My sincere appreciation is extended to each of you for the creative, expressive and pertinent dialogue we’ve exchanged regarding the law and higher education. It is my desire that we continue to celebrate the complexity, and nuances of the law as it relates to Chapter 9 – Rights and Responsibilities of Student Organizations and Their Members. Please feel free to provide a response to any of the scenarios. Due to the size of my post, scenario 1 & 2 are below and 3 & 4 are included in the next posting.
Scenario I. Right to Organize: On May 3, 2010, students, workers and concerned members of the community organized a strike against budget cuts, tuition increases, and the unfair working conditions/compensation of workers at the university. The action was organized by the Student Worker Coalition, a diverse group of undergrads and graduate students, teachers and research assistants, custodians, skilled trades workers and professional staff, alumni and members of the community. Their stated purpose is to fight for affordable, quality education and workers' rights on campus, including non-student workers.
The Student Worker Coalition asserts the following:
1) In December 2009, a custodian break meeting, organized by registered student groups, was disrupted by a uniformed UWPD officer; 2)From September 2009 – January 2010, campus police officers were regularly present at swing shift workers' clock-in stations to question custodians about their break meetings. Dayshift workers faced similar conditions; and 3)On April 8, 2010, a plain clothed UW police officer participated in a Student Worker Coalition meeting to plan a campus strike scheduled for May 3rd. The officer participated in conversations regarding budget cuts and Student Worker Coalition affairs.
University officials responded by apologizing for the April 8th incident and cited it was an "isolated" error in judgment. There is no record of comments regarding the other allegations.
Given our knowledge of the law to date, the case law presented in Chp. 9, and the aforementioned facts, please provide your thoughts on the following:
1)Do students at UW have the right to form an organization that represents the interest of UW employees? Does it make a difference if the institution is public vs. private?
2)Would the Student Worker Coalition meet the threshold to bring suit against the University for harassment and infringement upon their right to assemble?
3)If a prima facie case was made, do you think the Student Worker Coalition would prevail? Why or why not?
4)As a top University Administrator, what course of action would you take to restore order, trust and campus solidarity regarding the interactions between the Student Coalition and UW Police Department?
Scenario 2: Fraternities and Sororities You are Assistant General Counsel at Tennessee State University. Your area of specialization includes student organizations and honor/conduct boards. Recently, a fraternity pledge died from physical exhaustion after his fraternity brothers required him to perform calisthenics under circumstances causing his internal body temperature to exceed106 degrees. Since this is a high profile case, the VP of Student Services has requested a brief legal opinion from you regarding what liabilities the university and individual students could face given this tragedy. Please state your response.
Professor Smith teaches Human Anatomy and Sexuality at Sunshine State University and also serves as faculty advisor for Sigma Rho Rho. Recently, Sally complained to Professor Smith about Joe's activities during class. Sally asserts that Joe views pornographic material during class and it is blatantly offensive to her, as well as, the rest of the female students in class. As Sally walks away, she mumbles that she is also the President of a Womens' Rights group on campus and will bring this matter the President's attention if nothing is done. Professor Smith approaches Joe after class and kindly requests he cease reviewing the material as several students are offended by his activities. Joe informs Professor Smith that he is actually editing an article for Sigma Rho Rho's newsletter, which is distributed campus-wide. This particular issue will highlight a growing phenomenon among college women to work at nudity clubs for extra money. The editor has chosen to include pictures of naked women to emphasize his point. As such, Joe sees nothing wrong with his activities. He also reminds Professor Smith that the newsletter is going to print in a couple days so this will all be a moot issue. Professor Smith tells Joe to contact the editor and pull the article as he doesn't believe the article is appropriate. Sigma Rho Rho runs the article despite Professor Smith's request. He now seeks your advice as VP of Student Affairs. Specifically, he wants to know the following:
1)Are there any repercussions for Sigma Rho Rho disobeying his orders?
2)Would the female students have a viable suit against the university for Sigma Rho Rho's publication of the article? Why or why not?
3)Would the outcome in question 2 change if this scenario occurred at St. Mary's College, a private institution?
Scenario 4: Given the Ross v. Creighton University case, please answer the following:
1)Whether you agree with the court's ruling. Why or why not?
2)Do you think this case provides a slippery slope for other athletes to sue for breach of contract when expolitation is at issue?
3)Commercialization has become a heated topic of discussion in collegiate athletics. On average, college athletics brings in 4 billion dollars a year and elite schools make millions of dollars based on championships, endorsements, paraphernalia, etc.. Do you think universities should be contractually obligated to pay student-athletes a percentage of the profits earned based upon the athlete's performance and ability to win championships or market paraphernalia?
