Law of Higher Ed

Question 1

Pickering v. Board of Education

Answer 1

Public school teacher fired for writing op ed articles criticizing school officials. Courts sided with teacher and developed a two part test for balancing faculty members freedom of speech vs. universities right to discipline an employee.

Question 2

Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)

Answer 2

First Amendment rights were denied by a district attorney who questioned a previous warrant. He stated that he was passed up for a promotion for this reason. Courts ruled that his speech was that of a public employee and not a citizen. Therefore, the first amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties.

Question 3

Adams v. Trustees of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington

Answer 3

Adams disagreed with various university policies and expressed his opinion to the media. The university then denied his application for promotion. The courts sided with Adams

Question 4

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent City Schools (1969)

Answer 4

First Amendment applied to public schools. Valid reasons must be given to restrict teacher of student speech.

Question 5

Widmar v. Vincent

Answer 5

UMKC refused to recognize and grant access to facilities to a religious group. Courts ruled that the universities decision violated First Amendment rights. This decision implies that any university decision to deny access to a group will be analyzed with strict scrutiny.

Question 6

Prairie View A&M University of Texas v. Mitchell

Answer 6

University was found to be protected by sovereign immunity when it was unable to produce proof that a student graduated from their engineering program. Employee was found at fault, but university was protected.

Question 7

Tennessee v. Lane

Answer 7

: Lane, who suffers from a mobility impairment, and other individuals brought this suit after Lane was arrested for failure to appear at a court hearing because he could not climb up the courthouse steps and refused to be carried. The suit was brought under Title II of the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) which prohibits state and local governmental agencies from discrimination based on disability. Court ruled that sovereign immunity may not be applied to private suits brought under Title II against states for monetary damages in Federal courts to address the denial of access of persons with disabilities to state and local court systems.