Education Law Stories
Authors:
Olivas, Michael A. / Schneider, Ronna Greff
Edition:
1st
Copyright Date:
2007
19 chapters
have results for education law
Chapter 5: The Story of Lau v. Nichols: Breaking the Silence in Chinatown 105 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In fact, the experience in California suggests that declaring a fundamental right to education would not have accomplished dramatically more than Title VI, the OCR memorandum, and the EEOA have. The California Supreme Court did recognize a right to education. , as state policy shifted away from native-language instruction, advocates primarily turned to federal law, rather than the right to education under state law, to challenge the retrenchment. It is not clear that invoking a fundamental right could have succeeded in attacking changes in California’s bilingual education law. Courts still would have deferred to school officials in fashioning a remedy. Disagreements about the optimal method of instruction remain unresolved, and even today, the only consensus seems to be that a complete denial of assistance is inappropriate. Because no one has proposed total neglect, every reformer can at least plausibly claim to be promoting students’ interests and thus advancing their right to
- Steinman saw these facts as a way to make constitutional history. Although the complaint alleged that the San Francisco school district had violated federal and state law, both constitutional and statutory, the legal analysis emphasized that education was a fundamental right under the Constitution.
- On questions of law, the city conceded that the Chinese-speaking students had a right to education but denied that it was being violated. School officials were “employing all means available limited only by the availability of funds, buildings and qualified personnel to provide as fine an education as possible for all pupils of this School District.” According to the defendants, there was no denial of a public education because:
- In California, policymakers similarly retreated from their earlier commitment to native-language instruction. The 1980 Bilingual Education Improvement and Reform Act emphasized the central goal of learning English and increased state support for intensive English instruction. Then, in June 1987, the state’s bilingual education act lapsed under a sunset law. The governor vetoed a bill that would have renewed the act, and the legislature could not muster the votes to override his decision. As a result, California was left without any state statutory provisions for bilingual programs. To fill the gap, the California Department of Education adopted guidelines that preserved some preference for native-language instruction. The guidelines put the Department at loggerheads with its more conservative counterpart, the California Board of Education. The Board began to grant waivers to districts that did not wish to comply with the Department’s bilingual education requirements. Eventually,...
- The Center for Law and Education joined with two other amici to contend that minimum access to education was a fundamental right. The Center for Law and Education again offered expert evidence that “if a child cannot understand the language of instruction he is doomed to educational failure.”
- Open Chapter
Contributors 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- , Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, specializes in empirical legal scholarship and bridging empirical methodologies, legal theory, and policy analysis. He writes in public and private law areas, including civil justice reform, punitive damages, education policy, criminal sentencing, and judicial decision-making. Professor Heise’s teaching areas include torts, empirical methods for lawyers, constitutional law, education law, and law and social science. His scholarly publications include numerous contributions to education law, with an emphasis on issues relating to school choice, desegregation, school finance, and equal educational opportunity. Professor Heise has co-edited the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies since 2005.
- , J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law at the University of Georgia, teaches education law, children and the law, and contracts. She is the co-author of the casebook Children and the Law (2d ed. LexisNexis) (with Gardner) and has published extensively on education law and policy, including in the Journal of Education Finance (with Dayton); in the Vanderbilt Law Review (with Dayton);
- is the Kenneth Wang Professor of Law at St. John’s University School of Law. Previously, she served on the faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Education in the Administration, Planning, and Social Policy Program and in the Institute for Educational Management. She is a former trustee of the State University of New York and former chair of the Education and the Law Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the Section on Education Law of the Association of American Law Schools. She has held the Bretzfelder fellowship in Constitutional Law at Columbia University as well as a fellowship from the Open Society Institute. She is the author of Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single–Sex Schooling (Yale University Press); Visions of Schooling: Conscience, Community, and Common Education (Yale University Press); and Equal Education under Law: Legal Rights and Federal Policy in the Post–“Brown Era” (St. Martin’s Press). She is currently writing on a book on...
- is the William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Houston Law Center and Director of the Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance at UH. From 1983–1987, he also chaired the UH graduate program in Higher Education. From 1990–95, he served as Associate Dean of the Law Center; he once again served in 2001–2004. He was named Bates Professor of Law in 1996, and Bates Distinguished Chair in 2002. In 2001, he was selected for the Esther Farfel Award, as the Outstanding Professor at the University of Houston. Before joining the faculty at the University of Houston in 1982, Professor Olivas held teaching and research positions at the Ohio State University and Howard University; he served as Director of Research for the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) in Washington, D.C. from 1979–1982. In 1989–90, he was a Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin, and Special Counsel to then-Chancellor Donna Shalala. In 1997, he held the Mason...