Professor Smith was justified in asking the student to abstain from looking at the pictures during class, as it was clearly interfering with the education of those around him. I think faculty members have a right to require students to stay on task, anyway, but that’s a different discussion…
According to the text, institutions can revoke the privileges of (or suspend) organizations that create “substantial disruption” and may prevent such organizations from illegal activities. The legal definition of obscenity is a little murky…Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, “I’ll know it when I see it.” Ugh… http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html .
I was looking at this website: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html, which attempts to clarify obscenity, indecency, and profanity and makes me think that naked women in a public paper could still be prohibited…mostly because it’s reasonable to believe children could see them.
If, in fact, the public institution can monitor what is printed (and, yes, a private institution could easily shut it down), it seems it would have been Joe’s editor’s job to do so, not Professor Smith’s; therefore, I’m not sure he should be punished for his disobedience. Anyway, what college student wouldn’t capitalize on a legitimate opportunity to put porn in the school newspaper? He was probably a campus hero (Super Pig)!
Great scenarios related to this week's packed chapter. There's already a response to #3, so I'll put my two cents forward about #1 and #2.
I was surprised to learn about the events of scenario #1. The events are certainly strange, but is seems like more details are needed to determine what motivations are behind these actions.
For one, I am not certain how a student coalition can take on university employee rights unless the employees are students. Second, it seems strange that campus police would be involved in questioning custodial staff about their break meetings instead of their supervisor. Were the cops under suspicion of any kind of wrong behavior? What constituted a "disruption" by an officer at the meetings? Would harassment apply if it's not in the context of a work situation? To what extent if the Student Coalition was planning a strike would the university be able to intervene if it were perceived that the strike would pose a substantial disruption on campus? Couldn't their recognition be in jeopardy?
Scenario 2 - our famous answer "it depends". Again more information is needed, even for a hypothetical. What kind of relationship statement did the university and fraternity have? Did the event happen in a frat building owned by the university or off-campus? Was the university aware of any prior hazing harm as in the Furek v. Univ. of Delaware case? Most of the cases in the text indicated that in this type of situation, the individuals and fraternity would be personally liable for harm to one of their members and not the institution. So the school most likely would have no duty to protect.
Michelle, Thanks for responding! The first scenario is actually an on-going fact pattern at the University of Washington. Since no one has sued to date, most of the facts are being disseminated through the local newspapers. I, too, thought it was quite bizarre that a student coalition could represent the interest of university employees as well. Since I don't have as much admin. experience as most of you, I wanted to see if that was unusual or not. What's interesting to me is that this case has garnered attention from the ACLU and they are investigating several incidences of university police harrassment of students - see The Seattle Daily Weekly (7/9/10 issue). It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Scenario #2 was an actual case that occurred at Tennessee State University, but due to space limitations I couldn't post the entire fact pattern. I think you are correct in your analysis of university liability. Please forgive my poorly drafted question, as I was also interested to see what specific actions could the State and the university take against the perpetrators. For example, could the students face criminal charges? Also, would the university have the right to revoke organization funds? What about individual student scholarships and awards? Could the student organization be dissolved if the organization had a history of engaging in this type of behavior? Could the parents of the deceased bring wrongful death claims?
Jennifer, Thanks for responding to the Obscenity scenario! I did craft this hypothetical and agree with all you've stated. As a point of clarification, I was wondering if the editor could be punished for disobeying the advisor's orders not to publish the article. I think we would come to the same conclusion - the students would face serious repercussions!
Oops. I didn't even catch the fact that Professor Smith was the fraternity's advisor...I was just thinking he was teaching one of Joe's courses. Yes, I imagine they'd be in a heap of trouble!
Dionne: Excellent questions. I thought I'd weigh in on Scenario 4: Ross v. Creighton University:
Q1 – Court’s ruling I agree with the court’s decision to remand the case to trial court. Unfortunately, the parties settled before the case was heard (costing Creighton $30,000). It would have been quite interesting to see what the court’s decision would have been since Mr. Ross presented evidence that the athletic staff had read his assignments and typed his homework for him http://vlex.com/vid/kevin-ross-creighton-university-defendant-37427954) and if they would have made a determination whether Creighton made a good faith effort to perform on its promise, provided any real access to it academic curriculum and agreed with Mr. Ross that the Creighton had exploited ability to play basketball by allowing him to fail academically.
