LEGAL ISSUES IN STUDENT ACTIVITIES

K I M B L A N K

A S S I S T A N T D I R E C T O R O F S T U D E N T A C T I V I T I E S

K E N Y O N C O L L E G E

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Background information

Legislation

Pertinent legal cases

Takeaways

Practical application

Your campuses

BACKGROUND

Public institutions are held to different (more stringent) standards than private institutions

U.S. Constitution and case law (interpretations of Constitution)

Educational institutions as “special environment”

LEGISLATION

Showing filmsU.S. Copyright Act: prohibits duplication and provides

ability to file civil suits and criminally prosecute to protect copyrights

Digital Millennium Copyright Act: prohibits new methods, such as DVD burning of copyrighted films

Family Entertainment and Copyright Act: makes recording in a theater a federal crime

No Electronic Theft Act: criminalizes reproduction, distribution, and sharing of movies even without commercial purpose or without financial gain

DUE PROCESS

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) has been called “the path-breaking decision recognizing the due process rights of students at state universities”

6 students expelled without a hearingCourt ruled college could not act in loco parentisOn appeal, Fifth Circuit ruled students could not

be expelled without due process

TIE-IN TO STUDENT ACTIVITIES

How does Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Ed relate?

Due process: identify what the student rights are on your campus (right to confront charges against you, formal trial, etc.; varies by campus)Outlines role of college: cannot and should

not act in lieu of parents (in loco parentis); supported by FERPA

STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS

Healy v. James (1972) addressed the recognition of controversial organizations

Supreme Court found that Central Connecticut State College (a public institution) could not deny recognition to chapter of Students for a Democratic Society

1st Amendment rights to Free Speech and Right to Assemble

ASSEMBLY & ROOM USAGE

Widmar v. Vincent (1981) addressed the right of a Bible study group to use public university facilities for meetings/study

University feared endorsing a particular religion (a violation of the establishment clause)

Supreme Court stated any concern over establishment was outweighed by 1st Amendment rights of students to practice their religion(s)

MEMBERSHIP

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010) addressed whether an organization could deny membership to gay students

Religious group at University of California, Hastings School of Law wanted to deny membership to gay students based on values

Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that as a public institution, they could not deny membership based on sexual orientation

Rulings involving private institutions have been decided differently

TAKE AWAY POINTS

Courts have ruled 1st Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and religion are paramount

Institutions cannot act in loco parentis

Organization recognition processes must be followed & cannot be denied because of controversy of speech

Membership cannot be denied at public institutions based on protected classes

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Differences between public and private institutions

What constitutes a “state actor”

Organization recognition

Right to assemble

Free speech

DISCUSSION: YOUR CAMPUSES

What potential legal issues do you notice on your campus? Illegal movie showings Club/organization recognition Group privileges (room use, etc.)

Have you heard buzz of current issues on your campus or elsewhere?

Now that you know a bit about the Constitution and student activities, do you have any concerns about your policies and programming?

What are some issues you could see arising, perhaps at another university?

REFERENCES

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010)

Healy v. James (1972)

Peck, A.M. (2005). Due process and fairness in student affairs: How to do all that is due. The Bulletin, 73(2).

Widmar v. Vincent (1981)

Zirkel, P.A. (2010). The first amendment and higher education students: Part I, the religion cases. West’s Education Law Reporter, 983, 1-7.

Zirkel, P.A. (2010). The first amendment and higher education students: Part II, the secular cases. West’s Education Law Reporter, 947, 1-18.