Budgetary Shortfall in the Private College - Assignment Example

A. In the CPM, Questions 3 in Problem 18 in 2 pages. A local private college is facing a severe budgetary shortfall, so administration officials have proposed a series of budget cuts to take effect at the end of the current academic year. The budget cuts are expected to affect numerous academic departments and extracurricular programs. Among its budget-reduction strategies, the administration has proposed eliminating several of the college's intercollegiate varsity athletic teams, including its men's swim team and its women's softball team. Members of these two teams vehemently oppose the cuts, and have filed separate administrative complaints and civil lawsuits in an effort to obtain immediate reinstatement of their respective programs. The college does not receive any direct financial assistance from the federal government, but many of its students receive financial assistance in the form of Pell Grants, Direct Student Loans, and other federal student loans. Enrollment at the college is approximately 52% male and 48% female. Women's athletics teams at the college first reached varsity status in the early 1970s and continued to expand in number throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Women's softball was elevated from club to varsity status in 1985. Currently, women comprise approximately 39% of the athletes participating in varsity sports. After the budget cuts take effect, it is expected that women will comprise 38% of the college's participating varsity athletes. Since the announcement of the college's budget cuts, five of the thirteen members of this year's women's softball team have announced that they intend to transfer to other colleges. Although the men's swim team is among those teams that the college intends to eliminate, the women's varsity swim team, which has over 25 members, will be retained. 1. Is the college subject to the requirements of Title IX (does it receive federal financial assistance) If so, is its athletic program subject to the requirements of Title IX Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states "No person in the United States shall on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Title IX, in relevant part, prohibits all public and private colleges and universities that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex in their intercollegiate athletics programs. Since most colleges and universities receive federal funds-most commonly through financial aid to students-nearly all must comply with Title IX (Education, 2007). Thus here, the athletic program subject to the requirements of Title IX. 2. Has the college complied with Title IX's requirement that it effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of women students Title IX does not require identical athletics programs for males and females. Under Title IX, one team is not compared to the same team in each sport. OCR examines the total program afforded to male student-athletes and the total program afforded to female student-athletes and determines whether each program meets the standards of equal treatment. Title IX does not require that each team receive exactly the same services and supplies. Rather, Title IX requires that the men and women's program receive the similar/comparable level of service, facilities, supplies and etc. Variations within the men and women's program are allowed, as long as the variations are justified on a nondiscriminatory basis. Here, based upon the percentages presented in the Problem, 18, there appears to be no violation of Title IX. 3. On which of OCR's three "benchmarks" for measuring effective accommodation of student athletes' interests and abilities might the college base its defense What arguments could the college raise under each The issue here is a relatively simple one to wit: whether an athletic program effectively accommodates students' interests and abilities, the Policy Interpretation maps a trinitarian model under which the university must meet at least one of three benchmarks: (1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or (2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or (3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program. The first benchmark is rather easy to meet for those institutions that have distributed athletic opportunities in numbers "substantially proportionate" to the gender composition of their student bodies. Thus, a university which does not wish to engage in extensive compliance analysis may stay on the correct side of Title IX simply by maintaining gender parity between its student body and its athletic lineup. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 717 (1979). Here, because the percentages of the university remain fair even after cutbacks, the university has positioned itself on the correct side of Title IX and will win this case because as the statute provides, only one of the three benchmarks need be satisfied. The second and third parts of the accommodation test recognize that there are circumstances under which, as a practical matter, something short of this proportionality is a satisfactory proxy for gender balance. For example, so long as a university is continually expanding athletic opportunities in an ongoing effort to meet the needs of the underrepresented gender, and persists in this approach as interest and ability levels in its student body and secondary feeder schools rise, benchmark two is satisfied and Title IX does not require that the university leap to complete gender parity in a single bound. Or, if a school has a student body in which one sex is demonstrably less interested in athletics, Title IX does not require that the school create teams for, or rain money upon, otherwise disinterested students; rather, the third benchmark is satisfied if the underrepresented sex's discernible interests are fully and effectively accommodated1. The university in this case scenario quite easily meets all three benchmarks of the statute and therefore should not have an issue in winning this case. Blair v. Washington State Univ., 108 Wash.2d 558 (1987). B. In the CPM, read the case State v. Schmid and answer Question 1. 