Search

The article discusses the court case Thompson v. The Ohio State University wherein a student's racial discrimination lawsuit against a professor was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Ohio. The judge gave summary judgment favoring the professor because the student failed to explain why or how the statistic about referring blacks for misconduct had rebutted the professor's testimony.

Case name: Dopp v. State University of New York, No. 522691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 01/07/17). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article cites a plagiarism case decided by the Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) of the U.S. Department of Education. It states that FPCO received an inquiry as to whether an institution would violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) if college teachers require students to submit their papers to a plagiarism prevention service. FPCO claimed that a university has the right to require students to submit their papers to the screening service before handling them in.

Case name: Pendleton v. Prairie View A&M University, No. 4:15-CV-736 (S.D. Texas 12/07/16). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the cheating scandal at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. It says that two students had debated in class regarding the exact wording of questions on a final examination even before the examination was distributed. The scandal was exposed when an undergraduate told her professor that other students had purchased stolen examinations. Paul Marmish, a student and honor-prosecutor, began an investigation and filed charges against 63 students. It stresses that Marmish found that five student dealers, who offered 16-18 different finals for as much as 200 dollars apiece, were the center of the scandal. However, editor David Smith called for open hearings to protect the innocent students and filed a suit against the university under the state's Sunshine Law.

Case name: Gentleman v. State University of New York, et al., No. 16-cv-2012 (E.D. N.Y. 11/21/16). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. court case Trash v. Miami University wherein African American professor Marvin Thrash filed a suit against the University for racial discrimination in his workplace. The court has ruled that the University has treated Trash the same treatment with its white faculty members. The court also ruled that it was not the function of courts to decide on super-tenure committees and overrule the university's judgment regarding academic research.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff professor complained that he was not given a pretermination hearing on a property interest in his nontenure position by the university before being dismissed. The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision of denying qualified immunity for the university. The Court found that the plaintiff's property interest on his job was not clearly established to warrant a right to a hearing.