Q2 – Slippery Slope I think the court was wise to recognize that trying to establish a ‘standard of care’ is difficult (if not impossible) when there are so many different (albeit effective) teaching methods used throughout the field of education. As other researchers have mentioned in reviewing this case, there appears to be a consensus that if such cases were allowed to go forward, there would be a ‘flood of litigation’ that would drown most institutions.
Q3 – Re: Compensation for college athletes I’m a definite “no” on this one. Two reasons: 1. Since only a small percentage of programs (I think Dr. Miller said it was only about seven institutions) actually make money through their athletics programs, then that implies that the vast majority of programs either break even or (much more likely) lose money on athletics. If that is the case, then paying athletes for performance on “sports teams” would require the redirection of other nonathletic funds that could/should be allocated for other purposes. 2. If the idea is to compensate students that bring in money to the institution, then every student that ever participated on a “research team” that led to a patent, discovery, other intellectual property, or who was part of a “performance team” that played in a concert, performed in a theatrical production, etc. that resulted in money coming into the institution either directly or indirectly would also be eligible for compensation as well.
Michelle, Your response includes some of the questions I would have before giving my opinion on whether or not there were any institutional liabilities involved in the situation. I think you are accurate in your questions for assessing whether the institution had a duty to warn.
Dionne, This goes back to our discussion in class about the idea of a foreseeable act. I think that this particular issue, whether something is foreseeable, can be very difficult to assess and the courts have not been consistent in their assessments (such as in Furek, where the supreme court reversed the verdict). I think that the key to determining institutional liability in a case like this hypothetical is whether or not the institution had any assumed role in supervision. Our text discusses this idea as the judge finding that the institution owed an individual a duty of care, breached it, and this breach was the cause of the injury.
Hmmmmm....it seems from all the cases in the text, it is really tricky to discern whether or not the institution owed an individual a duty of care. But, I imagine that on-campus fraternities and sororities create a much greater chance of liability for the institution than those that are off-campus and not institutional property.
On another note, I was very glad to read that the Rothbard case rejected the fraternity member's claim that by having rules about underage drinking and standing on roofs or porticos meant that they knew this rule was often violated and they thereby had a greater duty of supervision or care. It would be very concerning if the very act of prohibiting a dangerous activity would result in an increased duty of care and liability. If the ruling on this had gone in the student's favor, institutions would have a tough time creating student codes of conduct!
What a unique conceptual framework for student compensation. Sounds like an area for additional research! I never viewed it from that perspective so thank you for broadening my perspective.
Another consideration as to why athletes should not receive compensation is because it takes away from the sole purpose of attending higher education institutions - to obtain a degree and contribute to society. While I enjoy competitive college football games, I think the emphasis should be academics and not building a revenue-generating business.
I don't think athletes should be paid in the traditional sense, though I think scholarships for those whose talents contribute to the university and the community are appropriate (not limited but including athletics, the arts, etc). This is in line with scholarships for those whose GPAs are high as they bring an extra level of intellectualism to the classroom.
I would hesitate to say that athletics are just about revenue. I came from a school that didn't have a football team, and I can tell you that the school spirit there is low in comparison to schools like USF or UF. Athletics really bring a school together, whether the team is good or bad.
Scenario 2: I believe that it would be important to mention the Furek v. University of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 where the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a decision for the university and some excellent considerations came from this case. Although this case was a result of a student injury and not a student death it does have some important items to consider.
Since the pledge passed away, it would be important for the university to consider 1) where did the death take place and was it in the fraternity house (that is on university property) 2) does the fraternity have earlier claims of hazing from this chapter and what has the response been by the university. 3) has there been an educational process on hazing and have individual members involved in this student death been in attendance at these educational sessions.
I believe that the court would see this case as intentional and reckless and would look to hold the national fraternity and individual members involved in this incident accountable.
Regarding scenario 2, the university would face liability if administrators had knowledge of the situation and didn't do anything about it (whether that is investigating the situation, stoppping the situation from happening, etc). As far as the individual students are concerned, that depends on the level of involvement the students had in the situation. If they were the ones who were facilitating the situation, then they are certainly liable for the death (particularly in states that have anti-hazing laws). Additionally, the chapter president has a level of liability as he is the main legal representative of that chapter and most courts would say that he should have knowledge of all dealings with the chapter.
