implies entitled have pre-eligibility loan disclosure.
right information on justification of policies

rosenberger v. rector , visitors of university of virginia (1995) found student fees must allocated in viewpoint neutral way. cannot based on religious, political or personal views (henderickson; v. associated students university of washington) , cannot levied punishment. suggests students have right policy justification know viewpoint neutral.

right information regarding course objectives , content

students may expect protection misuse of time; teachers may not waste students time or use class captive audience views or lessons not related course. riggin v. bd. of trustees of ball st. univ. found instructors may not wast[e] time of students have come there , paid money different purpose. assumes students entitled know course objectives , content.

right course syllabus

students may graded , in accordance criteria set forth course syllabuses , may protected addition of new grading criteria. institutions have responsibility of preserving quality in grade representations , comparability between classes , prevent grade inflation. assumes students have right syllabus ensure fair grading.

laws , court precedent on student rights in discipline , dismissal

right protection ability discrimination in discipline , dismissal

the 1990 americans disabilities act , section 504 of 1973 rehabilitation act protect students against discrimination based on ability. includes ability discrimination in discipline , dismissal. individuals shall designated disability medical professional, legally recognized disability.

right due process in disciplinary action

matthews v. elderidge (1976) found when there possibility one’s interests deprived through procedural error, value of additional safe guards , governmental interests, including monetary expenses, should weighed. foster v. board of trustees of butler county community college (1991) found students not entitled due process rights when appealing rejected admissions applications. not yet students.

right due process in disciplinary potential lead monetary loss

due process required when actions have potential resulting property or monetary loss or loss of income or future income etc. includes degree revocation or dismissal. students have property interest in remaining @ institution , have protection form undue removal.

right due process in disciplinary potential loss of liberty

students have liberty right protect defamation of character or threat reputation. federal district courts have, therefore, found due process required in cases involving charges of plagiarism, cheating , falsification of research data.

right clear notice of charges in disciplinary process

in disciplinary measures students entitled provision of definite charge.

right prompt notice of charges in disciplinary process

students entitled prompt notice of charges, e.g., ten days before hearing.

right hearing before expert judge

in cases involving expulsion or dismissal students entitled right expert judgment judge empowered expel.

right inspect documents in disciplinary hearings

students may inspect documents considered institutional officials in disciplinary hearings.

right witness in disciplinary hearings

students may stand witness , tell story during disciplinary hearings.

right record disciplinary hearings

students may record disciplinary hearings ensure conducted in legal fashion.

right unbiased ruling in disciplinary hearings

students can expect rulings in disciplinary hearings based solely on evidence presented @ hearing. students entitled hearing before person or committee not involved in dispute.

right written statement of findings in disciplinary hearings

students may expect receive written account of findings disciplinary hearings showing how decisions in line evidence.

right fairness in disciplinary hearings

board of curators of university of missouri et al. v. horowitz (1978) found fairness means decisions, a) may not arbitrary or capricious, b) must provide equal treatment regard sex, religion or personal appearance etc. , c) must determined in careful , deliberate manner.

right hearing before discipline

hearings must conducted before suspension or discipline unless there proven threat danger, damage of property or academic disruption.

right action in line inquiry findings

texas lightsey v. king (1983) determined due process requires outcomes of investigation taken seriously. student cannot, instance, dismissed cheating after hearing has found him not guilty.

right investigation , consideration of circumstance

the american bar association (aba) found need fair , hearing precludes use of 0 tolerance policies ignore circumstances surrounding action. individual commits crime because believe in danger may not held accountable in same way individual conducts same crime self-interest.

right greater due process in criminal matters

students accused of criminal acts including drug possession, plagiarism, cheating , falsification of research data or fraud, may have greater due process rights.

right cross examine in criminal matters

students accused of criminal acts may cross-examine witnesses, counsel.

right open trial in criminal matters

students accused of criminal acts may have open trial ensure conducted fairly, counsel.

right fair evidentiary standard of proof in criminal matters

in non-criminal hearings in educational setting, schools may use lesser standard evidence criminal matters concerned must have clear , convincing evidence.

right counsel in criminal matters students accused of criminal acts may have counsel present. not mean institution must pay they

may present.

right higher appeals process in criminal matters

students accused of criminal acts should have access higher appeals process.

right legal representation during formal university disciplinary procedure

the student & administration equality act proposed legislation in north carolina general assembly (house bill 843) allow student or student organization charged violation of conduct @ north carolina state university right represented attorney @ stage of disciplinary process regarding charge of misconduct.

