SAIN V. CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT: PROVIDING SPECIAL PROTECTION FOR STUDENT-ATHLETES? The scholarly article I chose was of great interest to me for several reasons. The case is an educational malpractice case in which a student-athlete said he was provided false information by his high school consolor and lost his basketball scholarship as a result. I was a student athlete in high school and sports are still a big part of my life. On top of that I am considering teaching and coaching after I graduate, making this a very relevant topic to me. In the next several paragraphs I am going to summarize the article and cases that it mentions, then I will try and decide what the authors intent was with writing this piece. It has been said for years that any case of educational malpractice was doomed from the start. Because of this, it was a huge surprise when the Iowa Supreme Court denied the defendant, Cedar Rapids Community School District’s motion for summary judgement. This was a case where a student sued for negligent misrepresentation by a school guidance counselor. One reason why the court may have denied the motion was because it was trying to protect a category of people who were considered especially vulnerable, the student-athlete. 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. But the school did not include that particular course on the list of classes that was sent to the clearinghouse. The next and final trimester Sain completed his third English credit and accepted a five year scholarship to Northern Illinois University.
Ward’s request unethical and Mrs. Ward’s unwillingness to change her position necessitated an informal review. That review included the academic supervisor along with the practicum supervisor and the student. Offered to the student were three options: complete a remediation plan, resign from the Counseling program, or request a university formal review. The university’s Formal Review Committee consisting of one student and two professors, all from the Counseling Department and one professor from the Education Leadership Department, determined she violated the university’s code of ethics and therefore was dismissed her from the Counseling Program. The dismissal led to the first court case, Ward v. Willbanks. The trial court ruled in favor of Eastern Michigan University (EMU) through summary judgment. Mrs. Ward appealed the case to the state appellate court, who reversed the decision and returned the case to the lower court for adjudication. Judicial adjudication was avoided, however, as the university settled with Mrs. Ward with a monetary payment and the removal of the expulsion from her
This decision makes it clear the most important thing for a school to do is to protect the students. It also states that the board of education, whose role is to oversee the schools, must make sure that the staff of the schools is protecting those children. This case highlights that long-term abuse can happen in schools if there are not clear policies or, if there are, that there is no one ensuring that those policies are
Robert Duffley, a high school senior at Trinity High School, had withdrawn from his sophomore year early in the first semester after falling ill. Anticipating problems with his eligibility to participate in high-school sports during his senior year under certain NHIAA rules, Duffley’s principal sought a ruling from the NHIAA granting such eligibility. The NHIAA decided to allow Duffley to participate only during the first semester of his senior year. No reason was given for denying Duffley eligibility for the second semester. After unsuccessful appeals to the NHIAA executive council, Duffley filed a petition in the Superior Court, seeking equitable and injunctive relief. Duffley alleged "violation of his due process rights” and that the defendant had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in arriving at its decision, which was “unreasonable and unlawful."
The school appealed this decision and brought it to the Supreme Court to argue their case on October 12th 1977. The Supreme Court upheld the California Supreme Court's decision with a 5-4 vote. The Court also ruled that the special-admissions program constituted reverse discrimination and was therefore illegal. The Court also said that schools could continue to look at race as a factor when accepting applicants, but they could not set up a quota system or look at race as the only deciding factor.
The minority countered this argument when the school board said, “it is our duty, our moral obligation, to protect the children in our school from this moral danger as surely as from physical and medical dangers” (qtd. in Board of
Board of Education (1954) which was a case of racial segregation of children that were discriminated against in public schools that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Next, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) the Court decided that monetary damages of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which demonstrated sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) held a lawsuit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that was against sexual harassment, denying a student of equal opportunity the school provided and subjecting them to facing discrimination in an elementary environment (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a).
The decision of the Supreme Court regarding the use of screening procedures for student athletes is incorrect. . After an intense beginning in court, the judge denied the Actons.... ... middle of paper ... ... Works Cited Andrews, Mackenson.
