Student rights in higher education

src: bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com

Student rights are those rights, such as civil, constitutional, contractual and consumer rights, which regulate student rights and freedoms and allow students to make use of their educational investment. These include such things as the right to free speech and association, to due process, equality, autonomy, safety and privacy, and accountability in contracts and advertising, which regulate the treatment of students by teachers and administrators. There is very little scholarship about student rights throughout the world. In general most countries have some kind of student rights (or rights that apply in the educational setting) enshrined in their laws and proceduralized by their court precedents. Some countries, like Romania, in the European Union, have comprehensive student bills of rights, which outline both rights and how they are to be proceduralized. Most countries, however, like the United States and Canada, do not have a cohesive bill of rights and students must use the courts to determine how rights precedents in one area apply in their own jurisdictions.

Video Student rights in higher education

Canada

Canada, like the United States, has a number of laws and court precedents which regulate higher education and provide student rights. The Canadian Encyclopedia, which details issues of Canadian life and governance, states that in Canada "Basically two sorts of rights apply to students: substantive rights - the actual rights that students should enjoy - and procedural rights - methods by which students claim their rights. This article is concerned with students in public institutions, although those in private schools can claim rights under the common law and provincial education Acts."

Canada does not yet have a national student Bill of Rights or comparable document. If and when one is put in place in Canada it is likely that this document will be called a Charter of Student Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is equivalent to the National Bill of Rights in the United States. The Canadian national student union or government is the Canadian Federation of Students and it has not put forth any such bill.

Maps Student rights in higher education

France

Laws and court precedent on student privacy rights

• Right to privacy in higher education

In the AlBaho Case, a French criminal court found three senior academics at the École Supérieure de Physique et de Chimie Industrielles de la Ville de Paris (ICPSE) guilty of email espionage. This was the first incident where academic staff were found guilty of a criminal act as a result of a complaint made by a student - and where those staff members had the full support of their institution.

src: images.slideplayer.com

United States

In the US, students have many rights accorded by bills or laws (e.g. the Civil Rights Act and Higher Education Act) and executive presidential orders. These have been proceduralized by the courts to varying degrees. The US does not, however, have a national Student Bill of Rights and students rely on institutions to voluntarily provide this information. While some colleges are posting their own student bills, there is no legal requirement that they do so and no requirement that they post all legal rights.

Laws and court precedent regarding institutional regulations

• Right to protection from arbitrary or capricious decision making

Decision making should not be arbitrary or capricious / random and, thus, interfere with fairness. While this case concerned a private school, Healy v. Larsson (1974) found that what applied to private intuitions applied also to public.

• Right to have institutions follow their own rules

Institutions are required, contractually, to follow their own rules. Institutional documents may also be considered binding implied-n-fact contracts. Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin College (2001) ruled that institutional documents are still contractual regardless if they have a disclaimer.

• Right to adherence to bulletins and circulars

Students are protected from deviation from information advertised in bulletins or circulars.

• Right to adherence to regulations

Students are protected from deviation from information advertised in regulations.

• Right to adherence to course catalogues

Students are protected from deviation from information advertised in course catalogues.

• Right to adherence to student codes

Students are protected from deviation from information advertised in student codes.

• Right to adherence to handbooks

Students are protected from deviation from information advertised in handbooks.

• Right to fulfillment of promises made by advisors

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.

• Right to a continuous contract

Mississippi Medical Center v. Hughes (2000) determined that students have an implied right to a continuous contract during a period of continuous enrollment suggesting that students have the right to graduate so long as they fulfill the requirements as they were originally communicated. Degree requirement changes are unacceptable. Bruner v. Petersen (1997) found also that contractual protections do not apply in the event that a student, who has failed to meet requirements, is readmitted into a program. The student may be required to meet additional requirements which support their success. This may also help avoid issues of discrimination.

• Right to notice of degree requirement changes

Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences Chicago Med. School (1998) determined that students have the right to notice of degree requirement changes.

• Right to fulfillment of verbal promises

Verbal contracts are also binding. 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.

Laws and court precedent on student rights in academic advising

• Right to fulfillment of promises and verbal promises by advisors

Verbal contracts are binding. They must be made in an official capacity, however, to be binding. 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.

• Right to a continuous contract during a period of continuous enrollment

Mississippi Medical Center v. Hughes (2000) determined that students have an implied right to a continuous contract during a period of continuous enrollment suggesting that students have the right to graduate so long as they fulfill the requirements as they were originally communicated. Degree requirement changes are unacceptable. Bruner v. Petersen (1997) found also that contractual protections do not apply in the event that a student, who has failed to meet requirements, is readmitted into a program. The student may be required to meet additional requirements which support their success. This may also help avoid issues of discrimination.

• Right to notice of degree requirement changes

Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences Chicago Med. School (1998) determined that students have the right to notice of degree requirement changes (Kaplan & Lee, 2011). If a student, for instance, is absent for a semester and is not continuously enrolled they need to know if degree requirements have changed.

• Right to protection from arbitrary or capricious decision making

Decision making should not be arbitrary or capricious / random and, thus, interfere with fairness. This is a form of discrimination. While this case concerned a private school, Healy v. Larsson (1974) found that what applied to private intuitions applied also to public.

Laws and court precedent on student rights in recruitment

• Right to basic institutional facts and figures before admission

The 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act (HOEA, 2008) requires that institutions disclose institutional statistics on the Department of Education (DOE) website to allow students to make more informed educational decisions. Information required on the DOE website includes: tuition, fees, net price of attendance, tuition plans, and statistics including sex, ability, ethnic and transfer student ratios as well as ACT/SAT scores, degrees offered, enrolled, and awarded. Institutions are also required to disclose transfer credit policies and articulation agreements.

• Right to protection from ability discrimination in academic recruitment

The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act prohibits ability discrimination in academic recruitment. This includes ability discrimination in recruitment. Individuals designated with a disability by a medical professional, legally recognized with a disability and deemed otherwise qualified are entitled to equal treatment and reasonable accommodations. The Supreme Court defined Otherwise qualified as an individual who can perform the required tasks in spite of rather than except for their disability.

Laws and court precedent on student rights in admissions

• Right to protection from sex discrimination in admissions

Title IX of the 1972 Higher Education Act Amendments protect all sexes from pre-admission inquiries with regard to pregnancy, parental status, family or marital status. It can be seen that this act also protects against such inquiry regarding inter-sexed, transsexual, transgender or androgynous individuals.

• Right to protection from ability discrimination in admissions

The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. This includes ability discrimination in admissions. Individuals designated with a disability by a medical professional, legally recognized with a disability and deemed otherwise qualified are entitled to equal treatment and reasonable accommodations in both educational and employment related activities. The Supreme Court defined Otherwise qualified as an individual who can perform the required tasks in spite of rather than except for their disability.

• Right to protection from racial discrimination in admissions

Individuals may not be discriminated against on the basis of their color in either undergraduate or graduate school admissions.

• Right to testing in admissions accommodations

Protection from discrimination in admissions entails that students receive accommodations required to prove they are otherwise qualified, protection from unfair testing practices, testing accommodations for speech, manual and hearing disabilities and access to alternative testing offered in accessible facilities. Alternative testing must also be offered as frequently as are standard tests. Where no alternative testing exists, institutions, however, are not responsible for accommodations.

• Right to protection from sex discrimination in admissions testing

Educational tests which are biased in favor of one gender, may not be relied upon as the sole source of information decision making.

• Right to protection from racially segregating testing policies

Students' equality entails that individuals not be treated differently by individuals or systematically by an institution. Thus, testing policies which systematically discriminate, are unlawful according to the constitution. United States v. Fordice (1992) prohibited the use of ACT scores in Mississippi admissions, for instance, because the gap between ACT scores of white and black student was greater than the GPA gap which was not considered at all.

• Right to race conscious affirmative action in admissions to correct for discrimination

When a school has engaged in racial discrimination in the past they are required by law to take race conscious affirmative action to correct it.

• Right to protection from reverse discrimination

White students are protected from racial discrimination at historic minority institutions. Racial equality calls for the equal treatment of all individuals; it does not permit, however, lower admissions test requirements or subjective judgments for racial minorities when there are objective standards in place for all applicants.

• Right to protection from subjective interviews

There may be no segregation in the admissions process including subjective interviews when there are objective standards in place for all applicants.

• Right to protection from differential testing requirements

Students are protected from the use of lower admissions test scores.

