Contributor Tweets
Other Tweets
Search Site

Information on this site is for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. If you have a legal problem, consult your institutional counsel or an attorney licensed to practice law in your state. Information and views presented in this blog are solely those of the individual contributors and not their employers.

Subscribe to blog's feed

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Affirmative Action in Today's Classroom

Reverse discrimination, meritocracy, and color-blind are terms often used in arguments against affirmative action, especially regarding college admissions. Critics say affirmative action is an outdated policy that results in underserving students and lowering the academic prowess of an institution. Many opponents even claim they share Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a world without race and that affirmative action is hindering our country from reaching that point. If our society were truly post-racial however we would not see college graduation rates varying so widely between races, all other considerations constant.

Affirmative action is any effort made to improve educational or economic opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups such as people of color and women. This can include recruitment and retention efforts among others. According to a Gallup poll, the nation is split fairly evenly on the issue of affirmative action, but when the question is posed including the term “racial preferences” support drops as low as 38 percent.

Affirmative action, though it was not always called that, dates back to the 14th amendment which calls for equal state protection of similarly situated persons. This really took hold within the workforce in the 60s when Presidents Kennedy and Johnson passed executive orders explicitly referring to race and sex respectively and for the first time using the term affirmative action. It wasn’t until the Brown v. Board ruling when notes of affirmative action began to take hold in education. Like most rulings and laws, things did not change overnight. It was 24 years later in Bakke v. University of California when affirmative action began to get fleshed out in higher education as the court declared race quotas unconstitutional. The focus on affirmative action has largely been a black and white binary argument until recently. A nonprofit group, Students for Fair Admissions, believe “most competitive universities are not in compliance” with the Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas. Students for Fair Admissions has a current lawsuit against Harvard claiming racial balancing is occurring, specifically regarding Asian students. While the proportion of Asian applicants rise, the proportion admitted has stayed rather constant. Harvard is arguing that they do not put quotas on their student population but that they must pay attention to maintain a truly diverse student body.

Although the narrative of affirmative action is changing, the opponents of affirmative action have maintained a whiteness that cannot be ignored. When the question of affirmative action for women is posed, there is support. When the question of affirmative action based on race is raised, you see more opposition. People feel as though something is being taken from them for opportunity to be given to others. These feelings can be explained as white supremacy. In this context white supremacy refers to a society in which power, privilege, and entitlement are widespread among white people. White people are not uniformly powerful, one must consider intersectionality, but if the focus remains on correcting overt racism and not the systems that perpetuate privilege, change will not be seen.

A landmark case for affirmative action, Grutter v. Bollinger defined the benefits of diversity as promoting "cross-racial understanding," and learning outcomes that "better prepare students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society," and deconstructing racial stereotypes. So, while affirmative action has been seen as taking from the hardworking and giving to an undeserving person of color, we must consider who affirmative action is really benefitting. Is it the populations who are criticized and told they cannot succeed without affirmative action measures, or is it the population that continues to hold power in this society and leaves the classroom a more well-rounded individual because of it?

This post was authored by Ms. Micayla Bean, a masters student in Higher Education Administration at The University of Texas at San Antonio and a graduate assistant in Student Activities. 


College Justice, Where Are You? 

Imagine being a college student who has falsely been accused of sexual assault; then imagine you were suspended or expelled from college simply because of these allegations. No hearing, no courts, no due process. College is supposed to be a new and exciting time but for a third of male college students this is not the case. It is estimated that 1 in 3 male college students will suffer this fate.  False accusations are occurring more than they should and the sad part is these students will be failed by a system which should be equally protecting them.

Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, campuses are required to prevent and remedy sexual assault cases or they face losing federal funding. In the past, campuses have had a reputation for not taking students’ complaints of sexual assault seriously; so, federal mandates have been put in place beginning with the Obama administration reinterpreting Title IX to the U.S. Department of Education’s Dear Colleague Letter. These mandates have put pressure on campus to find more accused students responsible, instead of the truth of the allegations. According to the Department of Education’s regulations, state schools must have a “prompt and equitable” procedure for resolving sexual assault complaints. These mandates also included adopting a “preponderance of evidence” standard. Under the preponderance of evidence standard due process is non- existent, meaning a hearing is not required, the accused does not have the right to appeal or have an attorney, and campuses are discouraged from permitting cross-examinations. Because of these mandates and regulations, the accused students are being suspended and expelled without the protections they would normally receive in the criminal justice system.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced she is moving to end the sexual assault procedures on campus set forth by the Obama administration. DeVos mentioned the current Title IX policies often denied due process to the accused, and that is what they are looking to change. Some feel this allows campuses to weaken their procedures for handling sexual assault cases and makes it more difficult for victims to seek justice. While others feel it will allow the accused a fair investigation.

There are detrimental effects for those who have been falsely accused of sexual assaults. In the case of  Andrew Doe v Ole Miss, a third party, who is unnamed, claimed “Andrew Doe” sexually assaulted “Bethany Roe.” Although Roe and Andrew both claimed they had consensual sex, Doe was never formally charged with a crime and Roe never filed a complaint. The University Judicial Council found Andrew guilty and expelled him from the university. The charge is permanently on his record. In Zackary Hunt vs. Denison University and Sophia Celeste Lee,  Zackary Hunt lost a $30,000 scholarship and his place on the University’s football team when he was falsely accused of sexual assault. In Joshua Strange v Auburn University, a grand jury failed to indict Joshua Strange in criminal court but Auburn University found him in violation of the student code of conduct and expelled him from the University. 

Over the last eight years more students are starting to sue colleges when they feel campuses violated their rights under Title IX.  In the case John Doe v. Swarthmore the college was accused of violating “John Doe’s” student rights after he was falsely accused of sexual misconduct. John Doe won and the suspension was lifted. This is not the norm; however, as cases seldom win in criminal court, but the costs for colleges to defend themselves is adding up. Nothing can replace the reputation lost or the mental and emotional toll false accusations take on accused students. With the help from lawyers, parents, and advocacy groups falsely accused students can fight back. While these students believe, their rights have been taken away, anti-rape advocates see it a different way. Anti-rape advocates believe that colleges are now paying more attention to sexual assaults on campuses and offenders are starting to cry foul. They believe most people who are accused of sexual assault would contend that they are innocent. 

Sexual assault on campus is a serious problem. There are not many educational issues debated more than how colleges should deal with sexual misconduct. Of course, Title IX has its challenges, all policies do, but regardless, protocols should be clear that ALL students are protected equally. Have efforts to protect sexual assault victims lead to policies that infringe on the civil right of men?  

This post was authored by Jessica Sherwood, a masters student in Higher Education Administration at The University of Texas at San Antonio. 


The University is to Blame for My Child’s Death

Student suicide is a topic that needs further discussion considering suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students. Student suicide received national attention when universities made attempts at suicide prevention by placing physical barriers that close access to common suicide locations. The popularity of the Netflix show “Thirteen Reasons Why” also brought a lot of attention to the issue, so much so that universities made dedicated websites to address students’ concerns. A large factor for these high suicide rates are all the pressures college students face, both inside and outside of the classroom. Since college students often live on campus and are seen as members of the campus community, some feel that universities are to blame when students take their own life.

Historically, colleges have not been held responsible for the suicides of their students. For a college to be held liable for their student’s suicide, they need to have had a duty to prevent the suicide. For an organization, such as a college, to have a duty to prevent a suicide they need to have a “special relationship” with the student and have knowledge of the student’s suicidal tendencies. Colleges were not believed to have a “special relationship” with students since this was typically reserved for professionals, such as doctors and psychiatrists, who are directly involved in a person’s health. In Jain v. The State of Iowa and White v. University of Wyoming, the courts reaffirmed this notion when they found that colleges had no legal responsibility to prevent suicide since they are not viewed as healthcare providers. However, future court cases challenged what constitutes a “special relationship” between students and the schools they attend, which have created a dilemma for colleges.

