Warriors, Machismo, and Jockstraps: Sexually Exploitative Athletic Hazing and Title IX in the Public School Locker Room

Sexually exploitative athletic hazing on boys’ athletic teams is an increasingly frequent feature in the news. The physical and psychological abuse of younger team members by those who are more senior is not just humiliating but dangerous. Indeed, some athletes are charged with crimes that are committed during hazing activities. More to the point, the features of sexually exploitative hazing have all the earmarks of sexual harassment when team leaders use sexual assaults to keep younger members in their place by feminizing them or otherwise challenging their ability to conform to a hegemonic masculine sports stereotype. Athletic hazing’s part in maintaining that hegemonic masculinity is often an outgrowth of a “tradition” and is therefore “rationally” perceived as a rite of passage to this admired masculinity. However, athletic hazing is not rational. It is not an initiation rite because junior members are already members of the team. Instead, athletic hazing is explicitly about team self-governance, and sexually exploitative hazing is a potent tool to create a team hierarchy through fear and intimidation. Given the indicia of sexual harassment in such hazing, Title IX litigation has proved an important remedy for individual boys who are brave enough to challenge the sports culture when they can no longer endure the physical and emotional abuse. But litigation is reactive, not pro-active, and Title IX’s better use may be in shaping systemic remedies in the locker room through either injunctive relief or investigation by the Office of Civil Rights. Schools have to take institutional responsibility for creating the culture that allows hazing to thrive in an inherently educational function. Thus, the cure for hazing is to make the adults in the building accountable for their devotion to an unattainable hegemonic sports masculinity and for their abdication of team governance to teenagers

Participatory Lawyering & The Ivory Tower: Conducting a Forensic Law Audit in the Aftermath of Virginia Tech

The tragic events at Virginia Tech in 2007 sent a cold wind blowing through the halls of higher education institutions: a Virginia Tech student, who had fallen through the cracks of the school\u27s mental health services and disciplinary procedures, armed himself with firearms and murdered thirty-two students and a professor before committing suicide. In the wake of that massacre, several states and individual interest groups issued reports on campus readiness for similar catastrophes. A consistent theme throughout those reports emphasized the necessity for individual institutions to review their procedures to deal with campus violence. This Article focuses on that institutional review and the role of lawyers in assisting colleges and universities in formulating better and more comprehensive procedures for preventing campus violence in general, but with an emphasis on preventing similar catastrophes, or at worst, minimizing their devastation. The lawyer has the best opportunity to assist by participating in the process rather than either dictating its conduct or reviewing the product after the fact. Preventive lawyering and collaborating with the academy are the only successful means for adequately addressing comprehensive plans that manage the risks raised by the needs of the new consumer student and that create a campus culture that does not tolerate campus violence. Specifically, this Article summarizes how the lawyer\u27s collaboration with the academy should neatly incorporate the academic ends of the institution with legal ends that could minimize both the harm and the costs of campus violence

In Loco Parentis in the Public Schools: Abused, Confused, and in Need of Change

In loco parentis is a common law doctrine that has been used to characterize the on-campus relationship between a school and its students, but its abuse has led to such absurd cases as Safford Unified School District No.1 v. Redding. Although waning in higher education, the doctrine is experiencing a resurgence in elementary and secondary schools. As originally conceived, the doctrine was used primarily to justify and defend student disciplinary actions: the school stood in the shoes of the parent and had authority to discipline, almost at will. The doctrine, however, never seemed to have a corollary in the schools\u27 responsibility for students\u27 safety. Now, in loco parentis is being reenergized to excuse violating student rights, particularly with degrading treatment in matters of search and seizure, but with little or no concomitant recognition of any responsibility to protect students from equally degrading treatment occasioned by sexual harassment and bullying. This Article discusses why this doctrine is being revived and why that revival is misguided. Part of the blame lies with courts\u27 and schools\u27 in.ability to articulate some other, more modern justification for school disciplinary policies. A larger portion of the blame, however, lies both with a careless political process that is tasking schools with more than just an educational function and with an equally careless judiciary that believes in loco parentis means it\u27s none of our business. Instead, education professionals can and should be exploring an institutional model of their relationship with students in both the treatment of and duties toward their civil rights

Citizen Teacher: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don\u27t

The recent Supreme Court case of Garcetti v. Ceballos is becoming one of the most-used cases in its mere two-year history. It denies to public employees the protection of the First Amendment when speaking in their official duties. In reviewing the cases both leading up to and then relying oh Garcetti, one is struck by the inherent conflict that nowpermeates some school board-employee relationships. Whereas preceding cases attempted to reach a balance between the school board and its employees\u27 speech rights, bad management practices now seem to trump the First Amendment. Such practices have school boards discharging teachers and administrators for speaking out truthfullyon matters of fiscal mismanagement, student discipline, and similar school district problems. In the context of those cases, this Article posits that being seduced by the weapon of Garcetti \u27s absolute power will create unanticipated and legal consequences to both school boards and the educational institution itsel

Jack and Jill Go to Court: Litigating a Peer Sexual Harassment Case Under Title IX

Title IX peer sexual harassment cases present challenges to litigators because of the unique educational environment in which these cases arise. This Article attempts to educate litigators on the prima facie case, evidentiary issues, and the overall presentation of peer sexual harassment cases