laws , court precedent on student rights , campus police

right protection unwarranted search , seizure

students protected unwarranted search , seizure. fourth , fourteenth amendments protect search , seizure without warrant. enshrine individuals right “secure in persons, houses, papers , effects.” warrants must include person, place , specific items eligible search , or seizure. search , seizure rights not apply automobiles.

right arrest official police officers

individuals protected arrest undeputized campus police , illegal search , seizure if arrest made.

right protection entrapment

students protected entrapment campus police individuals protected outside educational environment.

right protection dorm search , seizure

piazzola v. watkins (1971) established students not required waive search , seizure rights condition of dormitory residence. random dorm sweeps impermissible.

right defined terms of dorm search , seizure

institutions may enter rooms in times of emergency, if have proof of illegal activity or threat educational environment. both these terms must stipulated in advance. otherwise institutions must ask permission enter. when dorms rooms legally searched narrowly defined reasons or officials legally permitted enter student rooms, students not protected property damage incurred in search process or action taken when evidence in plain sight.

right protection illegal police search , seizure

evidence found in student dorm rooms institutional employees cannot used in court of law , institutions cannot allow police conduct search , seizure out warrant. students may not punished refusing warrantless search institutional authorities or police officers. when students freely allow institutional officials enter institutions can hold students accountable evidence in plain sight.

laws , court precedent on student safety rights

right protection injury on campus

a number of state courts have found institutions have responsibility prevent or make efforts limit injury on campus dangerous property , criminal conditions long injury both foreseeable , preventable.

right protection injury in facilities under campus jurisdiction

knoll v. board of regents of university of nebraska (1999) found institutions responsible ensuring safety of facilities either under institutional jurisdiction or oversight. institutions are, thus, responsible institutionally owned dormitories , fraternities whether on campus or off campus , fraternities may not owned institution regulated institution. taking on regulatory role institution takes on liability. state court found, when students not lawfully permitted on institutional property or in institutional buildings after hours, instance, institution not responsible. institutions willfully take responsibility fraternity or require students abide rules take on liability.

right protection foreseeable crime on campus

students should safe seeable crime in light of past reports of crime, if loitering or dangerous conditions have been made etc. institutions required take safety precautions including monitoring of unauthorized personnel in dormitories, taking action against unauthorized personnel when pose threat safety , ensuring adequate security measures in place.

right protection injury caused other students

students deserve protection other students on whom institution has oversight including voluntarily assumed jurisdiction e.g.: clubs, sororities, fraternities, teams. this, instance, includes protection foreseeable or preventable fraternity hazing if fraternities not located on institutional property. institution has responsibility inform of safety risks existent in institutionally regulated programs (white, 2007). state courts have found institutions not responsible, however, screening ex-convicts before admission, 1987).

laws , court precedent on student constitutional rights

students have right constitutional freedoms , protections in higher education. prior 1960s institutions of higher education did not have respect students constitutional rights act parent in interest of student (nancy thomas, 1991). in 1960 shelton v. turner found vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms more vital in community of american schools , in 1961 dixon v. alabam found students not required give up, condition of admission, constitutional rights , protections.

free speech , association rights

right free speech , association rights

students retain first amendment rights in institutions of higher education. papish v. board of curators of univ. of missouri (1973) , joyner v. whiting (1973) found students may engage in speech not interfere rights of others or of operation of school. because schools places of education may regulate speech time, manner , place long provide free speech zones students long not used limit expression.

right free religious , unaccepted speech

the first amendment protects religious, indecent speech , profane hand gestures including middle finger. texas v. johnson (1989) found “[i]f there bedrock principle underlying first amendment, government may not prohibit expression of idea because society finds idea offensive or disagreeable. first amendment not recognize exceptions bigotry, racism, , religious intolerance or ideas or matters may deem trivial, vulgar or profane.”

right expression through clothing

clothing, armbands, newspaper editorials , demonstrations have been found legal forms of free speech.

right free speech on public forums

the first amendment covers internet communications. on forums designated institution public forums or commonly used public forums, students may express without content regulation or removal. online policy group v. diebold, inc., 2004 regulation may take place prevent illegal activities.

equality rights

right protection sex discrimination in higher education

students protected discrimination based on sex in program or activity receiving federal funding except military, fraternity, sorority organizations.

right protection sexual harassment in education

sexual harassment considered form of sex discrimination under title iv of 1964 civil rights act , applies federal programs , activities. sexual harassment has been prohibited in educational settings , applies both opposite , same sex harassment students.