- is Professor of Law at the University of Cincinnati College of Law where she teaches courses focusing on Constitutional Law, Education Law, and the First Amendment. She is the author of Education Law: First Amendment, Due Process, and Discrimination Litigation (Thomson West 2004). She has written on civil rights issues, including a book chapter, Article 19, International Centre Against Censorship and the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, UK 1992). She clerked for the Honorable Frank H. Freedman of the federal district court in Massachusetts. She has twice served as the Chair of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Law and Education.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7: The Story of Southeastern Community College v. Davis: The Prequel to the Television Series “ER” 60 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Brown v. Board of Education
- The same could be said for a number of the pre–1999 higher education cases. The courts would have been less likely to reach the substantive issues of qualification and reasonable accommodation if the institutions had raised the issue of whether the individual was covered through a motion to dismiss. It is because higher education cases did not focus on that issue that there is a well developed and useful body of case law, which is a valuable reference not only in the higher education context, but in other areas as well.
- This is the story of how Frances Davis played a role in changing the culture of how people with disabilities are treated in society. It is the story of how people with disabilities in higher education were increasingly included as a result of her case. It is the story of how higher education disability discrimination standards play an important part in developing disability discrimination law generally. And finally, it is the story of how disability discrimination law changed the way society views individuals with disabilities.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1400. For an overview and history of special education law, see Laura Rothstein and Julia Rothstein, Disabilities and the Law Chapter 2 (Thomson/West 2006).
- Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recognized the importance of higher education in America when she held in the landmark decision that “universities, and in particular, law schools, represent The importance of higher education as an avenue into full participation in American society makes it particularly significant that the first case in which the Supreme Court addressed any aspect of federal disability discrimination was one involving higher education, specifically nursing school. was the first of several major federal discrimination laws. The
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1: Education Law Stories: Law and Society in the Classroom 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
- We have structured this book so that it may serve as a supplemental text for law school classes addressing issues involving K–12, higher education or both. Thus, cases from both levels of education are represented in our selections. The book is also designed to serve as a supplemental or a primary text outside the law school arena, such as colleges of education or schools of public policy. These stories may be helpful to today’s educators who must be able to identify those issues that could potentially develop into problems with major legal implications.
- Court rejected the federal constitutional challenge to the manner in which Texas—and many states—fund public education, despite the resultant vast disparities between the amounts of funds available to rich and poor school districts. In all likelihood, has foreclosed the use of the federal constitution as a vehicle for affecting any dramatic change in the funding structure of public education by its holding that there was no fundamental right to a quality public education under the federal constitution and that poverty was not a suspect class. story unfolds in the federal court arena with a focus on the scope of federal constitutional rights, its legacy may well be the development of a greater reliance on state constitutional law, at least with regard to some civil rights issues in the education context.
- Professor Rachel Moran brings her longstanding expertise in education law and experience as the co-author of an education law casebook
- Schools and colleges are the major organizational mechanisms for personal achievement and social stability, so it is little wonder that they are also the staging grounds for the major social battles and disagreements of our time. As a consequence, legal issues involving education have greatly proliferated in recent times. The Supreme Court has addressed at least one issue affecting education virtually every term in the last thirty years. Even as the Supreme Court docket has generally shrunk, education related cases have remained on the docket, as the Court’s last term clearly indicates. There does not appear to be any abatement in the near future in either the number or complexity of legal issues arising in the education context. In the October, 2006 term alone, the Supreme Court demonstrated its continuing interest in legal issues in the school context by deciding two cases involving freedom of expression in the school context, one case involving disabilities in the education context,
- Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education, 127 S.Ct. 1534 (2007) (Department of Education’s technical definitions of school funds distribution formulae were not unreasonable construction of complex statute).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3: The Story of San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez: School Finance, Local Control, and Constitutional Limits 81 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Two key themes emerge from the district court opinion that continue to resonate throughout many aspects of education law in general and school finance litigation in particular. First, the court opinion implicitly equated “higher quality education” with higher per pupil spending. Second, the opinion conveyed some trepidation owing to separation of powers concerns.
