The Higher Education Student Classroom
Rights Poster Campaign (pt2)
• Each sticker is 10” x 7.5” (on PPT)
• Print on sticker paper 2 to a sheet fit easily
• You can use power point to fit 4-6 to a sheet
• Buy sticker paper in bulk
• Print and cut at copy center
•Handout at events
• Make a wall display of all the stickers
•Make small handbills on normal paper to hand out
• Post on anything you like
•Put your organizational contact info on reverse
Students Classroom Rights
Know what American courts say!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Right to a contractual syllabus -- all
university documents and verbal
promises are contractual
Right to advertized course content
covered in sufficient depth
Right to advertized level of course
instruction –no higher no lower!
Right to be informed of course
objectives (reasonable objectives)
Right to grading in accordance with the
syllabus – no other requirements!
Right to fair grading policies. The
syllabus must be fair!
Right to effective teaching
Right to protection from misuse of time.
Must be related to the syllabus!
Right to protection from written and
verbal abuse
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Right to protection from race, color, sex, religion,
national origin, or age based discrimination
Unfortunately gender, sexual orientation and
gender identity are not protected (yet!)
Right to disability accommodation in classroom and
testing facilities
Right to uniformity across class sections (except to
correct for unequal treatment in extreme
instances)
Right to protection from policies which segregate
Right to protection from arbitrary and capricious or
random decision-making (meaning policies must be
in writing before students are held accountable)
Students retain all constitutional rights!
Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Kaplan & Lee 2009; Parkes and Harris, 2002; Hill v. University of Kentucky, Wilson, and Schwartz, 1992; Keen v. Penson, 1992;
Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin College, 2001; Bach, 2003; Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball St. Univ., 1984, 1986; Poskanzer, 2002;
Bishop v. University of Alabama, 1991; Edwards v. California Univ. of Pa., 1998; Mawdsley, 2004; Andre v. Pace University, 1994, 1996; Clark v.
Holmes, 1972, 1973; Scallet v. Rosenblum, 1996; Keen v. Penson, 1992; Hills v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 1982; Parate v. Isibor, 1989;
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 1995; Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University, 1982;
Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 2004 ; Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 2001 ; ADA , 1973; Hendrickson, 1986; Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 1979 ; Faulkner
v. Jones 1995; University of Texas v. Camenisch, 1981; United States v. Fordice, 1992 .
“You are free to express
yourself” said the prof. as he
belittled your argument with
his gaze …he doesn't even have
to say anything, but he has
commented on it, oh he has
commented on it!!
Students retain their first amendment
rights in institutions of higher
education (ASHE & Henderickson,
1986). Papish v. Board of Curators of
the Univ. of Missouri (1973) and Joyner
v. Whiting (1973) found students may
engage in speech that does not
interfere with the rights of others or of
the operation of the school (ASHE &
Henderickson). Because schools are
places of education they may regulate
speech by time, manner and place as
long as they provide free speech zones
for students (Henderickson; Perry Ed.
Assoc. v. Perry Local Ed. Assoc., 1983).
These cannot be used to limit
expression (Henderickson; Bayless v.
Maritime, 1970). If there are no free
speech zones indicated or policies
stated student's may understand that
the whole school is a free speech zone.
I neeever
give 100%, there is
aaalways
room for improvement!
Students have the right to be graded fairly and in accordance with criteria set forth by the
course syllabus (Parkes and Harris, 2002; Keen v. Penson, 1992). Teachers have the right,
under the first amendment, to communicate their opinions regarding student grades
(Parate v. Isibor, 1989; Poskanzer, 2002), but institutions are required to meet students
implied contract rights to fair grading practices. Departments may change grades issued by
teachers which are not in line with grading policies or are unfair or unreasonable (Hills v.
Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 1982; Parate v. Isibor, 1989). Students also have the right to
protection from arbitrary or capricious decision making. Decision making should not be
arbitrary or capricious / random and, thus, interfere with fairness (Bach, 2003; Anderson v.
Mass. Inst of Tech, 1995; Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Sharick v. Southeastern University of the
Health Sciences, 2000; Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences /Chicago Med. School,
1988; Healy v. Larsson, 1974; Bowden, 2007).
And what kind of
degree do youuu have??
.... I did my dissertation on the
mating habits of bears,
a little respect pleeasee!
Is academic alienation abuse? Students have the right to protection
from written or verbal abuse. Teachers have the right to regulated
expression (Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v. Holmes, 1972) but may not
use their first amendment privileges punitively or discriminatorily
(Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 2004) or in a way
which prevents students from learning by ridiculing, proselytizing,
harassment or use of unfair grading practices (Kaplan & Lee, 2011;
Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 2001).
…and that’s why
Hillary Clinton visited
the proctologist
…ah, no, no none of
them will be on the
test, and ah, no you
can’t leave early
Students may expect protection from the misuse of time (Bach, Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees of
Ball St. Univ.); teachers may not waste student’s time or use the class as a captive
audience for views or lessons not related to the course (Ibid; Keen v. Penson, 1992).
Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball St. Univ. found that instructors may not “wast[e] the time
of the students who have come there and paid money for a different purpose.” Students
are in general protected from deviation from information advertized in class syllabi (Keen
v. Penson; Parkes and Harris, 2002; Hill v. University of Kentucky, Wilson, and Schwartz,
1992). Syllabi may be considered binding implied-in-fact contracts. Goodman v. President
and Trustees of Bowdoin College (2001) ruled that institutional documents are still
contractual regardless if they have a disclaimer.
Ah, let me see if I
understand you
correctly, you want me
to give you credit on
the test because we
didn’t cover half of the
questions in class?
