Julea Ward V. Board Of Regents Case Study

All students, kindergarten through twelfth grade are protected under many various education laws, as well as their basic rights. Title IX is a landmark case from 1972 that removes the bias of gender discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal financial assistance (Title IX, 1972). Title IX does not mean that each sex needs a football, basketball and dance team, it means that there needs to be three equal opportunities for each sex. Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) was a more recent case of discrimination based on sex in relation to funding of a girl’s basketball team. In addition to Title IX, Section 1983 also upholds the civil rights provided by the Constitution, (42 USC 1983). Grove City College

The third case, Daniel RR v. State Board of Education, was documented in United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in June 12, 1989. This case discussed whether a child with disability is given a right to receive mainstream education.

Forester-Miller and Davis’s (1996) ethical decision-making model suggests that the initial step in resolving an ethical dilemma is to first identify the problem and then clarify the nature of the problem. This entails gathering pertinent information that will help elucidate any potential ethical issues. One important matter to reflect upon is whether this dilemma is ethical, clinical, professional, legal or any combination of the aforementioned categories (Forester-Miller & Davis, 1996). Honing in on the nature of the ethical issue will provide some direction as to which avenues are the most applicable for the given ethical situation.

The book “Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents” is Waldo E. Martin’s observation on not just the landmark case of Brown v. Board but also the institutionalized racism that was overcome to get there. It also documents other cases that Brown v. Board built upon to get the decision that challenged “separate but equal”. In this text Martin gives a glimpse into not just what the court order did from a legislative standpoint, but from a human standpoint, what happened to the people, community, and society in general both prior and in the wake of the of this monumental decision.

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

It can be concluded Teachers are held to a higher standard then non-educational occupations, as “The Supreme Court has acknowledged that a “teacher serves as a role model for…students exerting a subtle but important influence over their perceptions and values” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 251). Teachers must be conscious to the ideology their actions, words, and mannerism can directly influence their student audience. The 1st amendment freedom of expression offers protection to teachers as it applies to the following clause, “Public employees’ comments on matters of public concern are protected expression if they are made as a citizen and not pursuant to official job duties” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 233).

In the Emerson v. Board of Education Case New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide transportation of children to and from school. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, following this law, authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent by their children on public buses. However, Arch Everson, a resident and taxpayer in the Ewing Township school district, learned that a reimbursement was going to parents who sent their children to Catholic schools as well. He then claimed that this money supported religion and violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the new law was not in violation of the establishment clause.

The US Supreme Court decision in Domokos v. Board of Education is an example of how the court defined an athletic director as a public figure. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, appellant Frank Domokos was the athletic director at Mentor high school. Through his tenure, the school was responsible for hosting the OHSAA postseason scholastic athletic competition whereby Frank Domoskos was appointed by OHSAA as tournament director for the girl’s basketball team and the boy’s wrestling team. In accordance with his duties as tournament director, Domokos opened two bank accounts, one for the wrestling team and one for the basketball team. However, the accounts weren’t used for any Mentor high school activities. Rather, Domokos mixed tournament money with

The topic I’ll be discussing will be the biasedness in media about a particular topic, the US Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Education. The case involved a previous Supreme Court ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education, where they gave schools to desegregate public schools “with all deliberate speed.” 15 years passed and school districts were still segregated, so the courts gave them till the beginning of the next year, 1970. This gave some schools a very abrupt shock as they had to conform to the decision. As something that opinionated, it allows news media to explore and write about such a topic.

Based on the presented facts, it is the opinion of this writer that the educator’s termination will be upheld and the defendant will win the case. Using Fowler v. Board of Education, 819 F. 2d 657 (1987), as precedent, the actions of the plaintiff caused a substantial disruption to the learning environment. While educators are afforded the right of academic freedom “to speak freely about their subjects, to experiment with new ideas, and to select appropriate teaching materials and methods” (Hillman & Trevaskis, 2014, p. 7-12), one should err on the side of caution, as “great deference is paid to the local board of education since they have the power to determine the curriculum and the materials used”

Members of the University of Illinois’s men’s swim team filed a lawsuit in 1993 claiming that the school was discriminating against them by cutting their team and not the women’s swim team. The members claimed that this decision was in violation of Title IX, a law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, along with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Illinois made the decision to cut the men’s swim team due to budgetary limitations. Along with the men’s swim team, the men’s diving, men’s fencing, and women’s diving team were also cut for the same reason. There were many instances previous to this case where female athletes have filed lawsuits claiming that they were being discriminated against, and that the institution was in violation of

In 1971, the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education was in North Carolina which is part of the South. Even after Brown v. Board of Education, there was troubles of segregating the schools, especially in the South. This case was challenge because of the busing system sending black students all to black schools and white students were being bused to schools with whites. The plaintiff wanted schools to have a diverse population for a better education for all students in Charlotte, North Carolina.

James Loudermill was dismissed from his job as a security guard for the Cleveland Board of Education for failing to disclose a prior felony conviction on his application. Loudermill, a classified civil servant under Ohio law, filed an appeal with the civil service commission stating Ohio statue provided he could only be terminated for cause; therefore, he was entitled to administrative review of his dismissal. Nine months after the appeal was filed the Commission upheld his termination. Loudermill filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging the Ohio statute that provided for administrative review of a discharged public employee was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges against him prior to being discharged. The suit also alleged the Ohio statute was unconstitutional as applied because he was not given a prompt appeal hearing by the Civil Service

The Courts should strictly interpret the U.S Constitution to prevent personal judgement and opinions from changing a fair decision. In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the board of education of the West Virginia Legislature attempted to make the pledge of allegiance as a mandatory activities in public schools and refusal to participate will be dealt with in some way. Two Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not allowed to pledge to symbols according to their beliefs, were expelled for not saluting the flag. The decision of the Supreme Court was “constructed” based on the first amendment that states that promises no restriction on free exercise of religion and therefore the mandatory salute was banned. If the courts were

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case in 1978 explored the issue surrounding a young white man’s rejection from UC Davis’ Medical School when students with lower grades than him were accepted through a minority benefits program. The young man, Allan Bakke, was rejected in two successive years before filing suit in the Superior Court of Yolo County, arguing that he had to be accepted to the school since those with grades lower than him had been accepted through the benefits program. The school claimed that the goal of their minority benefits program was to further diversify their campus. The program was intended for minority or disadvantaged students, but soon became entirely racially based, which was evident, since no white students were ever accepted into the program, regardless of any disadvantaged background they may have had. The school had lower expectations for the applicants in the benefits program, so some of the students accepted through that program were less qualified to attend the school than some of those who were rejected through the regular applicant process. Bakke was one of those rejected applicants, and felt that his rejection was unconstitutional according to both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The school argued that they were encouraging diversity and understanding with the benefits program, but the Superior Court of Yolo County ultimately decided that the