- In contrast to Justice White, Justice Marshall continued to argue that education was a fundamental right. Justice Marshall’s prior inability to persuade the Court to declare education as a fundamental right in (as an advocate for the plaintiffs) did not deter him from revisiting the issue now that he sat on the Court. After categorizing Court pronouncements of education’s importance, Justice Marshall developed the argument that education “directly affects” a child’s ability to enjoy other core rights clearly articulated by the Constitution and deemed fundamental by the Court, such as speech. Justice Marshall argued that the nexus between education and the engagement in the political process was sufficiently robust that, according to Marshall, the former was fundamental as a matter of constitutional law and, as such, triggered strict judicial scrutiny of Texas’ school finance system. Recognizing that some students in property-poor schools academically out performed their...
- Professor James Ryan, a leading education law scholar, teaches law at the University of Virginia.
- [E]ducation is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today, it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
- Ironically, state efforts to develop and implement standards and assessment regimes better enabled the federal government to enter the education policymaking field with greater force which had the practical effect of further blurring federalism lines and diluting local control. Federal involvement with K–12 education policy increased in dramatic fashion with the No Child Left Behind Act 2001 In exchange for federal education dollars, districts and states must now submit to increasingly onerous federal education laws. One inevitable consequence of school reform initiatives at the state and federal levels (as well as increased state and federal education spending) has been a further dilution of local control over school policy.
- Open Chapter
Education Law Stories 3 results
Chapter 2: The Story of Brown v. Board of Education: The Long Road to Racial Equality 70 results (showing 5 best matches)
- See Segregation and the Equal Protection Clause: Brief of the Committee of Law Teachers Against Segregated Legal Education
- [s]egregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has a sanction of law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to restrain the education and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.
- The Court found “the fact remains that instruction in law for Negroes is not now afforded by the State, either at Lincoln University or elsewhere within the State.” Based on these findings, the Court reasoned that the critical issue was “the question [of] whether the provision for the legal education in other States of [negro] residents in Missouri is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement of equal protection.”
- Houston’s memorandum presented two proposals. One was based on the premise that the entire effort would focus on education cases. The second budget proposed an equal division of the funds between education and transportation litigation. Houston believed that the education proposal should be given priority because of the potential benefits for African–American students while the campaign was still in progress. He recommended a two-pronged attack: one against unequal allocation of school funds and the other against differentials in teacher salaries. Houston explained his goals were: “(1) to arouse and strengthen the will of the local communities to demand and fight for their rights; (2) to work out model procedures through actual tests in court which can be used by
- had a personal significance. He was prevented from attending Maryland’s law school based on its policy of excluding African–Americans. Maryland’s law school was located in Baltimore where Thurgood Marshall resided. To obtain his legal education, Marshall had to rise in the early hours of each morning to travel from his home in Baltimore to attend classes at Howard University in Washington, D.C. He returned each day to his home in Baltimore, usually arriving late at night. Marshall endured this inconvenience for three years;
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8: The Story of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier: Student Press and the School Censor 36 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Law of Torts
- The Law and Higher Education: Cases and Materials on Colleges in Court
- , the school speech analysis has changed depending on the perspective of the analyst. Not surprisingly, four judges on the Seventh Circuit dissented from the opinion, taking an entirely different tack from that of Judge Easterbrook. The dissenters argued that there is a legal distinction between college students and high school students, and they focused on cases where courts have recognized that minors have a unique status under the law. Because high school students are less mature than college students and because the mission of the high school differs from the mission in higher education, there is no reason to apply beyond the high school context. As a general matter, college students are more mature, independent thinkers. Where K–12 education is concerned with the inculcation of values (citing
- One issue that has concerned The Student Press Law Center and legal commentators is the extent to which applies to student press in higher education. The Supreme Court has decided one case directly concerning student press rights in higher education, although the newspaper in question was underground. In
- Student Press Law Center, Student Press Law Center, The website also instructs students to talk to their principals and boards of education about adopting policies that define their newspapers as public forums and spells out the decision-making responsibilities that the students have regarding content of their publications.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Chapter 4: The Story of Grutter v. Bollinger: Affirmative Action Wins 71 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Five justices validated the law school’s practices to create diversity, and four strongly disapproved them. That outcome narrows diversity’s utility, as did the undergraduate case, which held the undergraduate point system unconstitutional. Justices Breyer and O’Connor, who had voted to uphold the law school’s practices, joined the six-to-three majority in still leaves, however, ample room for other educators to consider race in higher education and stay within constitutional boundaries.