Students are protected from deviation from the class syllabus (Parkes and Harris, 2002; Hill v.
Uni. of Kentucky, Wilson & Schwartz, 1992; Keen v. Penson, 1992). Goodman v. President and
Trustees of Bowdoin College (2001) found institutional documents are still contractual regardless
if they have a disclaimer. These may be considered implied-in-fact contracts. Teachers, under the
first amendment can communicate their opinions on student grades (Parate v. Isibor, 1989;
Poskanzer, 2002), but institutions must meet students implied contract right to fair grading
practices. Departments may change grades issued by teachers which are not in line with grading
policies or are unfair or unreasonable (Hills v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 1982; Parate v. Isibor,
1989). Students also have the right to protection from arbitrary or capricious decision making
because it interferes with fairness (Bach, 2003; Anderson v. Mass. Inst of Tech, 1995; Kaplan &
Lee, 2011; Sharick v. Southeastern University of the Health Sciences, 2000; Brody v. Finch
University of Health Sciences /Chicago Med. School, 1988).
I’m sorry the whole group gets the
same grade! In the real world there
are no such things as bonuses for
those who work harder, and fu*k no
your group members won’t be fired.
Get used to it now before someone
fires you in the real world for being a
SHIT DISTURBER!
Teachers, under the first amendment can communicate their opinions on student
grades (Parate v. Isibor, 1989; Poskanzer, 2002), but institutions must meet
students implied contract right to fair grading practices. Departments may change
grades issued by teachers which are not in line with grading policies or are unfair or
unreasonable (Hills v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 1982; Parate v. Isibor, 1989).
Students also have the right to protection from arbitrary or capricious decision
making because it interferes with fairness (Bach, 2003; Anderson v. Mass. Inst of
Tech, 1995; Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Sharick v. Southeastern University of the Health
Sciences, 2000; Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences /Chicago Med. School,
1988). Where students are assigned grades which do not reflect their effort or
understanding departments may become involved in the grading process.
Intervention!
I know you didn’t want to meet
with me but…well…ah,
I’ve noticed you don’t attend on
campus events. I’m worried you’re
not living up to your potential.
Healey v. James (1972) found students have the right to self
determination. “Students—who, by reason of the 26th Amendment,
become eligible to vote when 18 years of age—are adults who are
members of the college or university community. Their interests and
concerns are often quite different from those of the faculty. They often
have values, views, and ideologies that are at war with the ones which
the college has traditionally espoused or indoctrinated (Healey v. James).
Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1979), which found that “adult students now
demand and receive expanded rights of privacy in their college life”
(Thomas, 1991).
Ok, essays! I’m chill, just let
me know that you
know your stuff
C+ formatting MLA
not APA
Students have the right to be graded fairly
and in accordance with criteria set forth by
the course syllabuses and may be protected
from the addition of new grading criteria
(Parkes and Harris, 2002; Keen v. Penson,
1992). Teachers, under first amendment can
communicate their opinions regarding
student grades (Parate v. Isibor, 1989;
Poskanzer, 2002), but institutions must meet
students implied contract rights to fair
grading practices. Departments may change
grades issued by teachers which are not in
line with grading policies or are unfair or
unreasonable (Hills v. Stephen F. Austin State
Univ., 1982; Parate v. Isibor, 1989). Students
also have the right to protection from
arbitrary or capricious decision making
because it interferes with fairness (Bach,
2003; Anderson v. Mass. Inst of Tech, 1995;
Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Sharick v. Southeastern
University of the Health Sciences, 2000;
Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences
/Chicago Med. School, 1988).
I will ‘F’ you up!
Don’t even bother, I am the chair of
the department, teach half the
major requirement classes, serve in
the academic senate, sit on the
disciplinary board, behavioral
intervention team, scholarship
review board and on the boards of
three resource centers.
Students have the right to a
grievance filing process. Dixon v.
Alabama (1961) determined that
when student’s constitutional rights
are not upheld, students are eligible
to sue for damages in a court of law
for monetary or material damages
(Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1973;
Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Salvador v.
Bennett, 1986; Church of the Lukumi
Babalu Aye v. City of Hileah, 1993;
Cooper v. Nix, 1974). Individuals may
also file complaints regarding
discrimination with the federal Office
of Civil Rights (OCR) (Kaplan & Lee,
2011; Civil Rights Office Tanberg v.
Weld County Sheriff, 1992; 1975 Age
Discrimination Act).
So… we aren’t going to
get to chapters 9-15
before the exam?
Ah, nooo but they are on
the test so keep up with
the reading schedule
Students have the right to be graded fairly
and in accordance with criteria set forth by
the course syllabuses (Parkes and Harris,
2002; Keen v. Penson, 1992). This should
include the material set forth in the syllabus
which should be taught in accordance with
the teaching schedule set forth. Under first
amendment, teachers can communicate
their opinions regarding student grades
(Parate v. Isibor, 1989; Poskanzer, 2002), but
institutions must meet students implied
contract rights to fair grading practices.
Departments may change grades issued by
teachers which are not in line with grading
policies or are unfair or unreasonable (Hills v.
Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 1982; Parate v.
Isibor, 1989). Students also have the right to
protection from arbitrary or capricious
decision making because it interferes with
fairness (Bach, 2003; Anderson v. Mass. Inst
of Tech, 1995; Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Sharick v.
Southeastern University of the Health
Sciences, 2000; Brody v. Finch University of
Health Sciences /Chicago Med. School,
1988).
Lets start at the
beginning…
Uh… this is a
4000 level
psychology class!!