• Right to protection from admissions quotas based on demographics

Students are protected from the use of quotas which set aside seats for certain demographics.

• Right to adherence to registration materials

Students are protected from deviation from information advertised in registration materials. This may be a binding implied-in-fact contract. Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin College (2001) ruled that institutional documents are still contractual regardless if they have a disclaimer.

Laws and court precedent on student rights in readmissions

• Right to equality in readmissions

Institutions must be careful with readmissions after students have failed to complete necessary program requirements. Readmission raises questions as to why individuals were removed from the program in the first place and whether future applicants may be admitted under like conditions. Discrimination may be alleged regarding both the initial removal and also in the case that other students are not readmitted under like circumstances. Kaplan & Lee and Lee (2011) recommend that institutions, if they wish to avoid breach of contract and discrimination accusations, have an explicit readmission policy even if that policy denies readmission. If students take a voluntary leave of absence, institutions must have a valid reason to refuse readmission.

Laws and court precedent on student classroom rights

• Right to adherence to class syllabi

Students are protected from deviation from information advertised in class syllabi. This may be a binding implied-n-fact contract. Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin College (2001) ruled that institutional documents are still contractual regardless if they have a disclaimer.

• Right to the advertised course content

Students are entitled to receive instruction on advertised course content. Institutions have the right to require coverage of designated course material by teachers and faculty and students are generally protected if they adhere to syllabus guidelines.

• Right to the advertised level of course instruction

Students may expect teaching in conformity with the course level advertised. Andre v. Pace University (1994) awarded damages on the grounds of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

• Right to attention to course objectives

Teachers must give reasonable attention to all stated course subjects.

• Right to the advertised content covered in sufficient depth

Students may have all advertised content covered in sufficient depth.

• Right to uniformity across class sections

Scallet v. Rosenblum (1996) found that "tight control over the curriculum was necessary to ensure uniformity across class sections".

• 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. Institutions have the responsibility of preserving quality in grade representations and comparability between classes and prevent grade inflation. Teachers have the right, under the first amendment, to communicate their opinions regarding student grades, 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.

• Right to learn

Students have the right to learn. Teachers do not have free rein in the classroom. They must act within departmental requirements which ensure students' right to learn and must be considered effective. Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) found that teachers have the right to lecture. They do not have academic freedom under the law. Any academic freedom rules are put in place by the school.

• Right to protection from the misuse of time

Students may expect protection from the misuse of time; teachers may not waste students' time or use the class as a captive audience for views or lessons not related to the course. 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."

• Right to effective teaching

Students can expect effective teaching even if it requires departmental involvement in teaching and curriculum development. Kozol (2005) observed that the curriculum development may not be beneficial for all students since some students come from disadvantaged backgrounds where not every student has equitable opportunities to succeed in school. If there is departmental involvement in the students' learning then the departments need to acknowledge that students are different when they belong to a minority group. Ogbu (2004) argued that for an effective teaching to take place, departments need to understand students at a group level as well as at an individual level because even students within the same minority groups are different. Given that students have the right to effective teaching, department involvement needs to understand cultural diversity and cultural differences before a curriculum development is considered.

• Right to protection from written or verbal abuse

Teachers have the right to regulated expression but may not use their first amendment privileges punitively or discriminatorily or in a way which prevents students from learning by ridiculing, proselytizing, harassment or use of unfair grading practices.

• Right to protection from ability discrimination in learning

The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act prohibit disability based discrimination in the classroom. Act This includes ability discrimination in learning and deemed otherwise qualified are entitled to equal treatment and reasonable accommodations in both educational and employment related activities. The Supreme Court defined 'Otherwise Qualified' as an individual who can perform the required tasks in spite of rather than except for their disability.

• Right to ability accommodation in classroom facilities

Disabled students are entitled to equal access to classrooms facilities required to achieve a degree.

• Right to protection from testing policies which racially segregate

Students Equality entails that individuals not be treated differently by individuals or systematically by an institution. Thus, testing policies which systematically discriminate, are unlawful according to the constitution. United States v. Fordice (1992) prohibited the use of ACT scores in Mississippi admissions, for instance, because the gap between ACT scores of white and black student was greater than the GPA gap which was not considered at all.

Laws and court precedent on student group rights

• Right to equality in the provision of student activities

Institutions have an obligation to provide equal opportunities in athletics, bands and clubs. This includes equal accommodation of interests and abilities for both sexes, provision of equipment and facility scheduling for such activities as games and practices, travel allowance and dorm room facilities. It includes also equal quality facilities including locker rooms, medical services, tutoring services, coaching and publicity. To ensure that sufficient opportunities are made available for women, institutions are responsible for complying with Title IX in one of three ways. They must provide athletic opportunities proportionate to enrollment, prove that they are continually expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex or accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

• Right to the disclosure of athletics plans and expenditures

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.

Laws and court precedent on student residence or residence hall rights

• Right to have visitors in residence hall rooms

Good v. Associated Students Univ. of Washington (1975) found students have the right to have visitors and solicitors in their residence hall rooms.

• Right to sex equality in housing standards

Students are entitled to housing of equal quality and cost and to equal housing policies.

• Right to protection from gender segregation in residence

Until the nineteen nineties gender segregation was permissible so long as institutional rationale for doing so was narrowly defined and justifiable. This precedent was officially reversed, however, after the Supreme Court in United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1992) found that a woman mistakenly admitted to a men's military college was entitled to remain enrolled.

• Right to disability accommodation in residence facilities

Students with disabilities are also entitled to equal quality dormitories with living accommodations (Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1973; Kaplan & Lee, 2011. All accommodations are currently free to the student even if the student has the financial means to pay for them.

• Right to protection from age discrimination in residence

Students are entitled to equal treatment in housing regardless of age unless there is a narrowly defined goal which requires unequal treatment and policy is neutrally applied. Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota (1974), for instance, found that the institution may require all single freshmen and sophomores to live on campus. They did not discriminate between age groups.

• Right to protection from dorm search and seizure

Piazzola v. Watkins (1971) established that students are not required to waive search and seizure rights as a condition of dormitory residence. Random door sweeps are impermissible.

• Right to clearly defined terms of dorm search and seizure

Institutions may enter rooms in times of emergency, if they have proof of illegal activity or a threat to the educational environment. Both these terms must be clearly stipulated in advance. Otherwise institutions must ask for permission to enter. When dorms rooms are legally searched for narrowly defined reasons or officials are legally permitted to enter student rooms, students are not protected from property damage incurred in the search process or action taken when evidence is in plain sight.

• Right to protection from illegal police search and seizure

Evidence found in student dorm rooms by institutional employees cannot be used in a court of law and institutions cannot allow police to conduct a search and seizure with out warrant. Students may not be punished for refusing a warrantless search from institutional authorities or police officers. When students freely allow institutional officials to enter institutions can hold students accountable for evidence in plain sight.

Laws and court precedent on student privacy rights

• Right to privacy in higher education

Griswald v. Connecticut (1965) found that the third, fourth, and fifteen amendments together constitute an inalienable right to privacy. Students are extended the same privacy rights extended to the community at large.

• Right to privacy of student records

The 1971 Family Rights and Privacy Act and the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act protect student information. Students have the right to access their records, dispute record keeping and limited control over the release of documents to third parties.

• Right to approve release of student information

FRPA and the HOEA require students sign a release before their student records will be provided to third parties (e.g.: to parents and employers tec.). This legislation does allow schools, however, to release information without student approval for the purpose of institutional audit, evaluation, or study, student aid consideration, institutional accreditation, compliance with legal subpoenas or juvenile justice system officers or in order to comply with laws requiring identification of sex offenders on campus. Institutions may also disclose information to student guardians if the student is declared a dependant for tax purposes (FERPA).

• Right to notice of information disclosures

Under FERPA, schools may publish directory information, including the students name, address, phone number, date of birth, place of birth, awards, attendance dates or student ID number, unless students ask the school not to disclose it. The institution must inform students they are entitled to these rights.

• Right to use pseudonyms on public internet forums

Individuals may use pseudonyms online and are not required to identify themselves (Kaplan & Lee, 2011). Drug testing Random National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) urine testing is legal to protect athlete health, fair competition and opportunities to educate about drug abuse in sports. Officials are allowed to watch athletes urinate. This overturned an earlier ruling which prohibited urination watching.