My sincere appreciation is extended to each of you for the creative, expressive and pertinent dialogue we’ve exchanged regarding the law and higher education. It is my desire that we continue to celebrate the complexity, and nuances of the law as it relates to Chapter 9 – Rights and Responsibilities of Student Organizations and Their Members. Please feel free to provide a response to any of the scenarios. Due to the size of my post, scenario 1 & 2 are below and 3 & 4 are included in the next posting.
ReplyDeleteScenario I. Right to Organize:
On May 3, 2010, students, workers and concerned members of the community organized a strike against budget cuts, tuition increases, and the unfair working conditions/compensation of workers at the university. The action was organized by the Student Worker Coalition, a diverse group of undergrads and graduate students, teachers and research assistants, custodians, skilled trades workers and professional staff, alumni and members of the community. Their stated purpose is to fight for affordable, quality education and workers' rights on campus, including non-student workers.
The Student Worker Coalition asserts the following:
1) In December 2009, a custodian break meeting, organized by registered student groups, was disrupted by a uniformed UWPD officer;
2)From September 2009 – January 2010, campus police officers were regularly present at swing shift workers' clock-in stations to question custodians about their break meetings. Dayshift workers faced similar conditions; and
3)On April 8, 2010, a plain clothed UW police officer participated in a Student Worker Coalition meeting to plan a campus strike scheduled for May 3rd. The officer participated in conversations regarding budget cuts and Student Worker Coalition affairs.
University officials responded by apologizing for the April 8th incident and cited it was an "isolated" error in judgment. There is no record of comments regarding the other allegations.
Given our knowledge of the law to date, the case law presented in Chp. 9, and the aforementioned facts, please provide your thoughts on the following:
1)Do students at UW have the right to form an organization that represents the interest of UW employees? Does it make a difference if the institution is public vs. private?
2)Would the Student Worker Coalition meet the threshold to bring suit against the University for harassment and infringement upon their right to assemble?
3)If a prima facie case was made, do you think the Student Worker Coalition would prevail? Why or why not?
4)As a top University Administrator, what course of action would you take to restore order, trust and campus solidarity regarding the interactions between the Student Coalition and UW Police Department?
Scenario 2: Fraternities and Sororities
You are Assistant General Counsel at Tennessee State University. Your area of specialization includes student organizations and honor/conduct boards. Recently, a fraternity pledge died from physical exhaustion after his fraternity brothers required him to perform calisthenics under circumstances causing his internal body temperature to exceed106 degrees. Since this is a high profile case, the VP of Student Services has requested a brief legal opinion from you regarding what liabilities the university and individual students could face given this tragedy. Please state your response.
Scenario 3: Obscenity
ReplyDeleteProfessor Smith teaches Human Anatomy and Sexuality at Sunshine State University and also serves as faculty advisor for Sigma Rho Rho. Recently, Sally complained to Professor Smith about Joe's activities during class. Sally asserts that Joe views pornographic material during class and it is blatantly offensive to her, as well as, the rest of the female students in class. As Sally walks away, she mumbles that she is also the President of a Womens' Rights group on campus and will bring this matter the President's attention if nothing is done. Professor Smith approaches Joe after class and kindly requests he cease reviewing the material as several students are offended by his activities. Joe informs Professor Smith that he is actually editing an article for Sigma Rho Rho's newsletter, which is distributed campus-wide. This particular issue will highlight a growing phenomenon among college women to work at nudity clubs for extra money. The editor has chosen to include pictures of naked women to emphasize his point. As such, Joe sees nothing wrong with his activities. He also reminds Professor Smith that the newsletter is going to print in a couple days so this will all be a moot issue. Professor Smith tells Joe to contact the editor and pull the article as he doesn't believe the article is appropriate. Sigma Rho Rho runs the article despite Professor Smith's request. He now seeks your advice as VP of Student Affairs. Specifically, he wants to know the following:
1)Are there any repercussions for Sigma Rho Rho disobeying his orders?
2)Would the female students have a viable suit against the university for Sigma Rho Rho's publication of the article? Why or why not?
3)Would the outcome in question 2 change if this scenario occurred at St. Mary's College, a private institution?
Scenario 4: Given the Ross v. Creighton University case, please answer the following:
1)Whether you agree with the court's ruling. Why or why not?
2)Do you think this case provides a slippery slope for other athletes to sue for breach of contract when expolitation is at issue?
3)Commercialization has become a heated topic of discussion in collegiate athletics. On average, college athletics brings in 4 billion dollars a year and elite schools make millions of dollars based on championships, endorsements, paraphernalia, etc.. Do you think universities should be contractually obligated to pay student-athletes a percentage of the profits earned based upon the athlete's performance and ability to win championships or market paraphernalia?