Students have the right to the
advertized level of course
instruction. They may expect
teaching in conformity with the
course
level
advertized
(Mawdsley, 2004; Andre v. Pace
University, 1994, 1996). Andre
v. Pace University awarded
damages on the grounds of
negligent
misrepresentation
and breach of contract (Bach,
2003).
Syllabi
may
be
considered binding implied-infact contracts. Goodman v.
President and Trustees of
Bowdoin College (2001) ruled
that institutional documents
are still contractual regardless
if they have a disclaimer.
I get $3000 a
semester per class, I
don’t give a rats ass
how you do on
the exam!
Professors in the US make on average $109, 000 a year and are paid to take
a one year leave every 3-7 years. At some schools only one sixth of
professors are teaching at any given time. Additional part time grad
student instructors are hired on as professor substitutes to fill in when
professors are on leave or engaged in research. Right now 70% of those
teaching classes are instructors and not professors (1975 43%). They are
not required to have training in curriculum development, teaching or
grading and are paid on average only $3000 a course. The average student
has no idea this takes place. - Stats by Hacker, Dreifus, 2011 Endorsed by J.
Steiglitz, Chief Economist World Bank and Nobel Laurate.
This is my ‘I am shocked and
appalled by your opinion’ face.
It lets you know that although
I can’t endorse one set of morals
over another that I am disgusted
with you… so you will shut the
hell up and keep your
thoughts to yourself
Students retain their first amendment free speech and association rights in
institutions of higher education (ASHE & Henderickson, 1986). Papish v.
Board of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (1973) and Joyner v. Whiting
(1973) find students may engage in speech that do not interfere with the
rights of others or of the operation of the school (ASHE & Henderickson).
Because schools are places of education they may regulate speech by time,
manner and place as long as they provide free speech zones for students
(Henderickson; Perry Ed. Assoc. v. Perry Local Ed. Assoc., 1983) as long as
they are not used to limit expression (Henderickson; Bayless v. Maritime,
Oh, ah, we have decided not to cut
tuition but don’t get blue we have
something even better. Everybody
get excited!!! We are going to have a
FREE campus event, with FREE food,
and FREE music that is going to
make you feel included, reduce
mental stress and enable you to
learn.
PS: Don’t worry you have already
paid for your admission with your
student fees.
Students have the right to information on use of student fees. Van Stry v.
State (1984) found institutions my not use student fees to support
organizations outside the university (Henderickson). Teachers, likewise, have
the right to refuse to pay union fees when they are allocated to
objectionable political purposes (Henderickson; Aboode v. Detroit Board of
Education, 1977). This implies that students have a right to know what
activities they are being allocated towards.
I am going
to fail the
exam!
We didn’t cover half the chapters on the
test, his instructions in class and in the
assignment descriptions are disjointed
and vague, he keeps changing the order
of the syllabus, he isn’t there during
office hours and I can’t afford constant
tutoring. What other option do I have?
Students have the right to effective teaching
even if it requires departmental involvement
in teaching and curriculum development
(Poskanzer; Riggin v. Bd. Of Trustees of Ball
St. Univ., 1986). Students are protected from
deviation from information advertized in
class syllabi (Parkes and Harris, 2002; Hill v.
University of Kentucky, Wilson, and Schwartz,
1992; Keen v. Penson, 1992) and syllabi may
be considered binding implied-in-fact
contracts. Goodman v. President and
Trustees of Bowdoin College (2001) ruled
that institutional documents are still
contractual regardless if they have a
disclaimer.Students have the right to a
grievance filing process. Dixon v. Alabama
(1961) determined that when student’s
constitutional rights are not upheld, students
are eligible to sue for damages in a court of
law for monetary or material damages
(Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1973; Kaplan
& Lee, 2011; Salvador v. Bennett, 1986;
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of
Hileah, 1993; Cooper v. Nix, 1974).
So, can we work alone or do we have
to be in groups? We don’t live near
each other and some people have
different quality standards…
Hypocritical
academic has
never been in the
real world
You just don’t
want to
grade them
Fire! Bonus!
I’ve worked in the
real world! Stick
To the course
objectives!
I am just preparing you for the real
world, you have to learn to
work as a team
Students have the right to personal
autonomy so long as it does not
contradict the syllabus. Healey v.
James (1972) found students have
the right to self determination.
“Students—who, by reason of the
26th Amendment, become eligible
to vote when 18 years of age—are
adults who are members of the
college or university community.
Their interests and concerns are
often quite different from those of
the faculty. They often have values,
views, and ideologies that are at war
with the ones which the college has
traditionally
espoused
or
indoctrinated (Healey v. James).
Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1979), which
found that “Adult students now
demand and receive expanded rights
of privacy in their college life”
(Thomas, 1991).
Class, I have a
special treat today!
No, you can’t go
home early!
Students may expect protection from the misuse
of time (Bach, Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball St.
Univ.); teachers may not waste student’s time or
use the class as a captive audience for views or
lessons not related to the course (Bach, Riggin v.
Bd. of Trustees of Ball St. Univ.; Keen v. Penson,
1992). Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees found instructors
may not “wast[e] the time of the students who
have come there and paid money for a different
purpose.” Students also have the right to personal
autonomy. Healey v. James (1972) found students
have the right to self determination. “Students—
who, by reason of the 26th Amendment, become
eligible to vote when 18 years of age—are adults
who are members of the college or university
community. Their interests and concerns are often
quite different from those of the faculty. They
often have values, views, and ideologies that are
at war with the ones which the college has
traditionally espoused or indoctrinated (Healey v.
James). Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1979) found that
“adult students now demand and receive
expanded rights of privacy in their college life”
(Thomas, 1991).
What do you mean you don’t
feel like I have your back?
Students have the right to
limited fiduciary care. That
is, institutional care in the
student’s best interest.
Johnson v. Schmitz (2000),
found in a federal district
court, that a student’s PhD
committee, established for
the purpose of advising
the student, had an
obligation to advise the
student in his best interest
(Kaplan & Lee, 2011).
I am your TEACHER. What agenda
could I possibly have?
(except making my job as easy as possible by
supporting the status quo rather than supporting the
interest of the students)
This is a limited fiduciary
right and this principle
should apply to teachers
and advisors as well.
“Following his violent
revolution, Gandhi was
devoured by his followers”
…Of course I’m
certain…write this down
it’s on the test!
Students have the right to learn (Kapan, 2011;
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002; Sweezy v. New Hampshire,
1957; Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University, 1982). Teachers
do not have free reign in the classroom. Actions must be
within departmental requirements which ensure students
right to learn and must be considered effective (Poskanzer,
2002; Clark v. Holmes 1972). Sweezy v. New Hampshire
found that teachers have the right to lecture. They do not,
however, have academic freedom under the first
amendment (Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin Uni). Any academic
freedom rules are put in place by the school. Students also
have the right to a grievance filing process. Dixon v.
Alabama (1961) found that when student’s constitutional
rights are not upheld, they may sue for damages (Section
504 Rehabilitation Act, 1973; Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Salvador
v. Bennett, 1986; Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City
of Hileah, 1993; Cooper v. Nix, 1974). Individuals may also
file discrimination complaints with the federal Office of
Civil Rights (OCR) (Kaplan & Lee; Civil Rights Office Tanberg
v. Weld County Sheriff, 1992; 1975 Age Discrimination
Act). Students also have the right to protection from
foreseeable crime on campus especially when known
crimes of a variety have been committed in the past
(White, 2007; Miller v. State, 1984).
I don’t care what it says in
the handbook sweetie
I wrote the handbook and
I will rewrite the
handbook
Students are protected from deviation from
information advertized in the following
documents: registration materials, manuals
(Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Mangala v. Brown
University), course catalogues (Rafferty; Ross
v. Creighton University; Andre v. Pace
University, 1996), bulletins, circulars,
regulations (Rafferty; Ross v. Creighton
University), class syllabi (Parkes and Harris,
2002; Hill v. University of Kentucky, Wilson,
and Schwartz, 1992; Keen v. Penson, 1992),
student codes (Kaplan & Lee; Harwood v.
Johns Hopkins, 2000), and handbooks
(Kaplan & Lee; Fellheimer v. Middleburry
College, 1994) . These documents may be
considered binding implied-in-fact contracts.
Goodman v. President and Trustees of
Bowdoin College (2001), has ruled that
institutional documents are still contractual
regardless if they have a disclaimer. “Even
though the college had reserved the right to
change the student handbook unilaterally
and without notice, this reservation of rights
did not defeat the contractual nature of the
student handbook.”
There are Dumbledore’s and there are
Umbridges
The laws are there to protect students
from the Umbridges not the
Dumbledores
There are Dumbledore’s
and there are Umbridges
The laws are there to
protect students from
the Umbridges not the
Dumbledores
Students have the right to a grievance
filing process. Dixon v. Alabama (1961)
determined that when student’s
constitutional rights are not upheld,
students are eligible to sue for
damages in a court of law for
monetary or material damages
(Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1973;
Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Salvador v.
Bennett, 1986; Church of the Lukumi
Babalu Aye v. City of Hileah, 1993;
Cooper v. Nix, 1974). Individuals may
also
file
complaints
regarding
discrimination with the federal Office
of Civil Rights (OCR) (Kaplan & Lee,
2011; Civil Rights Office Tanberg v.
Weld County Sheriff, 1992; 1975 Age
Discrimination Act). Students also have
the right to protection from
foreseeable
crime
on
campus
especially when known crimes of a
variety have been committed in the
past (White, 2007; Miller v. State,
1984). This should include white collar.
Students have the right to learn
(Kapan, 2011; Rosenberger v. Rector
and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002;
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957; Hillis
v. Stephen F. Austin University, 1982).
Teachers do not have free reign in the
classroom. Actions must act within
departmental requirements which
ensure students right to learn and
must
be
considered
effective
(Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v. Holmes
1972). Sweezy v. New Hampshire
(1957) found that teachers have the
right to lecture. They do not have
complete academic freedom under
the law (Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin
University, 1982). Any academic
freedom rules are put in place by the
school. Departments have the
obligation to ensure teachers respect
and facilitate student's right to learn.
There are Dumbledore’s
and there are Umbridges
The laws are there to
protect students from
the Umbridges not the
Dumbledores
Students have the right to learn (Kapan, 2011;
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the
University of Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002;
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v.
Stephen F. Austin University, 1982). Teachers
do not have free reign in the classroom.
Actions must be within departmental
requirements whichensure students right to
learn and must be considered effective
(Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v. Holmes 1972).
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) found that
teachers have the right to lecture. They do not
have academic freedom under the first
amendment – this is not a legal right (Hillis v.
Stephen F. Austin University, 1982). Any
academic freedom rules are put in place by the
school.
Does this mean that teachers are responsible
for citing their sources when they lecture or is
this excused under the guise of Academic
Freedom?