Laws and court precedent on student information rights

• Right to basic institutional facts and figures before admission

The 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act requires that institutions disclose institutional statistics on the Department of Education (DOE) website to allow students to make more informed educational decisions. Information required on the DOE website includes: tuition, fees, net price of attendance, tuition plans, and statistics including sex, ability, ethnic and transfer student ratios as well as ACT/SAT scores, degrees offered, enrolled, and awarded. Institutions are also required to disclose transfer credit policies and articulation agreements.

• Right to financial aid information disclosures

The 2008 HOEA also requires institutions of higher education provide financial aid information disclosures, which essentially advertise the financial aid program, pre eligibility disclosures pertaining to the individual student, information differentiating federally insured or subsidized and private loans, preferred lender agreements, institutional rational for the establishment of preferred lender agreements and notice that schools are required to process any loan chosen by students.

• Right to information about the full cost of attendance

According to the 2008 HOEA, financial aid information disclosures must include the average financial aid awarded per person, cost of tuition, fees, room, board, books, supplies and transport.

• Right to information about the full cost of loan repayment

According to the 2008 HOEA, financial aid information disclosures must include the amount of aid not requiring repayment, eligible loans, loan terms, net required repayment.

• Right to detailed federal student loan information

Pre-eligibility disclosures must include notice of repayment, lender details, the principle amount, fees, interest rate, interest details, limits of borrowing, cumulative balance, estimated payment, frequency, repayment start date, minimum and maximum payments and details regarding deferment, forgiveness, consolidation and penalties.

• Right to standards terminology in financial aid forms

Institutions are also required to utilize standard financial terminology and standard dissemination of financial aid information, forms, procedures, data security and searchable financial aid databases to ensure that students can easily understand their contractual rights and obligations. Forms must be clear, succinct, easily readable and disability accessible.

• Right to detailed third party federal student loan information

The HOEA (2008) requires third party student loan lenders to disclose information concerning alternative federal loans, fixed and variable rates, limit adjustments, co-borrower requirements, maximum loans, rate, principle amount, interest accrual, total estimated repayment requirement, maximum monthly payment and deferral options.

• Right to financial aid awareness campaigns for underrepresented students in high education

The HOEA (2008) requires institutions of higher education to engage in financial aid eligibility awareness campaigning to make students aware of student aid and the realities of accepting it.

• Right to information on use of student fees

Van Stry v. State (1984) found institutions may not use student fees to support organizations outside the university. Teachers, likewise, have the right to refuse to pay union fees when they are allocated to objectionable political purposes. This implies that students have a right to know what activities they are being allocated towards.

• Right to the disclosure of athletics plans and expenditures

The 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act 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. This ensures that institutions are abiding by Title IX of the 1972 Higher Education Act Amendments which limits sexual discrimination and requires institutions to offer equal sport, club and opportunities.

• There are many other implied information rights. If legislation states that students are entitled to certain information in pre-eligibility loan disclosures, this implies that they are also entitled to have a pre-eligibility loan disclosure.
• Right to information on the justification of policies

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995) found student fees must be allocated in a viewpoint neutral way. They cannot be based on religious, political or personal views (Henderickson; Good v. Associated Students University of Washington) and they cannot be levied as a punishment. This suggests that students have a right to policy justification so that they know they are viewpoint neutral.

• Right to information regarding course objectives and content

Students may expect protection from the misuse of time; teachers may not waste students' time or use the class as a captive audience for views or lessons not related to the course. 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." This assumes that students are entitled to know course objectives and content.

• Right to a 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. Institutions have the responsibility of preserving quality in grade representations and comparability between classes and prevent grade inflation. This assumes that students have the right to a syllabus to ensure fair grading.

Laws and court precedent on student rights in discipline and dismissal

• Right to protection from ability discrimination in discipline and dismissal

The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act protect students against discrimination based on ability. This includes ability discrimination in discipline and dismissal. Individuals shall be designated with a disability by a medical professional, legally recognized with a disability.

• 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. Foster v. Board of Trustees of Butler County Community College (1991) found that students are not entitled to due process rights when appealing rejected admissions applications. They are not yet students.

• Right to due process in disciplinary with the potential to lead to a monetary loss

Due process is required when actions have the potential to resulting a property or monetary loss or loss of income or future income etc. This includes degree revocation or dismissal. Students have a property interest in remaining at the institution and have protection form undue removal.

• Right to due process in disciplinary with the potential for a loss of liberty

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 and falsification of research data.

• Right to a clear notice of charges in the disciplinary process

In disciplinary measures students are entitled to the provision of a definite charge.

• Right to a prompt notice of charges in the disciplinary process

Students are entitled to a prompt notice of charges, e.g., ten days before the hearing.

• Right to a hearing before an expert judge

In cases involving expulsion or dismissal students are entitled to right to "expert" judgment with a judge who is empowered to expel.

• Right to inspect all documents in disciplinary hearings

Students may inspect documents considered by institutional officials in disciplinary hearings.

• Right to be a witness in disciplinary hearings

Students may stand as a witness and tell their story during disciplinary hearings.

• Right to record disciplinary hearings

Students may record disciplinary hearings to ensure they are conducted in a legal fashion.

• Right to unbiased ruling in disciplinary hearings

Students can expect rulings in disciplinary hearings to be based solely on evidence presented at the hearing. Students are also entitled to a hearing before a person or committee not involved in the dispute.

• Right to a written statement of findings in disciplinary hearings

Students may expect to receive a written account of findings from disciplinary hearings showing how decisions are in line with evidence.

• Right to fairness in disciplinary hearings

Board of Curators of the University of Missouri et al. v. Horowitz (1978) found that fairness means that decisions, a) may not be arbitrary or capricious, b) must provide equal treatment with regard to sex, religion or personal appearance etc. and c) must be determined in a careful and deliberate manner.

• Right to hearing before discipline

Hearings must be conducted before suspension or discipline unless there is a proven threat to danger, damage of property or academic disruption.

• Right to action in line with inquiry findings

Texas Lightsey v. King (1983) determined that due process requires that the outcomes of investigation be taken seriously. A student cannot, for instance, be dismissed for cheating after a hearing has found him not guilty.

• Right to investigation and consideration of circumstance

The American Bar Association (ABA) found that the need for a fair and just hearing also precludes the use of zero tolerance policies which ignore the circumstances surrounding an action. An individual who commits a crime because they believe they are in danger may not be held accountable in the same way as an individual who conducts the same crime for self-interest.

• Right to greater due process in criminal matters

Students accused of criminal acts including drug possession, plagiarism, cheating and falsification of research data or fraud, may have greater due process rights.

• Right to cross examine in criminal matters

Students accused of criminal acts may cross-examine witnesses, counsel.

• Right to an open trial in criminal matters

Students accused of criminal acts may have an open trial to ensure that it is conducted fairly, counsel.

• Right to a fair evidentiary standard of proof in criminal matters

In non-criminal hearings in the educational setting, schools may use a lesser standard evidence but where criminal matters are concerned they must have clear and convincing evidence.

• Right to counsel in criminal matters Students accused of criminal acts may have counsel present. This does not mean that the institution must pay for it but that they

may be present.

• Right to a higher appeals process in criminal matters

Students accused of criminal acts should have access to a higher appeals process.

• Right to legal representation during any formal university disciplinary procedure

The Student & Administration Equality Act is proposed legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly (House Bill 843) would allow any student or student organization that is charged with a violation of conduct at a North Carolina state university the right to be represented by an attorney at any stage of the disciplinary process regarding the charge of misconduct.

Laws and court precedent on student rights and campus police

• Right to protection from unwarranted search and seizure

Students are protected from unwarranted search and seizure. The fourth and fourteenth amendments protect from search and seizure without a warrant. They enshrine the individuals right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects." Warrants must include person, place and specific items eligible for search and or seizure. Search and seizure rights do not apply to automobiles.

• Right to arrest by official police officers

Individuals are protected from arrest by undeputized campus police and illegal search and seizure if arrest is made.

• Right to protection from entrapment

Students are protected from entrapment by campus police as individuals are protected outside the educational environment.

• Right to protection from dorm search and seizure

Piazzola v. Watkins (1971) established that students are not required to waive search and seizure rights as a condition of dormitory residence. Random dorm sweeps are impermissible.

• Right to clearly defined terms of dorm search and seizure

Institutions may enter rooms in times of emergency, if they have proof of illegal activity or a threat to the educational environment. Both these terms must be clearly stipulated in advance. Otherwise institutions must ask for permission to enter. When dorms rooms are legally searched for narrowly defined reasons or officials are legally permitted to enter student rooms, students are not protected from property damage incurred in the search process or action taken when evidence is in plain sight.