... athletes to do as they please. However he does not do a good job of being non-partisan. He leads his readers to believe the only group of people who would do such things are “jocks”. This bias is not true. The newspapers report that University fraternities, and secret societies are as likely, if not more likely, to commit these very same acts. He also leads the reader to believe that all athletes and athletic teams are similar. The impression he leaves about the majority of teams and their members is prejudicial and unfair. It is very unfortunate and disheartening that members of a community that were so highly reguarded, would commit such acts. It is even more disturbing to hear about the scenario leading up to the rape, and the community which produced these troubled young men. It is more important to look at why the events took place rather than who committed them, because ultimately the only innocent person involved is the victim, a mentally handicapped young girl, named Lesli Faber.
Groves, S. L., & Groves, D. L. (1981). Professional Discretion and Personal Liability of Teachers in Relation to Grades and Records. Education, 101(4), 335-340.
The Southern Methodist University football scandal, also known as Ponygate, was one of the most severe consequences that the NCAA has ever given out to a college or university. In this instance, the Southern Methodist University football program was found to be illegally paying their players after already being in trouble with the NCAA several times. The first time this football program had been caught by the NCAA for not following its rules was in 1985. This was when an incident regarding offensive lineman Sean Stopperich came up. Prior to transferring schools after going through an injury which made him unable to play, he was paid $5,000 by one of the Southern Methodist Universities booster programs to attend the school and play football there. This caused “the NCAA to place SMU on three years of probation in 1985, limit its postseason appearances, ban the boosters involved and strip the football program of 45 scholarships.” This did not show the program or the school a lesson though. Again in 1986 the Southern Methodist University football program was found breaking NCAA rules. This was their seventh time they had broken and been caught breaking NCAA rules. This time it was found that, “an unnamed booster had been found to have paid 13 Mustang players $61,000 from a slush fund with the approval of key members of the SMU athletic staff.” The result of this complication with NCAA rules is what became known as the, “death penalty”. This death penalty declared that there were to be, “no football in '87. only seven games in '88. no television or bowl appearances until 1989 and restrictions on off-campus recruiting and the number of assistant coaches until 1989 SMU which signed no high school players to letters of intent this winter...
...hedules the athletes had, they are still considered just a student. The NCAA cannot continue to allow these schools to work the athletes as much as they do without giving the athletes what they deserve.
Title IX is composed of three separate components: I-Accommodation of Interests and Abilities; II-Athletic Financial Assistance: Schola...
The first question to ask when you read an article is the one with the most obvious answer: “Who wrote this?” This is the rhetor, and it has two parts: the author, the one who actually sat down to write the piece and whose name’s at the top of the page; and the others, those that helped the author by adding to their argument through evidence or support (Grant-Davie 269). As high school students preparing to enter the wonderful world of college research papers, it’s important to understand who’s making the points you reference in your own work, and you can do that by analyzing the rhetors. An exam...
The case gained popularity across the United States due to the highly controversial topic that it presented to the highest ranking court in the country. Many americans supported Allan Bakke in his argument that the universities policies were both unfair and unjust, denying him of his rights as an american citizen, while many others supported the university's special admissions policy because it allowed for students of minorities to have a guaranteed acceptance into the university. The highly anticipated oral argument of the case took place on October 12 and presented a variety of valid arguments that had to be carefully considered by each of the six justices. The court found that the University’s special admissions program did in fact operate as a racially discriminative program because the applicants of the minorities were rated against one another. Four of the justices sided with Bakke, ruling that the universities admissions policy did violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the remaining four justices ruled that the race is a permissible criteria to use in higher education admissions. The Supreme Court ordered that Allan Bakke be admitted to the University of California Davis Medical School, and allowed the university to continue to use race as one of the factors in its affirmative action policies. However, the court decided that the University's policy reserving 16 out of 100 seats for racial minorities was both unfair, and no longer permitted because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
As stated in my introductory paragraphs, both authors examine the academic motivation of student athletes, but focus their arguments on different aspects. Since both authors agree on the fact that athletics make big impacts, it makes it harder to choose one argument over the other. Both Flynn and Herbert D. Simon’s have similar ideas in which they discuss, but they add their own opinions. Both authors have a strong agreement but the way they present their ideas are completely diverse.