1. Does the court's opinion in Schmid unduly interfere with the autonomy of private colleges and universities Should the court have recognized some type of "institutional academic freedom" that would protect private institutions against such exercises of state power See generally the Student Edition Section 6.1.6; and see also Finkin, "On 'Institutional' Academic Freedom," 61 Tex. L. Rev. 817 (1983). Various constituencies make claims to academic freedom and freedom of speech in the academic community. Consequently, even professors, lawyers and judges "are not always clear whose academic freedom is at stake.". (O'Neil, 2004). Through the guarantee of private property rights, the freedom on individual landowners, various organizations, and private enterprises is protected to control their own homes, meeting places, and commercial sites so as to preserve them as places of sanctuary, association, or commerce. A person may have the constitutional right to say almost anything, but he or she may not insist upon a purported right to say it in someone's living room; in a church, synagogue, or mosque; in a person's private office; or in a merchant's place of business. First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes and protects academic freedom and institutional autonomy of private academic institutions. Although these ideas are often used interchangeably, they are not the same thing and may conflict with each other at times. Prof. Finkin argues that institutional academic freedom is an idea not found within the Constitution, and that the state must have the right to set certain parameters for institutions of higher learning. This too however is limiting the terms of freedom. If a private institution does not have total and complete privacy, then it is not a private institution as the terms naturally would imply. The college educational system is not a right. It is not a necessity. It is a privilege. There is no law mandating that students attend college as there is for primary and secondary schools. Accordingly, because students are not bound by the law to attend colleges, Universities should not be bound by any laws with regard to their teachings or political views. It is undisputed that Princeton University, while residing in the town of Princeton, is in fact, a private university. Unless there is some criminal activity happening on campus which would put the public at large in danger, there is no reason for state interference in private institution activity. This would include the University regulations that were applied to Schmid, contained no standards, aside from the requirement for invitation and permission, for governing the actual exercise of expressional freedom. Indeed, there were no standards extant regulating the granting or withholding of such authorization, nor did the regulations deal adequately with the time, place, or manner for individuals to exercise their rights of speech and assembly. While this statement by the court seems a bit critical, the question is "Why is it the state's concern to bother with or interfere with whatever rules may or may not exist at a private university" This is a question that remains unsatisfactorily answered. The rights to a university are nonexistent, and as such the university should not be accountable to anyone and that includes the state in which it resides. Freedom of speech is an individual's right to express ideas without coercive interference from the government. Free speech does protect an individual who voices unpopular ideas from governmental force, but it does not require that other citizens support him. If an individual wants others to finance the expression of his ideas, he must seek their voluntary agreement. To force another person to support or even listen ideas he opposes violates his freedom of speech. Princeton University should not have to comply with freedom of speech issues because they are a private institution. Works Cited Education, F. f. (2009, April 29). www.thefire.org. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from The Fire: http://www.ask.com/barq=Christian+Legal+Society+v.+Walker+and+student+freedom+of+association&page=1&qsrc=2417&ab=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefire.org%2Findex.php%2Farticle%2F10537.htm. French, D. (2009, December 08). National Review Online. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from National Review Online:http://www.ask.com/barq=Christian+Legal+Society+v.+Walker+and+healy+v+james&page=1&qsrc=2106&ab=7&u=http%3A%2F%2Fphibetacons.nationalreview.com%2Fpost%2F%3Fq%3DNzRmYmM3OWNlZmU1ZGUwYzNkMGFmNzdiMjU4NmM0NDc. Alan E. Brownstein & Stephen M. Hankins, Pruning Pruneyard: Limiting FreeSpeech Rights Under State Constitutions on the Property of Private Medical Clinics Providing Abortion Services, 24 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1073, 1137 n.248 (1991). Robert M. O'Neil, "Academic Freedom and the Constitution," 11 J.C. & U.L. 275, 281 (1984). Read More