• Right to protection from illegal police search and seizure

Evidence found in student dorm rooms by institutional employees cannot be used in a court of law and institutions cannot allow police to conduct a search and seizure with out warrant. Students may not be punished for refusing a warrantless search from institutional authorities or police officers. When students freely allow institutional officials to enter institutions can hold students accountable for evidence in plain sight.

Laws and court precedent on student safety rights

• Right to protection from injury on campus

A number of state courts have also found that institutions have a responsibility to prevent or make efforts to limit injury on campus from dangerous property and criminal conditions so long as injury is both foreseeable and preventable.

• Right to protection from injury in facilities under campus jurisdiction

Knoll v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (1999) found that institutions are responsible for ensuring the safety of facilities which are either under institutional jurisdiction or oversight. Institutions are, thus, responsible for institutionally owned dormitories and fraternities whether on campus or off campus and also for fraternities which may not be owned by the institution but are regulated by the institution. By taking on a regulatory role the institution also takes on this liability. Another state court found, that when students are not lawfully permitted to be on institutional property or in institutional buildings after hours, for instance, the institution is not responsible. Where institutions willfully take responsibility for something like a fraternity or require students to abide by their rules they also take on the liability.

• Right to protection from foreseeable crime on campus

Students should be safe from for seeable crime especially in light of past reports of crime, if loitering or dangerous conditions have been made etc. Institutions are required to take safety precautions including the monitoring of unauthorized personnel in dormitories, taking action against unauthorized personnel when they pose a threat to safety and ensuring adequate security measures are in place.

• Right to protection from injury caused by other students

Students deserve protection from other students over whom the institution has oversight including voluntarily assumed jurisdiction e.g.: clubs, sororities, fraternities, teams. This, for instance, includes protection from foreseeable or preventable fraternity hazing even if fraternities are not located on institutional property. The institution also has a responsibility to inform itself of safety risks existent in institutionally regulated programs (White, 2007). State courts have found that institutions are not responsible, however, for screening ex-convicts before admission, 1987).

Laws and court precedent on student constitutional rights

Students have the right to constitutional freedoms and protections in higher education. Prior to the 1960s institutions of higher education did not have to respect students constitutional rights but could act as a parent in the interest of the student (Nancy Thomas, 1991). In 1960 Shelton v. Turner found "the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools" and in 1961 Dixon v. Alabam found that students were not required to give up, as a condition of admission, their constitutional rights and protections.

Free speech and association rights

• Right to free speech and association rights

Students retain their first amendment rights in institutions of higher education. Papish v. Board of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri (1973) and Joyner v. Whiting (1973) found students may engage in speech that do not interfere with the rights of others or of the operation of the school. 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 as long as they are not used to limit expression.

• Right to free religious and unaccepted speech

The first amendment protects religious, indecent speech and profane hand gestures including the middle finger. Texas v. Johnson (1989) found that "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the first amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. The first amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."

• Right to expression through clothing

Clothing, armbands, newspaper editorials and demonstrations have all been found legal forms of free speech.

• Right to free speech on public forums

The first amendment covers internet communications. On forums designated by the institution as public forums or commonly used as public forums, students may express themselves without content regulation or removal. Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 2004 Regulation may take place to prevent illegal activities.

Equality rights

• Right to protection from sex discrimination in higher education

Students are protected from discrimination based on sex in any program or activity receiving federal funding except military, fraternity, sorority organizations.

• Right to the protection from sexual harassment in education

Sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination under Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and applies to all federal programs and activities. Sexual harassment has been prohibited in educational settings and applies also to both opposite and same sex harassment by students.

• Right to sex equality in the provision of student activities

Institutions have an obligation to provide equal opportunities in athletics, bands and clubs. This includes equal accommodation of interests and abilities for both sexes, provision of equipment and facility scheduling for such activities as games and practices, travel allowance and dorm room facilities. It includes also equal quality facilities including locker rooms, medical services, tutoring services, coaching and publicity. To ensure that sufficient opportunities are made available for women, institutions are responsible for complying with Title IX in one of three ways. They must provide athletic opportunities proportionate to enrollment, prove that they are continually expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex or accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

• Right to the disclosure of athletics plans and expenditures

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. This information is required to ensure equality standards are met.

• Right to protection from ability discrimination in facilities

The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act prohibits ability discrimination in higher education. This includes ability discrimination in facility use. Individuals designated with a disability by a medical professional, legally recognized with a disability and deemed otherwise qualified are entitled to equal treatment and reasonable accommodations in both educational and employment related activities. The Supreme Court defined Otherwise qualified as an individual who can perform the required tasks in spite of rather than except for their disability.

• Right to protection from race discrimination

The 1972 Equal Educational Opportunity Act protects students equal rights to educational opportunity regardless of race and the 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson Executive Order 11246 and the 1964 Civil Rights Act require equal access to employment opportunities regardless of race.

• Right to protection from racial segregation

Students are protected from racial segregation which compromises access to quality education.

• Right to affirmative action

All federal employers or federal contractors are required to take affirmative action to help counteract the effects of historical discrimination. They must create goals, timetables, action plans, budgets and reporting systems to ensure that marginalized populations are given equal employment opportunities. Regulations must also be posted in conspicuous places easily available to all staff and potential employees.

• Right to freedom from discrimination in affirmative action

Diversity is defined in much broader terms than race. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) found a "broad range of qualities and experiences that may be considered valuable contributions" and "a wide variety of characteristics besides race and ethnicity." Members of the majority are also protected from reverse discrimination. Race neutral affirmative action policies must make exceptions on an individual basis and may not discriminate based on race or color.

• Right to protection from discrimination based on national origin in education

Individuals have the right to equal treatment regardless of national origin in institutions of higher education (HEA, 1965) so long as they are citizens or resident aliens of the United States. The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act also prohibits discrimination based on citizenship. Institutions have the right to discriminate based on national origin so long as objectives are both narrowly defined and neutrally applied. It is, thus, permissible to require non-resident aliens who are legally present in the United States to have health insurance for instance.

• Right to protection from age discrimination

Age discrimination in federally funded programs is prohibited by the 1975 Age Discrimination Act. This act builds on the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It provides protection from unequal treatment between people of different ages from any explicit or implied distinctions which effect the benefits of participation.

• Right to equal treatment of student groups

Gay Activists Alliance v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma (1981) found student groups are entitled to equal and unbiased recognition. Recognition includes the unbiased allocation of facility and equipment resources except when there is proof that a student group does not maintain reasonable housekeeping or poses a threat of danger, disruption or criminal action.

Autonomy rights to free choice (26th amendment)

• 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. Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1979) found that "adult students now demand and receive expanded rights of privacy in their college life".

Laws and court precedent on student contract rights

• Right to 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 of higher education are responsible to ensure that contracts, including those implied and verbal, are fair, in good faith and not unconscionable.

• Right to adherence to institutional documents

Students are protected from deviation from information advertised in the following documents: registration materials, manuals, course catalogues, bulletins, circulars, regulations, Ross v. Creighton University class syllabi, student codes, and handbooks. These documents may be binding implied-n-fact contracts. Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin College (2001) ruled that institutional documents are still contractual regardless if they have a disclaimer. This decision found that "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."

• Right to fulfillment of verbal promises

Ross v. Creighton University found that verbal contracts are binding. 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. 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.

Laws and court precedent on student consumer rights

John F. Kennedy's 1962 Consumer Bill of Rights, which is not a legal document, asserts that consumers have the right to consumer safety, information preventing fraud, deceit and informed choice, to choose from multiple alternative options and the right to complaint, to be heard and addressed. A number of these principles are enshrined in the law of higher education.

• Right to limited fiduciary care (institutional care in the student's best interest)

Johnson v. Schmitz (2000) found in a federal district court that a PhD committee established for the sole purpose of advising the student had an obligation to advise the student in his best interest. This is a limited fiduciary right.

• Right to care regarding the safety of students

Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1979) reiterated that where a special relationship is established, courts may impose a duty upon an institution or individual to ensure the care of others. Duty is defined here "as an obligation to which the law will give recognition in order to require one person to conform to a particular standard of conduct with respect to another person." Institutions have a duty of care to ensure the safety of students while respecting their personal autonomy. Mullins v. Pine Manor found that "[t]he fact that a college need not police the morals of its resident students... does not entitle it to abandon any effort to ensure their physical safety".