right sex equality in provision of student activities

institutions have obligation provide equal opportunities in athletics, bands , clubs. includes equal accommodation of interests , abilities both sexes, provision of equipment , facility scheduling such activities games , practices, travel allowance , dorm room facilities. includes equal quality facilities including locker rooms, medical services, tutoring services, coaching , publicity. ensure sufficient opportunities made available women, institutions responsible complying title ix in 1 of 3 ways. must provide athletic opportunities proportionate enrollment, prove continually expanding opportunities underrepresented sex or accommodate interests , abilities of underrepresented sex.

right disclosure of athletics plans , expenditures

the 2008 higher education opportunity act requires disclosure of athletics information including male , female undergraduate enrollment, number of teams , team statistics including number of players, team operating expenses, recruitment, coach salaries, aid teams , athletes , team revenue. information required ensure equality standards met.

right protection ability discrimination in facilities

the 1990 americans disabilities act , section 504 of 1973 rehabilitation act prohibits ability discrimination in higher education. includes ability discrimination in facility use. individuals designated disability medical professional, legally recognized disability , deemed otherwise qualified entitled equal treatment , reasonable accommodations in both educational , employment related activities. supreme court defined otherwise qualified individual can perform required tasks in spite of rather except disability.

right protection race discrimination

the 1972 equal educational opportunity act protects students equal rights educational opportunity regardless of race , 1965 lyndon b. johnson executive order 11246 , 1964 civil rights act require equal access employment opportunities regardless of race.

right protection racial segregation

students protected racial segregation compromises access quality education.

right affirmative action

all federal employers or federal contractors required take affirmative action counteract effects of historical discrimination. must create goals, timetables, action plans, budgets , reporting systems ensure marginalized populations given equal employment opportunities. regulations must posted in conspicuous places available staff , potential employees.

right freedom discrimination in affirmative action

diversity defined in broader terms race. grutter v. bollinger (2003) found “broad range of qualities , experiences may considered valuable contributions” , “a wide variety of characteristics besides race , ethnicity.” members of majority protected reverse discrimination. race neutral affirmative action policies must make exceptions on individual basis , may not discriminate based on race or color.

right protection discrimination based on national origin in education

individuals have right equal treatment regardless of national origin in institutions of higher education (hea, 1965) long citizens or resident aliens of united states. 1986 immigration , reform control act prohibits discrimination based on citizenship. institutions have right discriminate based on national origin long objectives both narrowly defined , neutrally applied. is, thus, permissible require non-resident aliens legally present in united states have health insurance instance.

right protection age discrimination

age discrimination in federally funded programs prohibited 1975 age discrimination act. act builds on 1967 age discrimination in employment act. provides protection unequal treatment between people of different ages explicit or implied distinctions effect benefits of participation.

right equal treatment of student groups

gay activists alliance v. board of regents of university of oklahoma (1981) found student groups entitled equal , unbiased recognition. recognition includes unbiased allocation of facility , equipment resources except when there proof student group not maintain reasonable housekeeping or poses threat of danger, disruption or criminal action.

autonomy rights free choice (26th amendment)

right personal autonomy

healey v. james (1972) found students have right self-determination. “students—who, reason of 26th amendment, become eligible vote when 18 years of age—are adults members of college or university community. interests , concerns quite different of faculty. have values, views, , ideologies @ war ones college has traditionally espoused or indoctrinated. bradshaw v. rawlings (1979) found adult students demand , receive expanded rights of privacy in college life .

laws , court precedent on student contract rights

right contract rights

carr v. st. johns university (1962) , healey v. larsson (1971, 1974) established students , institutions of higher education formed contractual relationship. institutions of higher education responsible ensure contracts, including implied , verbal, fair, in faith , not unconscionable.

right adherence institutional documents

students protected deviation information advertised in following documents: registration materials, manuals, course catalogues, bulletins, circulars, regulations, ross v. creighton university class syllabi, student codes, , handbooks. these documents may binding implied-n-fact contracts. goodman v. president , trustees of bowdoin college (2001) ruled institutional documents still contractual regardless if have disclaimer. decision found though college had reserved right change student handbook unilaterally , without notice, reservation of rights did not defeat contractual nature of student handbook.

right fulfillment of verbal promises

ross v. creighton university found verbal contracts binding. north carolina court of appeals in long v. university of north carolina @ wilmington (1995) found, however, verbal agreements must made in official capacity in order binding. dezick v. umpqua community college (1979) found student compensated because classes offered orally dean not provided. healy v. larsson (1974) found student completed degree requirements prescribed academic advisor entitled degree on basis implied contract. advisor should, thus, considered official source of information.

laws , court precedent on student consumer rights

john f. kennedy s 1962 consumer bill of rights, not legal document, asserts consumers have right consumer safety, information preventing fraud, deceit , informed choice, choose multiple alternative options , right complaint, heard , addressed. number of these principles enshrined in law of higher education.