Thanks for participating!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteObscenity:
ReplyDeleteProfessor Smith was justified in asking the student to abstain from looking at the pictures during class, as it was clearly interfering with the education of those around him. I think faculty members have a right to require students to stay on task, anyway, but that’s a different discussion…
According to the text, institutions can revoke the privileges of (or suspend) organizations that create “substantial disruption” and may prevent such organizations from illegal activities. The legal definition of obscenity is a little murky…Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, “I’ll know it when I see it.” Ugh… http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html .
I was looking at this website: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html, which attempts to clarify obscenity, indecency, and profanity and makes me think that naked women in a public paper could still be prohibited…mostly because it’s reasonable to believe children could see them.
If, in fact, the public institution can monitor what is printed (and, yes, a private institution could easily shut it down), it seems it would have been Joe’s editor’s job to do so, not Professor Smith’s; therefore, I’m not sure he should be punished for his disobedience. Anyway, what college student wouldn’t capitalize on a legitimate opportunity to put porn in the school newspaper? He was probably a campus hero (Super Pig)!
Hi Dionne-
ReplyDeleteGreat scenarios related to this week's packed chapter. There's already a response to #3, so I'll put my two cents forward about #1 and #2.
I was surprised to learn about the events of scenario #1. The events are certainly strange, but is seems like more details are needed to determine what motivations are behind these actions.
For one, I am not certain how a student coalition can take on university employee rights unless the employees are students. Second, it seems strange that campus police would be involved in questioning custodial staff about their break meetings instead of their supervisor. Were the cops under suspicion of any kind of wrong behavior? What constituted a "disruption" by an officer at the meetings? Would harassment apply if it's not in the context of a work situation? To what extent if the Student Coalition was planning a strike would the university be able to intervene if it were perceived that the strike would pose a substantial disruption on campus? Couldn't their recognition be in jeopardy?
Scenario 2 - our famous answer "it depends". Again more information is needed, even for a hypothetical. What kind of relationship statement did the university and fraternity have? Did the event happen in a frat building owned by the university or off-campus? Was the university aware of any prior hazing harm as in the Furek v. Univ. of Delaware case? Most of the cases in the text indicated that in this type of situation, the individuals and fraternity would be personally liable for harm to one of their members and not the institution. So the school most likely would have no duty to protect.
-Michelle Bell-
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding! The first scenario is actually an on-going fact pattern at the University of Washington. Since no one has sued to date, most of the facts are being disseminated through the local newspapers. I, too, thought it was quite bizarre that a student coalition could represent the interest of university employees as well. Since I don't have as much admin. experience as most of you, I wanted to see if that was unusual or not. What's interesting to me is that this case has garnered attention from the ACLU and they are investigating several incidences of university police harrassment of students - see The Seattle Daily Weekly (7/9/10 issue). It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Scenario #2 was an actual case that occurred at Tennessee State University, but due to space limitations I couldn't post the entire fact pattern. I think you are correct in your analysis of university liability. Please forgive my poorly drafted question, as I was also interested to see what specific actions could the State and the university take against the perpetrators. For example, could the students face criminal charges? Also, would the university have the right to revoke organization funds? What about individual student scholarships and awards? Could the student organization be dissolved if the organization had a history of engaging in this type of behavior? Could the parents of the deceased bring wrongful death claims?
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding to the Obscenity scenario! I did craft this hypothetical and agree with all you've stated. As a point of clarification, I was wondering if the editor could be punished for disobeying the advisor's orders not to publish the article. I think we would come to the same conclusion - the students would face serious repercussions!
Oops. I didn't even catch the fact that Professor Smith was the fraternity's advisor...I was just thinking he was teaching one of Joe's courses. Yes, I imagine they'd be in a heap of trouble!
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job coming up with these!
Dionne: Excellent questions. I thought I'd weigh in on Scenario 4: Ross v. Creighton University:
ReplyDeleteQ1 – Court’s ruling
I agree with the court’s decision to remand the case to trial court. Unfortunately, the parties settled before the case was heard (costing Creighton $30,000). It would have been quite interesting to see what the court’s decision would have been since Mr. Ross presented evidence that the athletic staff had read his assignments and typed his homework for him http://vlex.com/vid/kevin-ross-creighton-university-defendant-37427954) and if they would have made a determination whether Creighton made a good faith effort to perform on its promise, provided any real access to it academic curriculum and agreed with Mr. Ross that the Creighton had exploited ability to play basketball by allowing him to fail academically.