• Right to a grievance filing process

Dixon v. Alabama (1961) determined that when students' constitutional rights are not upheld, students are eligible to sue for damages in a court of law for monetary or material damages. Individuals may also file complaints regarding discrimination with the federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR).

• Right to protection from injury on campus

A number of state courts have also found that institutions have a responsibility to prevent or make efforts to limit injury on campus from dangerous property and criminal conditions so long as injury is both foreseeable and preventable.

• Right to protection from injury in facilities under campus jurisdiction

Knoll v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (1999) found that institutions are responsible for ensuring the safety of facilities which are either under institutional jurisdiction or oversight. Institutions are, thus, responsible for institutionally owned dormitories and fraternities whether on campus or off campus and also for fraternities which may not be owned by the institution but are regulated by the institution. By taking on a regulatory role the institution also takes on this liability. Another state court found, that when students are not lawfully permitted to be on institutional property or in institutional buildings after hours, for instance, the institution is not responsible.

• Right to protection from foreseeable crime on campus

Students should be safe from for seeable crime especially in light of past reports of crime, loitering or dangerous conditions. Institutions are required to take safety precautions including the monitoring of unauthorized personnel in dormitories, taking action against unauthorized personnel when they pose a threat to safety and ensuring adequate security measures are in place.

• Right to protection from injury caused by other students

Students deserve protection from other students over whom the institution has oversight including voluntarily assumed jurisdiction e.g.: clubs, sororities, fraternities, teams. This, for instance, includes protection from foreseeable or preventable fraternity hazing even if fraternities are not located on institutional property. The institution also has a responsibility to inform itself of safety risks existent in institutionally regulated programs. State courts have found that institutions are not responsible, however, for screening exconvicts before admission.

Laws and court precedent on student employment rights

• Right to protection from sex discrimination in the workplace

Students are protected from discrimination based on sex in any program or activity receiving federal funding except military, fraternity, sorority organizations. There are protections for both public and private employment. All employment opportunities must be merit based.

• Right to equal pay for sexes in the workplace

All sexes have the right to equal pay for equal work performed in the workplace in institutions of higher education. This would include student employment. This may suggest that transgender people are also entitled to equal pay in the workplace.

• Right to protection from forced pregnancy leave

Women do not have to go on mandatory pregnancy leave before birth, and the right to doctor prescribed leave during pregnancy.

• Right to the protection from sexual harassment in the workplace

Sexual harassment is prohibited in both educational and workplace settings and applies also to both opposite and same sex harassment by employees.

• Right to active protection from sexual harassment in the workplace

The 1997 Department of Education and Office of Civil Rights Sexual Harassment Guidelines find also that institutions are liable for incidences wherein the institution was aware or "should have been aware" of sexual harassment and took no immediate action. The majority of federal court cases involving educational institutions prohibit the maintenance of conditions which allow harassment by other students to continue.

• Right to protection from ability discrimination in the workplace

Ability discrimination in federally funded and private programs and activities is prohibited under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Individuals designated with a disability by a medical professional, legally recognized with a disability and deemed otherwise qualified are entitled to equal treatment and reasonable accommodations. The Supreme Court defined Otherwise qualified as an individual who can perform the required tasks in spite of rather than except for their disability.

• Right to protection from ability discrimination in employment recruitment

The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. This includes ability discrimination in recruitment. Individuals designated with a disability by a medical professional, legally recognized with a disability.

• Right to protection from ability discrimination in workplace discipline and dismissal

The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act in discipline and dismissal.

• Right to protection from age discrimination

Age discrimination in federally funded programs is prohibited by the 1975 Age Discrimination Act. This act builds on the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It provides protection from unequal treatment between people of different ages from any explicit or implied distinctions which effect the benefits of participation.

• Right to protection from race discrimination in employment

Executive Order 11246 expanded upon the 1953 Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Order 10479, which established an anti-discrimination committee to oversee governmental contracting. The 1967 Lyndon B. Johnson Executive Order 11375 also requires all facets of federal employment or federally contracted employment be regulated based on merit - this includes institutions of higher education.

• Right to protection from discrimination based on national origin in employment

Individuals have the right to equal treatment regardless of national origin in employment settings so long as they are citizens or resident aliens of the United States. The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act also prohibits discrimination based on citizenship.

src: i.ytimg.com

European Union

src: theintercept.imgix.net

Romania

Romania is the country with the greatest student rights legislation currently in place. In 2011 the National Alliance of Student Organizations in Romania, which is also part of the European Student Union, worked with the Romanian National Government to bring into law the Romanian National Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities. This document provides Romanian students with roughly a hundred theoretical and procedural rights necessary to ensure theoretical rights are fulfilled. This document includes the following rights:

Educational package rights

• Right to a quality education
• Right to a student centered educational environment
• Right to opportunities to develop personally
• Right to opportunities to develop socially
• Right to opportunities to acquire skills required to find and retain employment
• Right to an educational contract
• Right to equal treatment among equal students
• Right to equity where some students are at an educational disadvantage
• Right to information information transparency and accessibility
• Right to educational quality standards which are assessed and accountable
• Right to student involvement in institutional decision-making
• Right to at least one free copy of the student record including diplomas, certificates and transcripts
• Right to information on all student rights and responsibilities
• Right to grievance reporting, hearing and appeals processes
• Right to be provided educational materials while attending institutions of higher education
• Right to housing accommodations, unless a student studies in their place of residence
• Right to transportation while attending institutions of higher education
• Right to meals while attending institutions of higher education
• Right to medical coverage while attending institutions of higher education
• Right to postpone and resume studies
• Right to transfer from one university to another
• Right to the protection of student information
• Right to an eight-hour school day

Contract rights

• Right to a continuous contract during a period of enrollment, without a change in degree requirements
• Right to retain property and copyright for results of research, artistic creation and innovation unless contracts exist
• Right to participate in programs and services in accordance with advertised program objectives
• Right to be evaluated in accordance with advertised curriculum evaluation criteria
• Right to be evaluated with criteria in line with advertised course objectives

Equitability rights

• Right to equitable recruitment, admissions, readmissions, testing, education, instruction and assessment
• Right to access social mobility programs and resources
• Right to subsidized tuition for students from historically marginalized and low socio-economic backgrounds
• Right to free educational and professional guidance, counseling, tutoring and monitoring for subsidized students
• Right to the availability of academic, professional psychological and social counseling with educational objectives
• Right to study in one's native language or a language of international communication if offered
• Right to exam accommodations for certified temporary and permanent medical conditions
• Right to have registration periods of at least on working week after the posting of scholarships or programs
• Right to flexible learning paths and a minimum number of optional courses
• Right to be provided free medical assistance
• Right to a 50% + discount on public transportation
• Right to a 75% discount for access to events organized by public institutions
• Right to subsidies for housing accommodations for low income or historically marginalized backgrounds

Accountability and quality assurance rights

• Right to a quality education (with quality standards in place)
• Right to quality standards for teachers and course resources for use in quality assurance and evaluation
• Right to quality standards for support resources for use in quality assurance and evaluation
• Right to the availability of information related to stated educational objectives
• Right to participate in evaluation of teachers, courses, seminars, programs, practicums, internships, residencies
• Right to access teacher, course, seminar, program, practicum, internship, residency evaluations as public info
• Right to have evaluations used for assessment of quality and objective achievement
• Right to know how tuition, fees and other charges are determined or justified
• Right to be informed about the number, type and amount of each fee charged
• Right to institutional consultation with student organizations on issues in higher education
• Right to representative participation in university executive and deliberative bodies
• Right to 25%+ representative participation in the university senate and faculty council
• Right to representative participation in faculty counsels and university senates or governance structures
• Right to representative participation in management of social services, accommodations and scholarships
• Right to representatives participation in government departments involving students
• Right to representative participation in choosing and appointing an institutional president or head
• Right to student representative elections free of interference from instructors and administrators
• Right to serve as a student representative for up to four years regardless of academic performance or attendance
• Right to be informed and consulted by student representatives on matters in institutional governance
• Right for student organizations to develop an annual report on institutional compliance with this code
• Right to an annual response to the compliance report including proposed improvements and a timeline

Due process rights

• Right to submit grievances and expect recourse for identity theft
• Right to submit grievances and expect recourse for abuse of power
• Right to submit grievances and expect recourse for arbitrary and capricious decision making
• Right to appeal grades before a committee. The instructor who issued the grade may not sit on this committee.
• Right to request a review of complaints by specialized bodies
• Right to be present during appeal hearings
• Right to protection from retribution when making a complaint (whistle blower protections)
• Right to have all written or online requests registered
• Right to have all written and online requests answered