- Instead, the analysis really begins when Justice O’Connor offers a non-Equal Protection principle: “[t]he Law School’s educational judgment that such diversity is essential to its education mission is one to which we defer.”
- Barbara Grutter never attended law school. She has deemed and has continued to promote public discussion of affirmative action preferences as president of Toward A Fair Michigan (“TAFM”). Grutter describes TAFM as a “non-profit, non-partisan education organization, which, amongst other things, sponsors debates (providing both pro and con speakers) to promote an informed citizenry in support of the best public decision” on affirmative action preferences.
- Constitutional Criteria: The Social Science and Common Law of Admissions Decisions in Higher Education
- majority clearly supports the idea of integration, and links diversity to the benefits of integration. For example, the majority states the value of integrated schools: “Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6: The Story of the Virginia Military Institute: Negotiating Sameness and Difference 43 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The VMI Board of Visitors passed a unanimous resolution stating that the policy was not in violation of the law, but rather provided “diversity and balance” in the Virginia system of higher education. That same day, in a preemptive strike and to the dismay of Justice attorneys, both the state Attorney General Mary Sue Terry and the VMI Foundation filed separate suits in the federal district court in Roanoke, where they were more certain to get a sympathetic hearing. They challenged what they considered federal encroachment on the state’s system of higher education and asked the court to declare the Institute’s admissions policy constitutional. The following month, the Civil Rights Division brought its own suit in the same court. The government argued that excluding women violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Over the past two centuries, the education of women has been subject to intermittent waves of resistance, ambivalence, and qualified support, each reflecting enduring disagreements over women’s place in society. Much of the dispute has focused on whether women and men are inherently the same or different. Remarks made several years ago by the now former President of Harvard University, suggesting by his “best guess” that “intrinsic aptitude” primarily accounts for the paucity of women holding senior academic positions in math and science, education is legendary. Going back to the 1870s, Dr. Edward Clarke, a member of Harvard’s Board of Overseers and a former member of Harvard’s medical faculty, warned with great certitude that secondary and higher education would harm women’s reproductive abilities. Clarke was especially averse to educating women in the masculine and academically challenging atmosphere of the coeducational school. His book,
- In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist expressed concern on that precise point. He feared that Justice Ginsburg’s forceful reliance on the phrase “exceedingly persuasive justification” had ratcheted up the standard for reviewing sex-based classifications, misapplied prior case law, and introduced an “element of uncertainty” into sex discrimination analysis. To his mind, the phrase was merely “an observation on the difficulty of meeting the applicable test, not … a formulation of the test itself.” For Justice Antonin Scalia, the lone dissenting voice, the majority’s opinion was “politics smuggled into law.” ...’s, he took the Court to task for distorting judicial precedent, denying the real differences between women and men, and in the end even threatening the vitality of private single-sex schools whose tax-exempt status and government funding would be placed in jeopardy. Striking an ominous note, he predicted that the decision would render “single-sex public education …...
- The historical exclusion of women from higher education initially gave rise to women’s colleges, beginning with Mount Holyoke in 1837, the same year that Oberlin College opened its Collegiate Department to women. It also was the year that the abolitionist and feminist Sarah Grimke stridently proclaimed that men should grant no special favors to women, but merely “take their feet off [women’s] necks and permit [them] to stand up straight.” Education was no exception. Many nineteenth century women’s advocates, heartened by Oberlin’s success, championed coeducation as a right crucial to liberating women from a “separate spheres” ideology that placed men dominant over the public sphere of work, politics, and intellectual life while consigning women to the private sphere of home and family. At the same time, however, many early feminists touted women’s moral superiority over men, a justification they used to promote women’s suffrage.
- In a critical footnote, Justice Ginsburg affirmed the position that a group of women’s college’s had taken in their amicus brief. Using language that would lend support to single-sex education and at the same time define its contours, she recognized “the mission of some single-sex schools to ‘dissipate, rather than perpetuate, traditional gender classifications.’ ” And while she made clear that the Court was not addressing the question of whether states could provide “separate but equal” undergraduate institutions, she nevertheless offered specific guidelines on what courts might consider in judging whether the education offered both sexes is “substantially equal.” Like Judge Phillips in the court of appeals, she drew on
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13: The Story of Pottawatomie County v. Lindsay Earls: Drug Testing in the Public Schools 25 results (showing 5 best matches)
- , the Court observed that the school authorities are state actors for other constitutional guarantees such as due process and First Amendment concerns. Further, schools are regulated by compulsory education laws requiring school officials to follow publicly mandated educational and discipline policies. So, in essence, they are acting as representatives of the state, not as parents.