In Schieszler v. Ferrum College the courts changed the finding that colleges do not have a duty to protect students from suicide when they ruled that Ferrum College was guilty of negligence in their student’s death. The school knew about the student’s mental health issues and did not do enough to provide care to the student. Shortly after this case, in Shin v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the school was placed in the same situation due to the knowledge the counseling service staff had of the student’s suicidal tendencies. The courts found that the counseling staff had a duty to protect the student, but the school decided to settle the case out of court instead of going to trial. These cases, among others, set a precedence that schools who have knowledge of a student’s likelihood to commit suicide can be held responsible if the student does take their own life.

Liability for student suicide puts schools in a tough situation when trying to formulate ways to prevent student suicides. Some colleges have policies that allow them to prevent students from attending school or living on campus to avoid the risk of having students commit suicide on campus noting that they are a danger to themselves or others. This type of policy can be difficult since dismissing students for suicidal behavior has been challenged in the courts as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Colleges could refer students to outside resources instead but this might make it more difficult for students to receive adequate help or make them less likely to pursue assistance. On the other hand, colleges might want to have a very active role and provide comprehensive services to students. In doing so, they then accept the responsibility of having a duty to protect the student. If the student does commit suicide, the college runs the risk of facing lawsuits for not protecting the student.

Should schools take a hands-on approach or leave severe mental health issues to outside services? There is no standard answer to this question but as suicide garners more national attention, hopefully school practices will get more attention and their efforts will find a happy medium.

This post was authored by Carlos Velez, a masters student in Higher Education Administration at The University of Texas at San Antonio and is an advisor at Northwest Vista College. 


Fraternity pledge gone fatal

Join a fraternity or sorority it will give you a social network, everlasting bond, brother hood, strong lifelong friendships and career advancements they say. Obviously, students can accomplish all these things without pledging and being part of an organization. A big part of pledging is becoming familiar with the fraternity: learning about every single member and learning about the history of the fraternity and the Greek system. The other big part of pledging is proving oneself worthy to be a brother. Will the pledge uphold the ideals of the fraternity? Will he be someone they are proud to call a brother? What happens when you pledge?

Hazing in college has been around since 387 B.C, at Plato’s Academy. In some cases, it has been around as long as the organizations themselves were established. More people have taken notice of the extreme college hazing occurring at universities. Some are rituals and others considered as hazing. Hazing, is any intentional, knowing, or reckless act occurring on or off the campus of an educational institution, directed against a student, that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in an organization. What is the difference between hazing and bullying? Is it illegal?

At this time, there are no federal laws that look at the issue of hazing. Federal anti-hazing law has been proposed but never made it to the floor of the House of Representatives or US Senate. Most states have laws regarding hazing, 44 out of 50 states have laws . Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, Hawaii, Wyoming, and New Mexico do not have anti-hazing laws. The University of New Mexico, has a zero tolerance policy for hazing but the state of New Mexico does not have a law prohibiting hazing. States have different definitions and punishments for hazing there is no commonality among universities on how they handle hazing incidents that occur on campus. Without laws is there no violation? Is it not a crime?

Some of the organizations blur the lines between hazing and torture. For example, a TCU sophomore of Kappa Sigma consented to some of the branding of his backside. After the student fell into a heavy, alcohol-induced sleep, his "brothers" took liberties with his earlier consent. The Kappa Sigma members pulled his shorts down and continued the branding process, targeting another area of the young man's rear while knocked out without consent.  Question is, off-campus house/chapter events governed by University policies. A University of Texas Lambda Phi Epsilon pledge died from acute alcohol poisoning. Six pledge brothers were required to chug a handle of Bacardi rum while more than 30 fraternity brothers chanted along, challenging the pledges' manhood and loyalty to Lambda Phi Epsilon. His face was then marked numerous anti-gay epithets and obscene drawings.