I am your new
professor
From the diversity
enhancement
exchange program
What happens when teachers do not
speak the language of the majority or
can not speak it clearly enough for
students to learn from it? Students
have the right to learn (Kapan, 2011;
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of
the University of Virginia, 1995;
Poskanzer, 2002; Sweezy v. New
Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v. Stephen F.
Austin University, 1982). Teachers do
not have free reign in the classroom.
Actions must meet departmental
requirements which ensure students
right to learn and must be considered
effective (Poskanzer; Clark v. Holmes
1972). Sweezy v. New Hampshire)
found that teachers have the right to
lecture. They do not have complete
academic freedom under the law (Hillis
v. Stephen F. Austin University). Any
academic freedom rules are put in
place by the school. Departments have
the obligation to ensure teachers
respect and facilitate student's right to
learn.
I give as many
sh*ts today as I
gave on the day I
began teaching!
Students have the right to a grievance filing
process. Dixon v. Alabama (1961) determined
that when student’s constitutional rights are
not upheld, students are eligible to sue for
damages in a court of law for monetary or
material damages (Rehabilitation Act, 1973;
Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Salvador v. Bennett, 1986;
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of
Hileah, 1993; Cooper v. Nix, 1974).
Individuals may also file complaints
regarding discrimination with the
federal Office of Civil Rights
(Kaplan & Lee; Tanberg v.
Weld County Sheriff,
1992;
1975 Age Discrim
College athletics:
You may not be
good enough to
make the team but
you can sure as hell
pay for it!
Students have the right to personal autonomy.
Healey v. James (1972) found students have the
right to self determination. Does this mean they
have any say in the services they purchase?
“Students—who, by reason of the 26th
Amendment, become eligible to vote when 18
years of age—are adults who are members of the
college or university community. Their interests and
concerns are often quite different from those of the
faculty. They often have values, views, and
ideologies that are at war with the ones which the
college has traditionally espoused or indoctrinated
(Healey v. James). The 2008 Higher Education
Opportunity Act also requires the disclosure of
athletics information including male and female
undergraduate enrollment, number of teams and
team statistics including the number of players,
team operating expenses, recruitment, coach
salaries, aid to teams and athletes and team
revenue (HEOA, 2008). This information is required
to ensure equality standards are met but can help
potential students understand what they are
expected to pay for.
I’m sorry, did you
say teach you
something? You
know I’m tenured,
right?
Students have the right to learn (Kapan, 2011;
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002; Sweezy v. New
Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University,
1982). Teachers do not have free reign in the classroom.
Actions must act within departmental requirements
whichensure students right to learn and must be
considered effective (Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v. Holmes
1972). Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) found that
teachers have the right to lecture. They do not have
complete academic freedom under the law (Hillis v.
Stephen F. Austin University, 1982). Any academic
freedom rules are put in place by the school. Students
also have the right to a grievance filing process. Dixon v.
Alabama (1961) determined that when student’s
constitutional rights are not upheld, students are eligible
to sue for damages in a court of law for monetary or
material damages (Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1973;
Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Salvador v. Bennett, 1986; Church of
the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hileah, 1993; Cooper v.
Nix, 1974). Individuals may also file complaints regarding
discrimination with the federal Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) (Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Civil Rights Office Tanberg v.
Weld County Sheriff, 1992; 1975 Age Discrimination Act).
Have you heard of Academic
Freedom? The academic senate at this
university interprets the first
amendment to mean that I, as your
professor, am
free to express my self through my
curriculum, my teaching methods
and my grading style regardless if it
is effective or fair to students. So, to
answer your question, yes you MUST
Students have the right to learn
(Kapan, 2011; Rosenberger v. Rector
and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002;
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957;
Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University,
1982). Teachers do not have free
reign in the classroom. They must act
within departmental requirements
which ensure students right to learn
and must be considered effective
(Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v. Holmes
1972). Sweezy v. New Hampshire
(1957) found that teachers have the
right to lecture. They do not have
complete academic freedom under
the law (Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin
University, 1982). Any academic
freedom rules are put in place by the
school.
I take great offence to that!
I have arranged six
babysitters…
ah, er… guest lecturers this
term! I earn my pay!!
Students have the right to learn (Kapan,
2011; Rosenberger v. Rector and
Visitors of the University of Virginia,
1995; Poskanzer, 2002; Sweezy v. New
Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v. Stephen F.
Austin University, 1982). Teachers do
not have free reign in the classroom.
They must act within departmental
requirements which ensure students
right to learn and must be considered
effective (Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v.
Holmes 1972). Sweezy v. New
Hampshire (1957) found that teachers
have the right to lecture. They do not
have complete academic freedom
under the law (Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin
University, 1982). Any academic
freedom rules are put in place by the
school.
The physics
conference this year
was a let down
We really need to form a
committee to select a new
catering company
Students have the right to information
regarding the use of student fees. Van
Stry v. State (1984) found institutions my
not use student fees to support
organizations outside the university
(Henderickson). Teachers, likewise, have
the right to refuse to pay union fees
when
they
are
allocated
to
objectionable
political
purposes
(Henderickson; Aboode v. Detroit Board
of Education, 1977). This implies that
students have a right to know what
activities they are being allocated
towards.
Students also have the right to
protection from foreseeable crime on
campus especially when known crimes
of a variety have been committed in the
past (White, 2007; Miller v. State, 1984).
This should include protection from
white collar crime especially if it adds to
tuition inflation.
You need to learn
to be accepting of
different cultural
methodologies
Students have the right to a
grievance filing process. Dixon v.
Alabama (1961) determined that
when student’s constitutional rights
are not upheld, students are eligible
to sue for damages in a court of law
for monetary or material damages
(Section 504 Rehabilitation Act,
1973; Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Salvador
v. Bennett, 1986; Church of the
Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hileah,
1993; Cooper v. Nix, 1974).