right limited fiduciary care (institutional care in student s best interest)

johnson v. schmitz (2000) found in federal district court phd committee established sole purpose of advising student had obligation advise student in best interest. limited fiduciary right.

right care regarding safety of students

bradshaw v. rawlings (1979) reiterated special relationship established, courts may impose duty upon institution or individual ensure care of others. duty defined here “as obligation law give recognition in order require 1 person conform particular standard of conduct respect person.” institutions have duty of care ensure safety of students while respecting personal autonomy. mullins v. pine manor found [t]he fact college need not police morals of resident students... not entitle abandon effort ensure physical safety”.

right grievance filing process

dixon v. alabama (1961) determined when students constitutional rights not upheld, students eligible sue damages in court of law monetary or material damages. individuals may file complaints regarding discrimination federal office of civil rights (ocr).

right protection injury on campus

a number of state courts have found institutions have responsibility prevent or make efforts limit injury on campus dangerous property , criminal conditions long injury both foreseeable , preventable.

right protection injury in facilities under campus jurisdiction

knoll v. board of regents of university of nebraska (1999) found institutions responsible ensuring safety of facilities either under institutional jurisdiction or oversight. institutions are, thus, responsible institutionally owned dormitories , fraternities whether on campus or off campus , fraternities may not owned institution regulated institution. taking on regulatory role institution takes on liability. state court found, when students not lawfully permitted on institutional property or in institutional buildings after hours, instance, institution not responsible.

right protection foreseeable crime on campus

students should safe seeable crime in light of past reports of crime, loitering or dangerous conditions. institutions required take safety precautions including monitoring of unauthorized personnel in dormitories, taking action against unauthorized personnel when pose threat safety , ensuring adequate security measures in place.

right protection injury caused other students

students deserve protection other students on whom institution has oversight including voluntarily assumed jurisdiction e.g.: clubs, sororities, fraternities, teams. this, instance, includes protection foreseeable or preventable fraternity hazing if fraternities not located on institutional property. institution has responsibility inform of safety risks existent in institutionally regulated programs. state courts have found institutions not responsible, however, screening exconvicts before admission.

laws , court precedent on student employment rights

right protection sex discrimination in workplace

students protected discrimination based on sex in program or activity receiving federal funding except military, fraternity, sorority organizations. there protections both public , private employment. employment opportunities must merit based.

right equal pay sexes in workplace

all sexes have right equal pay equal work performed in workplace in institutions of higher education. include student employment. may suggest transgender people entitled equal pay in workplace.

right protection forced pregnancy leave

women not have go on mandatory pregnancy leave before birth, , right doctor prescribed leave during pregnancy.

right protection sexual harassment in workplace

sexual harassment prohibited in both educational , workplace settings , applies both opposite , same sex harassment employees.

right active protection sexual harassment in workplace

the 1997 department of education , office of civil rights sexual harassment guidelines find institutions liable incidences wherein institution aware or should have been aware of sexual harassment , took no immediate action. majority of federal court cases involving educational institutions prohibit maintenance of conditions allow harassment other students continue.

right protection ability discrimination in workplace

ability discrimination in federally funded , private programs , activities prohibited under 1990 americans disabilities act (ada) , section 504 of 1973 rehabilitation act. individuals designated disability medical professional, legally recognized disability , deemed otherwise qualified entitled equal treatment , reasonable accommodations. supreme court defined otherwise qualified individual can perform required tasks in spite of rather except disability.

right protection ability discrimination in employment recruitment

the 1990 americans disabilities act , section 504 of 1973 rehabilitation act. includes ability discrimination in recruitment. individuals designated disability medical professional, legally recognized disability.

right protection ability discrimination in workplace discipline , dismissal

the 1990 americans disabilities act , section 504 of 1973 rehabilitation act in discipline , dismissal.

right protection age discrimination

age discrimination in federally funded programs prohibited 1975 age discrimination act. act builds on 1967 age discrimination in employment act. provides protection unequal treatment between people of different ages explicit or implied distinctions effect benefits of participation.

right protection race discrimination in employment

executive order 11246 expanded upon 1953 dwight d. eisenhower executive order 10479, established anti-discrimination committee oversee governmental contracting. 1967 lyndon b. johnson executive order 11375 requires facets of federal employment or federally contracted employment regulated based on merit – includes institutions of higher education.

right protection discrimination based on national origin in employment

individuals have right equal treatment regardless of national origin in employment settings long citizens or resident aliens of united states. 1986 immigration , reform control act prohibits discrimination based on citizenship.