Introduction: In recent years several high profile national cases have brought hazing to the forefront in American society as a real issue and a problematic one at that. According to recent statistics from the University of Maine, 1.5 million high school students are hazed each year. Of the athletes who have reported hazing, 40% have reported that a coach or advisor was aware of the activity. 22% report that the coach was actually involved in the activities. (Allan & Madden, 2008). Moreover, 36% of students say they would not report hazing primarily because “there’s no one to tell,” and 27% feel that officials or coaches won’t handle the situation right. In additional research a survey was conducted in which coaches were questioned about whether they believe that hazing goes on in their community; 50% responded yes, that hazing was in fact going on. Of the coaches who responded 25% admitted that they themselves were hazed in some form at a younger age (“InsideHazing”, 2010). In light of these findings, the question of who should be responsible is raised. Specifically, it brings up the legal question of “whether a coach has a valid qualified immunity defense to a student athlete’s constitutional rights violation claim when the student is involved in a hazing incident.” Legal Issue: Hazing is defined as “any activity expected of someone joining a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses or endangers, regardless of the person’s willingness to participate.” (Rosner & Crow, p. ). While most states have enacted anti-hazing legislation criminalizing the act of hazing, the application of these statutes is still quite rare. Id. at 277. Most lawsuits filed for reported hazing incidents are still reviewed under federal law claims ... ... middle of paper ... ... crying.” The plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 (2000) and civil rights conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 (2000). The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on the basis of qualified immunity. The court dismissed the state law claims but found that the defendant had in fact violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights due to the fact that “a state actor, through his agents, cannot randomly beat a student.” The defendant was also denied dismissal of the claim based on qualified immunity because a state actor cannot arbitrarily commit violence against a student. The plaintiff was able to show that Coach Edmundson’s conduct did violate his constitutional right of substantive due process to be free from the infliction of malicious corporal punishment by school official.
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
Board of Regents (1967). The teacher’s interest as a citizen in making public comment must be balanced against the State’s interest in promoting the efficiency of its employees’ public services. The court found the statements of the appellant were substantially correct, regarded matters of public concern, and presented no questions of faculty discipline or harmony. The statements offered no proper basis for the school board’s action in dismissing the appellant (Oyez, n.d.).
Bruce Sain who was the plaintiff in the case attended Jefferson High School, which was in the defendants school district. He played basketball for the school and was very good at it, so good that he planned on getting a scholarship to finance his college education. In order to be eligible to play sports in college you must meet certain course requirements be the NCAA, which Sain was working on doing. In his senior year he still needed three English credits to satisfy the NCAA requirements and since he went to a school that brock their year down into trimesters, he thought this would be no problem. He completed his first English course and enrolled into his second, but for some reason or another he disliked the class, so he went to his school counselor to see what he could do. The counselor told him to enroll into a class called technical Communications, which the counselor assured him would be approved by the NCAA clearinghouse.
It was a 1986 case involving a seniors, Matthew Fraser, campaign speech at school that used “sexually suggestive comments and gestures” which created an uproar in the audience (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Fraser was suspended for several days and was not allowed to speak at commencement therefore he made the decision to sue the school district since he felt his First Amendment was violated (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). He was voted against seven to two because he used vulgar language which is not allowed in schools (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Because Fraser was not peaceful or non-vulgar like the Tinker case, he was not able to win the case against the Bethel School
One example of the bystander effect on sorority hazing was the horrendous near death experience of Ravital Segal. On the night of her hazing her and two other pledges were blindfolded and were pressured to drink a concoction of alcohol out of sizeable water bottles they were driven to an unknown location and promptly thrusted from the vehicle. She blacked out immediately and woke up in the hospital with cuts, bruises, and even two broken teeth. She was admitted with nearly a .4 blood alcohol level. At a .4 alcohol level coma and or death will follow. When there was a hearing weeks later she completely denied hazing of any sorts. Raviatl later(post graduation) writes that on that night she was hazed, but feared the backlash she would faced had she spoken
Bennett, A., & Brower, A. (2001). ’THAT’S NOT WHAT FERPA SAYS!’: THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT GIVES DANGEROUS BREADTH TO FERPA IN ITS CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY FALVO V. OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT DECISION. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2, 327.
Duke University, a female place kicker alleged sexual discrimination when she was not selected for Duke Universities football team, one of the contact sports in the Title IX regulations. Although no woman had ever participated on the team Duke University did not specifically say that football at the university was not a coed team (Stevens, 2004). North Carolina district court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the “regulation did not contain an exception for any particular position that may not require physical contact” (Stevens, 2004). On Appeal, the fourth circuit court reviewed the “separate teams” subsection of Title IX and noted that Duke University had allowed this woman to tryout for coed sports team deeming her qualified to be a member of the team (Stevens, 2004). The verdict in this case is the first documented case awarding punitive damages in a Title IX athletics related case. Title IX’s purpose is to prevent discrimination against women in educational forums, but by institutions diminishing Title IX’s mandate, the commission is allowing and justifying the rationalization of on going discrimination against
Sexual assault, abuse, and rape by athletes is a devastating crime. These crimes by themselves are horrendous, but when committed by athletes there are many different factors involved. Through extensive research this paper will show contributing factors that may result in assault, abuse, or rape by athletes. Special treatment for athletes throughout their career, belief in sexual male dominance, and the role of alcohol are all important factors. Other crucial factors are the attitudes and responses of: society, juries, victims, coaches, and athletes. This paper will explore all these issues and show that changes need to be made in all the areas to combat the growing percentages of sport assault, abuse, and rape against women.
In an effort to maintain peace, safety and a disciplined environment conducive to effective teaching and learning, many schools have adopted the zero tolerance policy. This philosophy was originally created in the 1990’s as an approach towards drug enforcement to address the rampant use, possession and sales of drugs in schools (Jones, 2013). Today, this policy is used to mandate the application of pre-determined consequences of violation of stated rules. These rules may pertain to a number of issues; drugs, bullying, theft, and corporal punishment.
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
Bullying is a major problem in our society today, especially among teens. Bullying can be found in many forms, such as, direct bullying, which is considered kicking, hitting, making cruel comments, or threats. On the other hand, indirect bullying is spreading rumors, or excluding someone from a group; most of the time indirect bullying is done by females. Another form of bullying is cyber-bullying, which is done on the internet, social networking sites, email, or texting. This has become a very popular form of bullying over the past few years. Also, hazing is considered bullying. The term hazing can vary from singing an embarrassing song to extreme physical torture (Rees 24). Hazing is mostly done in sports and in social groups. The term “bullying” is considered a verbal or physical action that causes physical or psychological harm, is repeated over time, and occurs in a relationship of unequal power (Waters 7). Some people think that bullying does not lead to suicide, and that bullying is just a natural part of life. However, bullying, in many cases, is leading to suicide.
Meaningless insults and unnecessary abuse occurs often while growing up. No matter what age, sex, or race a person maybe it is hard to escape the nastiness of others. Today children are growing up in a society that knows how to haze before they know the meaning of the word. Hazing ranged from little humiliating actions to something more serious such as drunken activities. There are many hazing incidents that go too far but for the most part hazing is silly tasks that does not seriously harm anyone. Some hazing cases include isolation, drills, not letting the pledges shower, and depriving them from sleep for a day or so. Hazing comes in many strengths and variations and in every way it will help build the ...