Information accessibility rights

• Right to freely access all educational materials available in university libraries or institutional websites
• Right to receive, upon admissions, a Student Guide containing information on:
  • student rights and responsibilities
  • materials and services provided by the university
  • evaluation methods
  • justification and methods used to establish fees
  • university and faculty facilities
  • details about student organizations
  • ways of accessing scholarships and other financial facilities
• Right to receive a five-page syllabus within the first two weeks of the semester containing:
  • course objectives
  • general competences or outcomes students will achieve
  • curriculum
  • course timeline of readings and assignments
  • evaluation and examination methods
• Right to adherence to the syllabus unless the teacher has the students' agreement
• Right to receive the syllabus in either an electronic format or a physical copy
• Right to information on the scale used for evaluation of skills
• Right to institutional policies which inform students of their rights
• Right to access regulations, decisions, meeting minutes and any other legal documents at the institution
• Right to receive a copy of their diploma, thesis, score and details about the score
• Right to information on criteria and methods used to identify and evaluate processional practice
• Right to information on criteria used to evaluate the quality of academic classes and programs

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

The student rights movement

Students in both Europe and North America began calling for the expansion of civil rights and student rights during the Vietnam War era. They established legal rights by forming student unions and lobbying for institutional policies (thus, changing the cultural treatment of students), lobbying for legislative change on state and national levels and circulating petitions for the creation of national student rights bills. In America, for instance, students won the right to retain their civil rights in institutions of higher education. In Europe, this movement has been explosive. Students have banded together and formed unions in individual institutions, at the state and national levels and eventually at the continental level as the European Student Union. They have been instrumental in lobbying for rights in individual countries and in the EU in general. In 2011, for instance, Romania put forth an extensive national student bill of rights providing Romanian students with a hundred rights assembled in a clear and easy to access document. Europe has also set forth legislation stipulating the rights of EU students studying in other EU countries.

European students have used the tactics established during the global labour movement of the eighteen and nineteen hundreds to gain labour or work place standards. They have unionized, stated their demands both verbally and in writing (sometimes in the form of a proposed student bill of rights), publicized their message and gone on strike. During the labor movement, workers in the United States, for example, won the right to a 40-hour work week, to a minimum wage, to equal pay for equal work, to be paid on time, to contract rights, for safety standards, a complaint filing process etc. Students have, likewise, demanded that these regulations as well as civil, constitutional, contract and consumer rights, which regulate other industries, be applied to higher education.

The European student movement and the United States movement differ in a number of ways. These differences may be a factor in determining why European Students have been more successful in obtaining legally recognized student rights, from the right to access free education to the right to move and study freely from one EU country to the next, to the right to exercise their national legal rights in institutions of higher education.

Differences between European and United States student movements

• National student organization mandates: Different levels of student representation

The European Student Union ESU mandate requires the ESU to determine the demands of students and to convey them to legislators. The United States Student Association USSA also has a mandate to amplify the student voice in legal decision making but it does not stipulate how it will determine the student voice or ensure that it is representative of the students themselves. The ESU focuses on gathering input from students across the nation, creates a student bill of rights enabling students to critique it, proposes legislation to achieve these rights at both the state and continental level and then creates information resources so students know their rights. The USSA, determines its objectives through the USSA membership. USSA does not seem to conduct research across the nation or to state student objectives on their website so students can express a desire to add or delete from this list. If the USSA does conduct research they do not show this on their website, do not have a search function on the website and do not publish this information for students.

• • Currently, the ESU mandate is to "promote the educational, social, economic and cultural interests of students", to "represent, defend and strengthen students' educational, democratic and political and social rights and "represent and promote the[m] ... at the European [continental] level towards all relevant bodies and in particular the European Union, Bologna Follow Up Group, Council of Europe and UNESCO." The ESU will accomplish this by "conducting research", "campaigns", "conferences", "trainings", "partnership projects", "providing information", and creating "publications" for "students, policy-makers and higher education professionals."
  • The ASSU's mandate is to "develop[] current and future leaders and amplif[y] the student voice at the local, state, and national levels by mobilizing grassroots power to win concrete victories on student issues. The United States Student Association Foundation ensures the pipeline of effective student leadership by facilitating education, training and other development opportunities at national, state, and local levels in advocating for issues that affect students." The mission statement does not say how they intend to do these things but it seems from the website that they hold grass roots lobbying, student conferences and electoral training, and propose bills to the US Senate.
• National student organization mandates: Publicity for student demands

The ESU clearly states student demands through the nation and through the EU. They have compiled these demands into a student bill of rights, referred to as the 2008 Student Rights Charter. This document is not legally binding but it is a clear representation of all student demands. It helps students, institutions and governments understand what students are demanding and also helps student unions, in individual institutions, lobby for rights which help change the culture and treatment of students on a local level. The ESU has democratically created a proposed student bill of rights they want accepted in legislation at a national and continental level. These demands include: access to higher education, to student involvement in institutional governance, extracurricular support and curricular quality standards. Each right has been broken down into more detailed demands required to achieve these rights. While student associations in America are pushing for this, there has been no centralized effort through the national student association.

USSA Legislative initiatives have included student debt forgiveness, enabling undocumented immigrant students to attend college, allocating more governmental money toward institutions and students but again these objectives seem to be created by USSA members without national research on the student voice. There is no way to search their website to determine if they conduct research to gather input form students across the nation.

• Institutional student bodies: A student union focus vs. a student government focus.

The European student movement and the United States movement also differ on a local institutional level. In Europe most institutional student organizations are referred to as student unions which suggests that they are engaged in lobbying for student rights. In America these are referred to as Student Governments or Student Associations and the focus is more on learning the democratic process. The problem is, however, that most student governments only have about 20-25% representation in the Academic Senate or institutional decision making body and far less experience in democratic processes than other institutional representatives. Student governments focus on teaching students how to be leaders and participate in democracy where as unions focus more on determining the student voice and achieving student rights through lobbying.

src: jtec.gov.jm

See also

• Student Bill of Rights
• European Students' Union
• Youth rights
• Student voice
• Student Press Law Center
• National Youth Rights Association
• Leonard Law
• Student activism
• Students' union
• The Freechild Project
• Youth
• Youth suffrage
• Youth rights
• Age of candidacy