- Linda M. Meoli, an attorney with The Education Law Center, Inc. in Oklahoma City, argued this case in the lower courts, and represented the school district at the Supreme Court. During her oral argument she maintained that the case was a minor logical extension of
- Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (noting in a corporal punishment case that the authority of teachers derives from a school’s need to maintain group discipline and provide a proper education, rather than deriving from parental delegation).
- There is no empirical evidence to support this statement, however. Many experts including the National Education Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have suggested that drug education is much more effective than drug testing.
- The School Board reinstated the Policy and again, Lindsay chose to participate in the drug testing in order to remain in choir and her other activities. Lindsay was tested once during her junior year, and then two or three times during her senior year. She never tested positive. Lindsay despised participating in the testing, but she enjoyed her activities and knew they were an important component of her education and were necessary to help her get into a college of her choice.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10: The Story of Keyishian v. Board of Regents: Loyalty Oaths, Academic Freedom and Free Speech in the University Community 28 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Federal Constitution, the New York Regents have uniquely pervasive authority over all education in the state, not only the public sector but also every classroom in the private sector from a parochial kindergarten to a Columbia or Cornell doctoral seminar. Such education comprised, quite simply, the “University of the State of New York”—an entity not to be confused with others. The Regents’ authority over private education exists not only on paper, but in practice, as the removal of several doctoral programs at Fordham and St. Johns Universities will attest, and as New York’s highest court has several timed affirmed. but any discussion of matters beyond higher education would be superfluous here).
- Several months later, while preparing to assume my post as Executive Assistant to President Martin Meyerson in Buffalo, I received a thick envelope of employment papers from the SUNY personnel office in Albany. Upon opening the envelope, I noted at once that the Feinberg Law apparatus lay atop the pile. The text of the law, and the ominous warnings to new employees of the State of New York, were unmistakable. I telephoned the appropriate person in Albany, explaining that I had just played a role in persuading the Supreme Court to invalidate the Feinberg Law. After checking with a superior, an obviously embarrassed personnel officer assured me that I should discard the loyalty-security papers, and proceed to the other forms. She also assured me that no future mailings would contain such materials. To my knowledge, I was the last applicant for New York State employment ever to encounter the Feinberg Law.
- When the Supreme Court first reviewed a constitutional challenge to New York’s Feinberg Law, and the loyalty screen that law imposed on public employees, the Justices’ response was clear and unambiguous: “[School] teachers may work for the school system upon the reasonable terms laid down by the proper authorities of New York. If they do not choose to work on such terms, they are at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere.” The Court specifically addressed, and resoundingly rejected, claims that the oath required of New York public workers abridged their federal constitutional liberties. Anyone who seriously contemplated reopening the issue of the Feinberg Law’s validity less than a decade and a half later might be seen as presumptuous or naïve or both. Yet that is precisely what a group of professors in Western New York did, and with remarkable success. The later case is the focus of this essay.
- The defendants promptly responded to the suit, addressing initially the question whether the constitutional claims were important enough to warrant the convening of a three-judge court. At that time and for over a decade thereafter, federal courts of three judges (typically one from the court of appeals and two from the district bench) were required when the constitutionality of a state law was drawn into question. The district judge before whom this issue came in the Keyishian case initially ruled that this requirement did not apply, so clearly was the law settled in favor of the Feinberg Law’s validity. ...and not discretionary (as is the case today for virtually all lower court proceedings). Since the abolition of the three-judge court requirement—save for a few special situations like challenges to the Communications Decency Act and the McCain–Feingold Campaign Finance Law—whether a case ever gets on the Supreme Court docket is entirely up to the Justices. Many cases that went...