Individuals may also file complaints
regarding discrimination with the
federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
(Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Civil Rights
Office Tanberg v. Weld County
Sheriff,
1992;
1975
Age
Discrimination Act).
You’re going to
need to repeat this
perfectly
on the exam
Students have the right to learn
(Kapan, 2011; Rosenberger v. Rector
and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002;
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957;
Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University,
1982). Teachers do not have free
reign in the classroom. They must act
within
the
departmental
requirements, sure students right to
learn and must be considered
effective (Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v.
Holmes 1972). Sweezy v. New
Hampshire (1957) found that
teachers have the right to lecture.
They do not have complete academic
freedom under the law (Hillis v.
Stephen F. Austin University, 1982).
Any academic freedom rules are put
in place by the school.
I, ah, only give an A grade to students
who exceed the course objectives and
go beyoooond what I have asked for in the
assignment descriptions. All you have to do
to get an A is start in on the content for
the next grade level. We’re preparing
you for the real world where 100%
of your job description is just not enough!
Students have the right to fair grading in accordance with the course syllabus.
Students may be graded fairly and in accordance with criteria set forth by the
course syllabuses and may be protected from the addition of new grading criteria
(Parkes and Harris, 2002; Keen v. Penson, 1992). Institutions have the
responsibility of preserving quality in grade representations and comparability
between classes and prevent grade inflation (Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Keen v. Penson,
1992). Teachers have the right, under the first amendment, to communicate their
opinions regarding student grades (Parate v. Isibor, 1989; Poskanzer, 2002), but
institutions are required to meet students implied contract rights to fair grading
practices. Departments may change grades issued by teachers which are not in
line with grading policies or are unfair or unreasonable (Hills v. Stephen F. Austin
State Univ., 1982; Parate v. Isibor, 1989).
Oh, you’re working in the
Women’s Resource Center
part time and your boss has
you do forty hours of work in
a twenty hour work week. I
ah, wish I had a pamphlet
here… but the college
doesn’t really issue any
information resources like
Students have contract rights. Carr v. St. Johns
University (1962) and Healey v. Larsson (1971, 1974)
established that students and institutions of higher
education formed a contractual relationship.
Institutions must ensure contracts, including those
implied and verbal, are fair (Bach, 2003; Anderson v.
Mass. Inst of Tech, 1995), in good faith (Kaplan & Lee,
2011; Beukas v. Fairleigh, 1991, 1992) and not
unconscionable (Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Albert Merrill
School v. Godoy, 1974). Students also have a right to
fulfillment of verbal promises. Verbal contracts are
binding (Rafferty 1993; Ross v. Creighton University,
1992). The North Carolina Court of Appeals in Long v.
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (1995),
found, however, that verbal agreements must be
made in an official capacity in order to be binding
(Bowden, 2007). Dezick v. Umpqua Community
College (1979) found a student was compensated
because classes offered orally by the dean were not
provided. Healy v. Larsson (1974) found that a
student who completed degree requirements
prescribed by an academic advisor was entitled to a
degree on the basis that this was an implied contract.
An advisor should, thus, be considered an official
source of information.
Educators have no more Academic
Freedom than any student. By virtue of
the fist amendment, we are all at
liberty to speak our mind and share
our views freely.
No professor has the right to complete
sovereignty in the classroom, to teach
and grade in any way they see fit
without ensuring that curriculum,
assignments and grading are accurate,
fair and in accordance with
course objectives.
Students have the right to learn
(Kapan, 2011; Rosenberger v. Rector
and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002; Sweezy
v. New Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v.
Stephen F. Austin University, 1982).
Teachers do not have free reign in the
classroom. They must act within
departmental
requirements
whichensure students right to learn
and must be considered effective
(Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v. Holmes
1972). Sweezy v. New Hampshire
(1957) found that teachers have the
right to lecture. They do not have
complete academic freedom under the
law (Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin
University, 1982). Any academic
freedom rules are put in place by the
school.
Do not justify your treatment of
students by saying you are preparing
them for the real world, the real
word is a sum of the individuals
within it. We do not want our
children growing up in a world where
it is acceptable to perpetuate the
abuses we ourselves would not like
Students have the right to learn
(Kapan, 2011; Rosenberger v. Rector
and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002; Sweezy
v. New Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v.
Stephen F. Austin University, 1982).
Teachers do not have free reign in the
classroom. Teachers must act within
departmental
requirements
whichensure students right to learn
and must be considered effective
(Poskanzer; Clark v. Holmes 1972).
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) found
that teachers have the right to lecture.
They do not have complete academic
freedom under the law (Hillis v.
Stephen F. Austin University, 1982). Any
academic freedom rules are put in
place by the school.
Teachers do not have complete
academic freedom under the law
(Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University,
1982). Any academic freedom rules
are put in place by the school – they
are not legal.
As professors, we are in the unique
position to help students struggling to
balance school and life. Why would we
fail them for a late assignment if they
understand the content. It is not my right
to assign a grade which does not
accurately reflect a student’s knowledge.
While a teacher may have the right
within the university under the
principle of Academic Freedom to
grade students down for late
assignments is this always ethical?
Does a grade include punctuality?
What are we grading punctuality or
content knowledge? Maybe they can
refuse to grade something at all if
there is no excuse for tardiness but
can they say the quality was poorer
than it was in reality?
As teachers we can be examples
of best practices. We can show
students how to be clear and
concise, how to make good use
of time and resources and be a
productive, insightful individual.