src: academicmatters.ca

References

Citation list

• Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. § 6101-6107 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Age
• Discrimination Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-135 §, 89 Stat. 713 (US Code, 2006)
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621-634 et seq. (US Code, 2009) / Age Discrimination in Employment
• Act of 1967 (ADEA), Pub. L. No. 90-202 §, 81 Stat. 202 (US Code, 2006)
• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (US Code, 2009) / Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336 §, 104 Stat. 327 (US Code, 2006)
• Andre v. Pace University, 655 NYS 2d 777 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. 1996)
• Bach, J. J. (2003). Students have rights too: The drafting of student conduct codes. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (1), 1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Bowe v. SMC Elec. Prods., 945 F. Supp. 1482, 1485 (D. Colo. 1996) LEXIS- NEXIShost.http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/
• Bowden, R. (2007). Evolution of responsibility: From "in loco parentis" to "ad meliora vertamur". Education, 127(4), 480-489. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Bradshaw v. Rawlings, 612 F. 2d 135 (3rd Cir. 1979)
• Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 74 (1954)
• Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352 §, 78 Stat. 241 (US Code, 2006)
• Civil Rights Act Amendments of 1991 (CRAA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Civil Rights Act Amendments of 1991 (CRAA), Pub. L. No. 88-352 §, 78 Stat. 241 (US Code, 2006)
• Christman, D. E. (2002). Change and continuity: A historical perspective of campus search and seizure issues. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (1), 141. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Clery Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 2008, 20 U.S.C. § 1092 et seq. (US Code, 2009) / Clery Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-315 §, 122 Stat. 3078 (US Code, 2006) / Clery Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1092 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Clery Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-542 §, 104 Stat. 2384 (US Code, 2006)
• Cooper, D., Saunders, S., Winston, R., Hirt, J. Creamer, D. Janosik, S. (2002) Learning through supervised practice in student affairs New York: Routledge.
• Davies, T. Y. (2010). "The supreme court givith and the supreme court taketh away: The century of fourth amendment "search and seizure" doctrine". Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. 100 (3): 933. 
• Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (1997). Sexual harassment guidance: Harassment of students by school employees, other students or third parties. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center, Office of Civil Rights http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/sexhar01.html
• Dezick v. Umpqua Community College 599 P. 2d 444 (OR 1979)
• Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-380 §, 89 Stat. 713 (US Code, 2006) Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Equal Pay Act of 1963, Pub. L. No. 88-38 §, 77 Stat. 56 (US Code, 2006)
• Gibbs, A. (1992). Reconciling rights and responsibilities of colleges and students: Offensive speech, assembly, drug testing and safety. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1232 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-380 §, 88 Stat. 484 (US code 2009)
• Gearan, J. S. (2006). When is it ok to tattle? - The need to amend the family educational rights and privacy act. Suffolk University Law Review, (39) 1023, 1024-1046. Retrieved from LEXIS-NEXIShost
• Gregory, D. E. (2008) Review of 'the law of higher education'. NASPA Journal (45)1, 162-67
• Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 (2003)
• Hendrickson, R. M., Gibbs, A., ASHE & ERIC (1986). The college, the constitution, and the consumer student: Implications for policy and practice. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7, 1986. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-926/consumer.htm
• Higher Education Opportunity Act of 1965 20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Higher Education Opportunity Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-329 §, 70 Stat. 1219 (US Code, 2006)
• Higher Educational Act Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Higher Educational Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-318 §, 86 Stat. 373 (US Code, 2006)
• Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-315 §, 110 Stat. 3078 (US Code, 2006)
• Hill v. University of Kentucky, Wilson, and Schwartz, 978 F. 2d 1258 (ED Kentucky 1992)
• Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University, 665 F. 2d 547 (5th Cir.1982)
• Hupart v. Bd. of Higher Ed. of the City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 1087 (SD NY 1976)
• Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208 §, 110 Stat. 1219 (US Code, 2006)
• Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) of 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99-603 §, 100 Stat. 3359 (US Code, 2006)
• Kaye, T., Bickel, R., & Birtwistle, T. (2006). Criticizing the image of the student as consumer: examining legal trends and administrative responses in the US and UK. Education & the Law, 18(2/3), 85-129. doi:10.1080/09539960600919779
• Keen v. Penson, 970 F. 2d 252 (7th Cir. 1992)
• Lewis, L. S. (2005). Litigating grades: A cautionary tale. Academic Questions, 19(1), 48-58. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Mawdsley, R. D. (2004). Student rights, safety, and codes of conduct. New Directions for Community Colleges, (125), 5-15. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Meadow, R. (1999), Clear and convincing evidence: How much is enough? California Insurance Law and Regulation Reporter 5, 116-121.
• National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, I. c. (1993). Student Rights and Freedoms. Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Office for Civil Rights (DHEW), W. C. (DHEW), Washington, DC. (1972). Higher Education Guidelines for Executive Order 11246. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Parkes, J., & Harris, M. B. (2002). The purposes of a syllabus. College Teaching, 50(2), 1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
• Poskanzer, S. G. (2002) Higher education law the faculty. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-555 §, 92 Stat. 2076 (US Code, 2006)
• Rehabilitation Act Section 504 of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. (US Code, 2006) / Rehabilitation Act 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112 §, 87 Stat. 394 (US Code, 2006)
• Rafferty, D. P. (1993). Technical foul! Ross v. creighton university allows courts to penalize universities which do not perform specific promises made to student-athletes. South Dakota Law Review (38) 173. Retrieved from LEXIS-NEXIShost. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/
• Sarabyn, K. (2008). The twenty-sixth amendment: Resolving the federal circuit split over college students' first amendment rights. Texas Journal on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, 14(1), 27-93. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Thomas, N. L. (1991). The new in loco parentis. Change, 23(5), 32. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• Vile, J.R. (2010). Encyclopedia of constitutional amendments, proposed amendments, and amending issues, 1789-2011. California: ABC-CLIO.
• White, B. (2007). Student rights: From in loco parentis to sine parentibus and back again? Understanding the family educational rights and privacy act in higher education. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, (2), 321-350. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
• 93 Special Message to the Congress on Protecting the Consumer Interest. March 15, 1962. (2001). American Reference Library - Primary Source Documents, 1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
• Aboode v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 US 209 (1977)
• Adarand Constructors, Inc., v. Pena, 515 US 200 (1995)
• Ahmed v. University of Toledo, 822 F.2d 26 (6th Cir. 1987)
• Albert Merrill School v. Godoy, 357 NYS 2d 378 (NY City Civil Ct. 1974)
• American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (ND Ga. 1997)
• Anderson v. Mass. Inst of Tech, 1995 WL 813188, 1, 4 (Mass. Super, 1995)
• Anderson v. University of Wisconsin, 841 F. 2d 737 (7th Cir. 1988)
• Anthony v. Syracuse, 231 NYS 435 (NY App. Div. 1928)
• Antonelli v. Hammond, 308 F. Supp. 1329 (Dist. Mass. 1970)
• Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 365 F. 3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004)
• Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 438 US 265 (1978)
• Barker v. Hardway, 399 F. 2d 368 (4th Cir. 1968)
• Bayless v. Maritime, 430 F. 2d 873, 877 (5th Cir. 1970)
• Beukas v. Fairleigh, 605 A. 2d 708 (NJ App. Div. 1992)
• Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz 435 US 78 (1978)
• Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F. 3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001)
• Bowe v. SMC Elec. Prods., 945 F. Supp. 1482, 1485 (D. Colo. 1996)
• Brody v. Finch Univ. of Health Sci. / Chicago Med. Sch., 698 NE 2d 257, 298 (IL App. Ct. 1998)
• Bruner v. Petersen, 944 P. 2d 43 (AK Sup. Ct. 1997)
• Bynes v. Toll, 512 F. 2d 252 (2nd Cir. 1975)
• Camara v. Municipal Court of city and country of San Francisco, 387 US 523 (1967)
• Carlin v. Trustees of Boston University, 907 F. Supp. 509 (D. Mass. 1995)
• Carr v. St. Johns University, 231 NYS 2d 410, 231 (NY App. Div. 1962)
• Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 US 557 (1980)
• Cf. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 US 57 (1986)
• Chess v. Widmar, 635 F. 2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1980)
• Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hileah, 508 US 520 (1993)