Q2 – Slippery Slope
I think the court was wise to recognize that trying to establish a ‘standard of care’ is difficult (if not impossible) when there are so many different (albeit effective) teaching methods used throughout the field of education. As other researchers have mentioned in reviewing this case, there appears to be a consensus that if such cases were allowed to go forward, there would be a ‘flood of litigation’ that would drown most institutions.
Q3 – Re: Compensation for college athletes
I’m a definite “no” on this one. Two reasons:
1. Since only a small percentage of programs (I think Dr. Miller said it was only about seven institutions) actually make money through their athletics programs, then that implies that the vast majority of programs either break even or (much more likely) lose money on athletics. If that is the case, then paying athletes for performance on “sports teams” would require the redirection of other nonathletic funds that could/should be allocated for other purposes.
2. If the idea is to compensate students that bring in money to the institution, then every student that ever participated on a “research team” that led to a patent, discovery, other intellectual property, or who was part of a “performance team” that played in a concert, performed in a theatrical production, etc. that resulted in money coming into the institution either directly or indirectly would also be eligible for compensation as well.
Talk about a slippery slope…
Scenario 2:
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
Your response includes some of the questions I would have before giving my opinion on whether or not there were any institutional liabilities involved in the situation. I think you are accurate in your questions for assessing whether the institution had a duty to warn.
Dionne,
This goes back to our discussion in class about the idea of a foreseeable act. I think that this particular issue, whether something is foreseeable, can be very difficult to assess and the courts have not been consistent in their assessments (such as in Furek, where the supreme court reversed the verdict). I think that the key to determining institutional liability in a case like this hypothetical is whether or not the institution had any assumed role in supervision. Our text discusses this idea as the judge finding that the institution owed an individual a duty of care, breached it, and this breach was the cause of the injury.
Hmmmmm....it seems from all the cases in the text, it is really tricky to discern whether or not the institution owed an individual a duty of care. But, I imagine that on-campus fraternities and sororities create a much greater chance of liability for the institution than those that are off-campus and not institutional property.
On another note, I was very glad to read that the Rothbard case rejected the fraternity member's claim that by having rules about underage drinking and standing on roofs or porticos meant that they knew this rule was often violated and they thereby had a greater duty of supervision or care. It would be very concerning if the very act of prohibiting a dangerous activity would result in an increased duty of care and liability. If the ruling on this had gone in the student's favor, institutions would have a tough time creating student codes of conduct!
What a unique conceptual framework for student compensation. Sounds like an area for additional research! I never viewed it from that perspective so thank you for broadening my perspective.
ReplyDeleteAnother consideration as to why athletes should not receive compensation is because it takes away from the sole purpose of attending higher education institutions - to obtain a degree and contribute to society. While I enjoy competitive college football games, I think the emphasis should be academics and not building a revenue-generating business.
I don't think athletes should be paid in the traditional sense, though I think scholarships for those whose talents contribute to the university and the community are appropriate (not limited but including athletics, the arts, etc). This is in line with scholarships for those whose GPAs are high as they bring an extra level of intellectualism to the classroom.
ReplyDeleteI would hesitate to say that athletics are just about revenue. I came from a school that didn't have a football team, and I can tell you that the school spirit there is low in comparison to schools like USF or UF. Athletics really bring a school together, whether the team is good or bad.
Scenario 2:
ReplyDeleteI believe that it would be important to mention the Furek v. University of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 where the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a decision for the university and some excellent considerations came from this case. Although this case was a result of a student injury and not a student death it does have some important items to consider.
Since the pledge passed away, it would be important for the university to consider 1) where did the death take place and was it in the fraternity house (that is on university property) 2) does the fraternity have earlier claims of hazing from this chapter and what has the response been by the university. 3) has there been an educational process on hazing and have individual members involved in this student death been in attendance at these educational sessions.
I believe that the court would see this case as intentional and reckless and would look to hold the national fraternity and individual members involved in this incident accountable.
Regarding scenario 2, the university would face liability if administrators had knowledge of the situation and didn't do anything about it (whether that is investigating the situation, stoppping the situation from happening, etc). As far as the individual students are concerned, that depends on the level of involvement the students had in the situation. If they were the ones who were facilitating the situation, then they are certainly liable for the death (particularly in states that have anti-hazing laws). Additionally, the chapter president has a level of liability as he is the main legal representative of that chapter and most courts would say that he should have knowledge of all dealings with the chapter.
ReplyDelete