It is unfortunate that there are so
few teachers and professors
who choose to do so.
Students have the right to learn
(Kapan, 2011; Rosenberger v. Rector
and Visitors of the University of
Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002; Sweezy
v. New Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v.
Stephen F. Austin University, 1982).
Teachers do not have free reign in the
classroom. They must act within
departmental requirements to ensure
students right to learn and must be
considered effective (Poskanzer, 2002;
Clark v. Holmes 1972). Sweezy v. New
Hampshire (1957) found that teachers
have the right to lecture. They do not
have complete academic freedom
under the law (Hillis v. Stephen F.
Austin University, 1982). Any academic
freedom rules are put in place by the
school.
Professors nowadays feel it is acceptable to
be hypocrites, to grade students down for
their lack of organization while providing
a discombobulated syllabus and poor
assignment instructions, failing to follow
their own syllabus and materials and
grading on a curve to make up for shoddy
methodology and test construction.
Students have the right to learn (Kapan, 2011; Rosenberger v. Rector and
Visitors of the University of Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002; Sweezy v.
New Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University, 1982).
Teachers do not have free reign in the classroom. They must act within
departmental requirements which ensure students right to learn and
must be considered effective (Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v. Holmes 1972).
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) found that teachers have the right to
lecture. They do not have complete academic freedom under the law
(Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University, 1982). Any academic freedom rules
are put in place by the school.
Students retain their first amendment free
speech and association rights in institutions
of higher education (ASHE & Henderickson,
1986). Papish v. Board of Curators of the
Univ. of Missouri (1973) and Joyner v.
Whiting (1973) find students may engage in
speech that do not interfere with the rights
of others or of the operation of the school
(ASHE & Henderickson).
I have the Academic Freedom
to teach from a Marxist
perspective… You,
unfortunately, “do not” have
the Academic Freedom to
complete your assignments
from a Christian perspective …
something to do with you
needing proof…
but, I have a Phd. so well…
Because schools are places of education
they may regulate speech by time, manner
and place as long as they provide free
speech zones for students (Henderickson;
Perry Ed. Assoc. v. Perry Local Ed. Assoc.,
1983) as long as they are not used to limit
expression (Henderickson; Bayless v.
Maritime, 1970).
The question is if, students are regulated
should teachers be regulated as well to
even out the balance of power?
Take your punishment
like a grownup and
don’t challenge me!
I will point at you and
raise my eyebrows
authoritatively!
Students have the right to due process in disciplinary action. Matthews v. Elderidge (1976)
found when there is the possibility that one’s interests will be deprived through procedural
error, the value of additional safe guards and governmental interests, including monetary
expenses, should be weighed (Bach, 2003). Due process is required when actions have the
potential to result in a property or monetary loss or loss of income or future income etc.
This includes degree revocation (Bach, 2003; Crook v. Baker) or dismissal. Students have a
property interest in remaining at the institution and have protection form undue removal
(Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Mangala v. Brown University, 1998). Students also have a liberty right
to protect themselves from defamation of character or a threat to their reputation.
Federal district courts have, therefore, found that due process is required in cases
involving charges of plagiarism, cheating (Henderickson, 1986; Tully v. Orr, 1985) and
falsification of research data (Bach, 2003; Crook v. Baker).
You want to
report that do
you? I will fu*k
you up!
Students have the right to a grievance filing process. Dixon v. Alabama
(1961) determined that when student’s constitutional rights are not
upheld, students are eligible to sue for damages in a court of law for
monetary or material damages (Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1973;
Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Salvador v. Bennett, 1986; Church of the Lukumi
Babalu Aye v. City of Hileah, 1993; Cooper v. Nix, 1974). Individuals
may also file complaints regarding discrimination with the federal
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) (Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Civil Rights Office
Tanberg v. Weld County Sheriff, 1992; 1975 Age Discrimination Act).
I have the
syllabus right
here! None of
that crap
is in it!
Students are protected from deviation from information
advertized in class syllabi (Parkes and Harris, 2002; Hill v.
University of Kentucky, Wilson, and Schwartz, 1992; Keen v.
Penson, 1992). Syllabi may be considered binding impliedin-fact contracts. Goodman v. President and Trustees of
Bowdoin College (2001) ruled that institutional documents
are still contractual regardless if they have a disclaimer.
Seriously, we get English
credit for analyzing book
characters in accordance
with Freudian theory?
Students may expect protection
from the misuse of time (Bach,
Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball St.
Univ.); teachers may not waste
student’s time or use the class as
a captive audience for views or
lessons not related to the course
(Bach, Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees of
Ball St. Univ.; Keen v. Penson,
1992). Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees of
Ball St. Univ. found that
instructors may not “wast[e] the
time of the students who have
come there and paid money for a
different purpose.”
You werrre given advanced
notice! I emailed you last night at
11:30, did you not check your
email as is required by the
student teacher contract?
Students are protected from deviation from information
advertized in class syllabi (Parkes and Harris, 2002; Hill v.
University of Kentucky, Wilson, and Schwartz, 1992; Keen
v. Penson, 1992). Syllabi may be considered implied-in-fact
contracts. Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin
College (2001) ruled that institutional documents are still
contractual regardless if they have a disclaimer.
On occasion I will award
an A grade. But this is a
grade reserved for truly
exceptional students.
Don’t expect to a get an
A simply by meeting the
course objectives.
Students have the right to protection from arbitrary
or capricious / random decision making because it
interferes with fairness (Bach, 2003; Anderson v.