• City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 US 469 (1989)
• Civil Rights Office Tanberg v. Weld County Sheriff, 787 F. Supp. 970 (D. Co. 1992)
• Clark v. Holmes, 474 F. 2d 928 (7th Cir. 1972)
• Clayton v. Trustees of Princeton University, 608 F. Supp. 413 (D. NJ 1985)
• Cohen v. San Bernadino Valley College, 92 F. 3d 968 (9th Cir. 1996)
• Cooper v. Nix, 496 F. 2d 1285 (5th Cir. 1974)
• Cooper v. Ross, 472 F. Supp. 802 (ED Ark. 1979)
• Crook v. Baker, 813 F. 2d 88 (6th Cir. 1987)
• Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, 839 F. Supp. 477 (ED MI 1993)
• Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, 55 F. 3d 1177 (6th Cir. 1995)
• Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 US 629 (1999)
• DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 US 312 (1974)
• DeRonde v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 625 P. 2d 220 (CA Sup. 1981)
• Devers v. Southern University, 712 So. 2d (LA App. 1998)
• Dixon v. Alabama, 294 F. 150 (5th Cir. 1961)
• Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, 416 F. 3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2005)
• Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 862 F. 2d 570 (6th Cir. 1988)
• Donohue v. Baker, 976 F. Supp. 136 (ND NY 1997)
• Durate v. Commonwealth, 407 SE 2d 41, 12 (VA App. 1991)
• Eden v. Board of Trustees of State University, 374 NYS 2d 686 (NY App. 1975)
• Edwards v. California Univ. of Pa., 156 F. 3d 488 (3rd Cir. 1998)
• Eiseman v. State of New York, 518 NYS 2d 608 (NY App. 1987)
• Erzinger v. Regents of the University of California, 137 Cal. App. 3d 389, 187 (CA App. 1982)
• Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 277 F. Supp. 649 (WD MI 1967)
• Faulkner v. Jones, 51 F. 3d 440 (4th Cir. 1995)
• Fellheimer v. Middleburry College, 869 F. Supp. 238 (D. VA 1994)
• Fleming v. New York University, 865 F. 2d 478 (2nd Cir. 1989)
• Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 US 413 (1956)
• Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 US 60 (1992)
• French v. Bashful, 303 F. Supp. 1333 (ED LA 1969)
• Furek v. University of Delaware, 594 A. 2d 506 (DE Supp. 1991)
• Gabrilowitz v. Newman, 582 F. 2d 100 (1st Cir. 1978)
• Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Sciences Center of Brooklyn, 280 F. 3d 98 (2nd Cir. 2001)
• Gay Activists Alliance v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 638 P. 2d 1116 (OK Sup. 1981)
• Gay Students Org. of the University of New Hampshire v. Bonner, 509 F. 2d 652 (1st Cir. 1974)
• Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University, 737 F. 2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1984)
• Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 US 274 (1998)
• Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 US 254 (1970)
• Good v. Associated Students, Univ. of Washington, 542 P. 2d 762 (WA Sup. 1975)
• Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin College, 135 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. MA 2001)
• Gossett v. State of Oklahoma, 245 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2001)
• Gott v. Berea College, 161 SW 204 (KY 1913)
• Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 (2003)
• Griswald v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965)
• Gross v. Lopez, 419 US 565 (SUPREME 1975)
• Grove v. Ohio State University, 424 S. Supp. 377 (D. OH 1976)
• Hall vs. Medical College of Ohio, 742 F. 2d 299 (6th Cir. 1984)
• Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., 510 US 17 (1993)
• Harwood v. Johns Hopkins, 747 A. 2d 205 (MD Spec. App. 2000)
• Healey v. James, 408 US 169 (1972)
• Healy v. Larsson, 323 NYS 2d 625 (NY Sup. 1971)
• Henson v. Honor Committee of the University of Virginia, 719 F. 2d 69 (4th Cir. 1983)
• Hickey v. Zezulka, 487 NW 2d 106 (MI Sup. 1992)
• Hill v. NCAA, 273 Cal. Rptr. 402 (CA App. Div. 1990)
• Hill v. NCAA, 865 P. 2d 633, 7 (CA Sup. 1994)
• Hogan v. Mississippi State School for Women, 458 US 718 (1982)
• Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F. 3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996)
• Jenkins v. Louisiana State Board of Education, 506 F. 2d 992 (5th Cir. 1975)
• Johnson v. Schmitz, 119 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D CO 2000)
• Joyner v. Whiting, 477 F. 2d 456 (4th Cir. 1973)
• Klein v. Smith, 635 F. Supp. 1140 (D MA 1986)
• Knoll v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, 601 NW 2d 757 (NB Sup. 1999)
• Laura O. v. State, 610 NYS 2d 826 (NY App. Div. 1994)
• Lesser v. Board of Education of New York, 1963 239 NYS 2d 776 (NY App. Div. 1963)
• Levin v. Yeshiva University, 709 NYS 2d 392 (NY App. Div. 2000)
• Long v. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 461 SE 2d 773 (NC App. Div. 1995)
• Lovelace v. Southeastern Mass, 793 F. 2d 419 (1st Cir. 1986)
• Loving v. Boren, 956 F. Supp. 953 (WD OK 1997)
• Mahavongsanan v. Hall, 529 F. 2d 448 (5th Cir. 1976)
• Mainstream Loudoun v. Bd of Trustees of Loudoun County Library, 2 F. Supp. 783 (ED VA 1998)
• Mangala v. Brown University, 135 F. 3d 80 (1st Cir. 1998)
• Matthews v. Elderidge, 424 US 319 (1976)
• McDonald v. Hogness, 598 P. 2d 707 (WA Sup. 1979)
• McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 US 273 (1976)
• Miller v. State, 478 NYS 2d 829 (NY Supp. 1984)
• Mississippi Medical Center v. Hughes, 765 So. 2d 528 (MI Supp. 2000)
• Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State University, 284 F. Supp. (MD AB 1968)
• Morale v. Grigel, 422 F. Supp. 988 (D. NH 1976)
• Morse v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 154 F. 3d 1124 (10th Cir. 1998)
• Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 449 NE 2d 331 (Mass. Supp. 1983)
• Gay Students Organization of New Hampshire v. Bonner, 509 F. 2d 652 (1st Cir. 1974)
• New York v. Ferber, 458 US 747 (1982)
• NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 US 179 (1988)
• Nogueras v. University of Puerto Rico, 890 US 179 (D. PR 1995)
• Nyquist v. Jean-Marie Mauclet, 432 US 1 (1977)
• O'Halloran v. University of Washington, 856 F. 2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1988)
• Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc. 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. ND 2004)
• Orin v. Barclay, 272 F. 3d. 1207 (9th Cir. 2001)
• Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 US 667 (1973)
• Parate v. Isibor, 868 F. 2d 821 (6th Cir. 1989)
• Perry Ed. Assoc. v. Perry Local Ed. Assoc., 460 US 37 (1983)
• Piazzola v. Watkins, 442 F. 2d 284 (5th Cir. 1971)
• PPAU of Col. & Willamette v. Am. Coalition of Life Advocates, 290 F. 3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002)
• Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982)
• Podberesky v. Kirwan, 38 F. 3d 147 (4th Cir. 1994)
• Police Department v. Mosley, 408 US 92 (1972)
• Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 507 F. 2d 775 (8th Cir. 1974)
• Pushkin v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 658 F. 2d 1372 (10th Cir. 1981)
• Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 US 844 (1997)
• Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball St. Univ., 489 NE 2d 616 (D. IN 1986)
• Roberts v. Haragan, 346 F. Supp. 2d 853 (D. TX 2004)
• Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 US 819 (1995)
• Rosenthal v. Webster University, 230 F.3d 1363 (8th Cir. 2000)
• Ross v. Creighton University, 957 F. 2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992)
• Salvador v. Bennett, 800 F. 2d 97 (7th Cir. 1986)
• Schaer v. Braneis, U. 735 NE 2d 373 (Mass. Sup. 2000)
• Sharick v. Southeastern University of the Health Sciences, 780 So. 2d 136 (D. FL 2000)
• Sharif by Salahuddin v. New York State Education Department, 709 F. Supp. 345 (D. SD 1989)
• Shelton v. Turner, 364 U.S. 479, 487 (1960)
• Shin v. MIT, LEXIS 333, at 22 (Mass. Sup. 2005)
• Smyth v. Lubbers, 398 F. Supp. 777 (WD MI 1975)
• Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 US 397 (1979)
• Speakes v. Grantham, 317 F. Supp. 1253 (SD MI 1970)
• Spartacus Youth League v. Bd. of Trustees of IL Industrial Univ., 502 F. Supp. 789 (ND IL 1980)
• Stanley v. McGrath, 719 F. 2d 279 (8th Cir. 1983)
• State v. Hunter, 831 P. 2d 1033 (UT App. Div. 1992)
• State of North Carolina v. Pendleton, 451 SE 2d 274 (NC Supp. 1994)
• State of Washington v. Chrisman, 455 US 1 (1982)
• Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 345 US 234 (1957)
• Tedeschi v. Wagner College, 402 NYS 2d 967 (NY Sup. 1978)
• Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989)
• Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503 (1969)
• Texas Lightsey v. King, 567 F. Supp. 645 (ED NY1983)
• Tully v. Orr, 608 F. Supp. 1222 (ED NY 1985)
• United States v. Fordice, 505 US 717 (1992)
• United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 976 F. 2d 890 (4th Cir. 1992)
• United States v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 793 F. 2d 636 (5th Cir. 1986)
• University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 US 390 (1981)
• United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F. 2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1990)
• Vangeli v. Schneider, 598 NYS 2d 837 (NY App. Div. 1993)
• Van Stry v. State, 479 NYS 2d 258 (NY App. Div. 1984)
• Widmar v. Vincent, 454 US 263 (1981)
• Williams v. Saxbe, 413 F. Supp. 654 (D. DC 1976)
• White v. Davis, 533 P. 2d 222 (CA Supp. 1975)
• Woods v. The Wright Institute, 141 F. 3d 1183 (9th Cir. 1998)
• Woodis v. Westark Community College, 160 F. 3d 435 (8th Cir. 1998)
• Wright v. Schreffler, 618 A. 2d 412 (PA Sup. 1992)
• Wright v. Texas Southern University, 392 F. 2d 728 (5th Cir. 1968)
• Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 976 F. 2d 791 (1st Cir. 1992)

src: slideplayer.com

External links

• navigatehighered.com: Student rights info., advocacy and student union resources
• Model Student Classroom Bill of Rights
• Occupy Education
• National Youth rights Association
• Students and Families for Higher Education Reform
• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Source of the article : Wikipedia