Universities prefer to turn a blind eye to hazing because they want to avoid the public scrutiny that comes with being at the center of a major campus crime. To help avoid public scrutiny, some universities use the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA") as a shield to avoid reporting hazing incidents that occur among university. In the Texas Education Code in  to Section 37.153 , if an organization commits an offense under this section, hazing is a misdemeanor. Is the cost of a life a misdemeanor charge and a $5,000 fine? What is the difference between bullying and hazing? Who is to blame? 

This post was authored by Jessica Redwine, a masters student in Higher Education Administration at The University of Texas at San Antonio and a Pre-K teacher in the Edgewood Independent School District. 


Just for the record, It’s not a pet: Emotional support and service animals on college campuses

When students think of college the first thing that comes to mind is the responsibility of living on their own, and all that comes with that new-found freedom. As young adults, living on campus can be a bit overwhelming and exciting. Students who are adjusting to having freedom and limited housing rules and policies can struggle with this new challenge. For students living in on-campus housing it is very important they understand the housing rules and policies, the university student code of conduct policy, the Fair Housing Act, Title XI, and their rights as a student. Every student attending a public institution has rights under the U.S. Constitution. Policies may vary based on if the institution is public, but over the years college housing has seen a growth in students and their furry little friends joining the community. From my experience working in student housing, students are struggling to submit documentation for their emotional support and service animals. With the new-found focus on emotional support and service animals it is best to educate both students and housing professionals on such issue.

Many students with disabilities and mental health concerns are encouraged by their doctors to apply for an emotional support or service animal to aide them with their everyday life. Students in need of such animal requirements have every right to have their support animal join them in on-campus housing under the federal Fair Housing Act. It is very important that the university housing program has an emotional support and service animal policy in place to better support the students with disabilities. Failure to do so will violate the Fair Housing Act, as what happened in the United States of America v. Kent State University, et al. case. The issue many housing professionals see with emotional support animals and service animals is the student’s ability to alibied by the university and on-campus housing policy in regard to such animals. For example, The University of Texas at San Antonio requires individuals with disabilities who are requesting an ESA/SA in UTSA housing to provide appropriate documentation to the Documentation Review Committee in Student Disability Services. Typically, on-campus housing requires the student to provide proper documentation that supports both student and animal. For example, student must provide the animal’s most recent shot records, a photo or photo I.D. of the animal, a completed copy of the university addendum for Emotional Support Animals, and supporting documentation from a doctor stating that there is a need for the student to have a support animal or service animal. Once the ESA/SA is approved to live in on-campus housing, the student has to maintain their living space.

Although both ESA/SA are supported by most institutions, it is important that students understand the difference between the two types of animal requirements. The September 2010 Department of Justice ruling defined a recognized service animal as a dog. Universities and housing professionals are not allowed to ask any questions pertaining to the student’s disability or the type of training the service animal has undergone. In the Alejandro v. Palm Beach State College case, the university over stepped their boundary when they asked the student to describe her need for the service animal, how the dog had been trained to signal an attack, and when a professor found out the student’s disability, he advised the student not to bring the service animal to class. Of course, the court ruled in the student’s favor due to the violations to Title II of the American with Disabilities Act.  Universities and higher education professionals have no such right to make such call.

Emotional Support Animals are defined as an animal that provides emotional and therapeutic support to individuals suffering from emotional issues, psychiatric problems, or anxiety. A cat or dog is normally recognized as an ESA, but other animals like snakes, pigs, etc. can also be a registered ESA. Universities and housing professionals should never rely on their own judgment to determine if a student should be approved or is in need of an ESA. In the United States v. University of Nebraska Kearney case the university inquired about the student’s need for the ESA and refused to accommodate. No matter the university or housing professional’s personal opinion on ESAs, the laws and policies in place for ESA trumps any opinion, personal belief, or values. 

Now that you have been informed about Emotional Support and Service Animals, how would you handle or approach when faced with such challenges?

This post was authored by Trenshaé Gilbert, a masters student in Higher Education Administration at The University of Texas at San Antonio and an assistant director of residence life at UTSA for Campus Living Villages