- While everyone awaited the three-judge court’s ruling, a funny thing happened to the Feinberg Law. In June, 1965, the certificate requirement that had long been imposed under the law was suddenly rescinded by New York State civil service officials. Instead, each applicant for state employment was henceforth to be informed that the Feinberg Law and its provisions constituted part of his or her contract. The applicant was specifically to be warned of the disability or disqualification that would result from membership in any “subversive organization.” Should any applicant have questions, he or she “may request a personal interview,” noting that “refusal of a candidate to answer any question relevant to such inquiry by such officer shall be sufficient ground to refuse to make or recommend appointment.” This change in procedure would become a pivotal source of divergence among the courts that would now consider the case.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11: The Story of Edwards v. Aguillard: The Genesis of Creation-Science 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Public Education, Religious Establishment, and the Challenge of Intelligent Design
- Evolution, Public Education, and the New Challenge of Intelligent Design
- also raised particular questions about the application of the secular purpose test, namely whether judges should consider the statutory language only or if they appropriately focused on legislative history and the secular or religious commitments of individual legislators. Although such issues are significant for Establishment Clause jurisprudence, for the story of creation-science the recurring question is not about secular purpose, but on what is religious and what is scientific education.
- Christian opposition to evolution achieved full strength in the 1920s, when Tennessee and other states passed legislation (sometimes called “monkey laws”) criminalizing the teaching of evolution in the public schools. After a Tennessee jury convicted John Scopes of that crime in the famous Scopes trial, Scopes’ conviction was reversed on a technicality, thus ensuring that the anti-evolution laws remained on the books until 1968, when the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute outlawing the teaching of evolution in public schools in
- Bird later explained that his motivation for writing the essay was not religious but was rooted in a desire for schools to present fair and balanced scientific information. Although he was a committed evolutionist in high school, where evolution was taught “as fact,” once Bird learned of evidence challenging evolution, he decided that such material should be taught alongside evolution as a matter of fairness. After finishing law school, Bird clerked for federal judges and moved into legal practice, and did not lobby for the passage of legislation requiring the teaching of scientific creationism to balance evolution. Nonetheless, Bird’s article received unusual interest and attention for a student law note. Bird recalls that his Yale essay became the most requested reprint from the journal, and that within a few years of its publication over half the states had pending statutes requiring the balanced treatment of evolution and creationism.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9: The Story of Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth: “Losing Battles, Winning Wars” 22 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Brief of Amicus Curiae American Council on Education et al. in Support of Petitioners. The organizations that authored this brief are:
- American Council on Education;
- NAWE: Advancing Women in Higher Education;
- Brief for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Campus Center at UW–Madison et al. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners. Those who joined the Center are 49 other student groups, the National Consortium of Directors of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resources in Higher Education, and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. LGBT Center “is a Registered Student Organization at the University and one of the 18 groups whose funding through mandatory fees plaintiffs oppose. The LGBT
- Brief of the Lesbian, Gay Bisexual and Transgender Campus Center at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12: The Story of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: God and Football in Texas 4 results
- Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 56 (1985) (moment of silence for mediation or silent prayer violated the Establishment Clause because “it was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose—indeed, the statute had no secular purpose”); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41 (1980) (state law requiring the posting of Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional because the law “has no secular legislative purpose”).
- Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies
- In December 1996, the district court held a two-day trial on the issue of damages. The court ruled against the plaintiffs and denied them any damages or attorneys’ fees. The court stressed that the plaintiffs could not prove that the School District was responsible for the violations of the First Amendment and under well-established law, a local government can be held liable only for its own policies or customs that violate the Constitution.
- He objected to the failure to grant en banc review and to clarify this muddled area of the law. He said: “When judges can pick and choose without the constraints imposed by precedent, the public is left stranded, vulnerable to liability, helplessly dependent on the panel it draws. We could fulfill our constitutional and professional duty to the public, vote this case en banc, and be of a single voice.”
- Open Chapter
Acknowledgments 1 result
- We thank the dozen authors whose work we highlight here. All of them were a joy to work with, and everyone came through with his or her promised best work, in timely fashion. We thank Paul Caron, John Bloomquist and Ryan Pfeiffer from Foundation Press, Jessica L. Contreras and Deborah Y. Jones from the University of Houston Law Center and Connie Miller from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. We also thank the Harold C. Schott Foundation for its support of this project.
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 1 result
- This publication was created to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered; however, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: December 4th, 2007
- ISBN: 9781599410326
- Subject: Education Law
- Series: Law Stories
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This book provides an understanding of a dozen leading education-related cases, focusing on how the litigation was shaped by lawyers, judges, and social factors, and why the cases have attained landmark status. In this book, a group of prominent education and constitutional law scholars have brought to life 12 of the most interesting cases ever litigated, a number of which are taught in basic law school courses. Both cases in higher education settings and school law are included. Cases have been selected to provide a historical sampling of different times and important issues, including religion, finance, race gender, and disabilities.
