The Star Ledger Newspaper Article Summary

Prior to that hearing, Slaughter was aware of the topics to be discussed during the trial, and thus he had proper notice. Additionally, prior to the hearing, the Dean of the Brigham Young University graduate school contacted and informed Slaughter personally of the location of the hearing and allegations against the plaintiff. After an ongoing institutional investigation that last several months, the university hearing was held between the plaintiff, the Dean of the graduate school, the chair of the Chemistry department, the assistant to the chair of the Chemistry department, two faculty members from Slaughter’s advisory committee, and Dr. Thorne, Slaughter’s advisor. The plaintiff alleged that he received implied permission to use Dr. Thorne’s name because of his position as the plaintiff’s advisor. After hearing this explanation and considering the plaintiff’s academic progress, on March 14, 1972, Slaughter was expelled from the graduate school for violating the Brigham Young University Code of Student Conduct. The plaintiff was formally informed of his expulsion and he was given the opportunity to record the hearing. No further proceedings were

5. The letter informed him that he may have violated the FHSU’s Student Code of Conduct, specifically its provisions related to compliance with general laws and drug policy.

Although the superintendent has the authority to hire and fire teachers, it would be within his best interest to do so based on appropriate legal footing rather than personal bias. The superintendent’s recommendations for Barnhart’s change of employment appears to be grounded in bias. From the beginning he was a dubious supporter of Barnhart as athletic director. He has no proof that she contacted the reporter so is basing his decision on the weak legal footing of assumption. Understandably, he is doing so to balance teacher rights and promoting harmony within the work place which ultimately supports student learning. Several court cases provide guide lines for achieving this balance. The cases of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) and Connick v. Myers (1983) developed a two pronged test to check the balance. First, does the speech address matters of public concern? Assuming Barnhart did contact the reporter, yes, the information is a matter of public concern since it involves Title IX, a federal civil law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education activities. It is a federal law that high schools treat boys’ and girls’ sports equally. Also, can Burnhart demonstrate her speech interest outweigh the harmony of the district leadership? Again, yes, the speech is not affecting her immediate supervisor, principal Tara Hills as supported by Fales v. Garst

The meeting continued with board member Jason Hopp presenting Dr. Matthew Flannery, formerly the principal of Shiloh Hills Elementary School, for a roll call vote to approve him as the new Assistant Superintendent of the WIlson School District. Mr. Hopp spoke for approximately two minutes about the credentials, reputation, and record of quality performance that Dr. Flannery has documented during his time with the district. A five-year contract was approved on an 8-1 vote, with Mr. Martin voting “no”. It may be worth observing that Mr. Martin is known as the “no man” of the current board, and often tows one of the more conservative lines of all board members. One can speculate that he may have felt

Dwight Lopez and Betty Crome, were students at the Central High School and McGuffey Junior High Schoo. The students were suspended for apparently engaging

In June of 2015, Teresa Buchanan lost her job as a professor at the Louisiana State University for creating violation the school’s code of ethics, creating a hostile environment, and sexual harassment. The professor did not harass, bully, or threaten anyone. However, a series of bad jokes led to the demise of her employment with the university. Harmless jokes are usually not an issue, but when sexual jokes and vulgar language are at hand, there is a higher probability for someone to be at risk for dismissal from any professional establishment. Buchanan claims her rights to free speech and due process were violated. As a result of the school’s actions and the censoring of her free speech, the faculty tenured professor plans

The impact of these allegations by the Duke Lacrosse team was tremendous. The President of the University Richard Brodhead canceled the entire season and called the situation “sickening and repulsive” (Jennings, 2009, p. 568). Once again the support from the highest level at Duke University was not there for the three members of the lacrosse team at the center of the allegations. The African American accuser Crystal Mangum had support from the NAACP, Reverend Jesse Jackson, and the Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong. The coach of the team also resigned from his job as the season was canceled.

Although Rev. R. B. Holmes believes that the integrity of FAMU must be preserved. Charles Scriven provides the clearest evidence that Dr. Mangum has done nothing wrong. So what reason should Dr. Mangum be fired? Is it because she is a woman or maybe it’s because she never attended FAMU and or has never be a president?

William D. Strampel, the dean of Michigan State University’s College of Osteopathic Medicine had been removed from his position and arrested for failing to address and take action when serious reports were made about one of his employees, physician Lawrence G. Nassar. Nassar had been accused by many female students of sexually assaulting them under the pretense of treating them. Strampel stated that he did not believe the women who reported these incidents. Strampel also did not adhere to the guidelines that were enacted after a sexual assault investigation in 2014.

The court decided that the facts do not simply support the conclusion that the School District could have forecasted a substantial disruption of or material interference with the school as a result of J.S.'s, the perpetrator, profile. Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when they suspended her for creating the profile.

He was expelled from college for accusing the Dean of

The Aggrieved stated he received a Notice of Suspension for five work days for being Absence without Leave (AWOL) and failure to request leave with procedures by Area Manager Victor Cruz. The Aggrieved stated that his first line supervisor Margie Steward has been harassing, belittling and intimidating him since she became his supervisor. He said he took leave to care for a family member who became sick and he called in everyday he was absence. The Aggrieved said he reported the mistreatment by his supervisor to Mr. Cruz but he would ignore his repeated emails and phone calls. The Aggrieved stated he is the only African American in his work center and he is the only one who receives the unfair treatment by his supervisor Ms. Steward. The

One of the first things covered was that Caileigh Beckman is to be given the position of Chief Returning Officer (or CRO), as she was selected via election. According to the Student Union’s website, a CRO is hired to help “maintain a fair and democratic process” during the election period that is currently on-going campus wide. Their role in this process is to “oversee the election process” and “is in charge of ensuring that URSU Election By-laws are followed and that any disputes and conflicts are dealt with properly”. Backman’s position will help make the election process even more exciting.

4- The committee and Ms Beckel decided to include a religious studies curriculum in the program. The principal approved of it. However, Ms Wright one of the community members did not. She threatened to show up at the committee meeting with the media. On the day of the meeting, Ms Wright showed up with a placard protesting the use of the bible in public schools.

Robin Colcord was the one who came up with the luncheon themes and was also photographed, however, this is not an indication that he was involved in any further activities. He failed to inform the rest of the institution about their luncheon activities. Therefore, the event was not approved by Dordt College. He should not be fired; however, he should do some extra training about what Dordt’s mission is and what is appropriate and what is not.