Mass. Inst of Tech, 1995; Kaplan & Lee, 2011;
Sharick v. Southeastern University of the Health
Sciences, 2000; Brody v. Finch University of Health
Sciences Chicago Med. School, 1988; Healy v.
Larsson, 1974; Bowden, 2007). Students also have
the right to be graded fairly and in accordance with
criteria set forth by the course syllabuses and may
be protected from the addition of new grading
criteria (Parkes and Harris, 2002; Keen v. Penson,
1992). Institutions have the responsibility of
preserving quality of grade representations,
comparability between classes and grade inflation
(Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Keen v. Penson, 1992).
Teachers have the right, under the first amendment,
to communicate their opinions regarding student
grades (Parate v. Isibor, 1989; Poskanzer, 2002), but
institutions are required to meet students implied
contract rights to fair grading practices.
Departments may change grades issued by teachers
which are not in line with grading policies or are
unfair or unreasonable (Hills v. Stephen F. Austin
State Univ., 1982; Parate v. Isibor).
So, you think you’re
a dance major so
you don’t need this
computer course?
Students have the right to personal autonomy. Healey v. James (1972)
found students have the right to self determination. “Students—who, by
reason of the 26th Amendment, become eligible to vote when 18 years of
age—are adults who are members of the college or university community.
Their interests and concerns are often quite different from those of the
faculty. They often have values, views, and ideologies that are at war with
the ones which the college has traditionally espoused or indoctrinated
(Healey v. James). Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1979), found that “adult
students now demand and receive expanded rights of privacy in their
college life” (Thomas, 1991).
Your freshman Instructor
Wipe that smug, I’m a teacher doing
my duty and educating you look off your
face. I am required to take this class so
make no mistake, you are doing me no
favors. And don’t think for a minute that
I’ll thank you later. Just because I’m a
student doesn’t mean I’m stupid. (Yeah we
know Palin isn’t a teacher but she’s the
smuggest person we could think of)
Students have the right to personal autonomy Healey v. James (1972)
found students have the right to self determination. “Students—who, by
reason of the 26th Amendment, become eligible to vote when 18 years of
age—are adults who are members of the college or university community.
Their interests and concerns are often quite different from those of the
faculty. They often have values, views, and ideologies that are at war with
the ones which the college has traditionally espoused or indoctrinated
(Healey v. James). Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1979), which found that “Adult
students now demand and receive expanded rights of privacy in their
college life” (Thomas, 1991).
Is academic alienation abuse? Students have the right to
protection from written or verbal abuse. Teachers have the right
to regulated expression (Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v. Holmes, 1972)
but may not use their first amendment privileges punitively or
discriminatorily (Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Axson-Flynn v. Johnson,
2004) or in a way which prevents students from learning by
ridiculing, proselytizing, harassment or use of unfair grading
practices (Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 2001).
I have my degree in…
lets say social
anthropology
Students have the right to learn (Kapan, 2011; Rosenberger v. Rector and
Visitors of the University of Virginia, 1995; Poskanzer, 2002; Sweezy v. New
Hampshire, 1957; Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University, 1982). Teachers do
not have free reign in the classroom. Actions must be within departmental
requirements whichensure students right to learn and must be considered
effective (Poskanzer, 2002; Clark v. Holmes 1972). Sweezy v. New
Hampshire (1957) found that teachers have the right to lecture. They do
not have academic freedom under the law (Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin
University, 1982). Any academic freedom rules are put in place by the
school.
Seriously
professor a C-,
You said be
creative!
Students have the right to be graded fairly in accordance with with criteria set
forth by the course syllabuses and may be protected from the addition of new
grading criteria (Parkes and Harris, 2002; Keen v. Penson, 1992). Institutions have
the responsibility of preserving quality in grade representations and
comparability between classes and prevent grade inflation (Kaplan & Lee, 2011;
Keen v. Penson, 1992). Teachers have the right, under the first amendment, to
communicate their opinions regarding student grades (Parate v. Isibor, 1989;
Poskanzer, 2002), but institutions are required to meet students implied contract
rights to fair grading practices. Departments may change grades issued by
teachers which are not in line with grading policies or are unfair or unreasonable
(Hills v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 1982; Parate v. Isibor, 1989).
What should I study
for the test?
EVERYTHING!
Should syllabi state whether tests are accumulative or cover the present unit of
instruction? Should this be disclosed before students choose to take a course? Is
this an important piece of consumer information? Students have the right to be
graded fairly and in accordance with criteria set forth by the course syllabuses and
may be protected from the addition of new grading criteria (Parkes and Harris,
2002; Keen v. Penson, 1992). Institutions have the responsibility of preserving
quality in grade representations and comparability between classes and prevent
grade inflation (Kaplan & Lee, 2011; Keen v. Penson, 1992). Teachers have the right,
under the first amendment, to communicate their opinions regarding student
grades (Parate v. Isibor, 1989; Poskanzer, 2002), but institutions are required to
meet students implied contract rights to fair grading practices. Departments may
change grades issued by teachers which are not in line with grading policies or are
unfair or unreasonable (Hills v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 1982; Parate v. Isibor,
1989).
• Romania has a student bill of rights with over 100 rights
• America has a bunch of scattered documents
• Sign the student rights petition @ http://alturl.com/xws53 if
you want a clear document stating how your constitutional,
civil, contract and consumer rights apply in higher education?
"Institutions should
provide poor teachers
with opportunities to
improve their skills to an
acceptable level and
should have the means to
remove them from their
teaching duties if
they continue to be
demonstrably ineffective.”
- Standards and
Guidelines for Quality
Assurance in the
European Higher
Education Area,
-EU Report 2005