You\u27re on Your Own, Kid…But You Shouldn\u27t Be

This article addresses the question: Should courts recognize a duty on the part of schools to implement proven strategies to reduce and prevent bullying? Nothing influences the answer to that question as understanding the nature of bullying in schools. Once understood, bullying seems less a rite of passage or builder of character and more like child abuse perpetuated by peers. The realization that many school children suffer such abuse that inflicts long-lasting and severe damage shifts the analysis from whether the problem is serious enough for courts to engage to how they might most effectively engage it. This article addresses what educational researchers mean by “bullying in schools,” its effects as well as what has long been known about proven strategies to reduce bullying. It then articulates two bases upon which courts might act to impose a duty on school officials to reduce the problem and protect students. The first theory is based on the second prong of the Tinker standard governing private student speech. The “Right of other students to be secure and to be let alone” is perfectly suited to recognition of a constitutional right of reasonable protection from peer-on-peer abuse in public schools. The second theory is based on a seldom cited comment to §320 of the Restatement of Torts where the duty of school officials to prevent bullying has been recognized for seventy years. The article concludes that both federal constitutional law and state common law require what common sense and professional competence plainly require – that school officials become serious and proactive against bullying in their schools and use proven methods for doing so

YOU’D BE OKAY IF YOU WEREN’T SO GAY: ENDING THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OF LGBT STUDENTS UNDER TITLE IX

An illogical and cruel legal fiction has taken hold in the sexual harassment jurisprudence: Title IX, the statute specifically designed to prohibit harassment based upon sex, does not apply to harassment based upon sexual orientation. Although harassment based upon failure to fulfill gender stereotypes is considered discrimination based on sex, harassment based on sexual attraction to members of one’s own sex is not discrimination based on sex. If you wonder how sexual attraction is not sex but effeminate characteristics are sex, you are not alone. This article critiques the legal fiction that leaves gays without protection from harassment that, if directed at a heterosexual, would clearly be prohibited under Title IX

YOU’D BE OKAY IF YOU WEREN’T SO GAY: ENDING THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OF LGBT STUDENTS UNDER TITLE IX

An illogical and cruel legal fiction has taken hold in the sexual harassment jurisprudence: Title IX, the statute specifically designed to prohibit harassment based upon sex, does not apply to harassment based upon sexual orientation. Although harassment based upon failure to fulfill gender stereotypes is considered discrimination based on sex, harassment based on sexual attraction to members of one’s own sex is not discrimination based on sex. If you wonder how sexual attraction is not sex but effeminate characteristics are sex, you are not alone. This article critiques the legal fiction that leaves gays without protection from harassment that, if directed at a heterosexual, would clearly be prohibited under Title IX

Surficial materials of the Waterville quadrangle, Maine

Maine Geological Survey, Open-File Map 16-7.https://digitalmaine.com/mgs_maps/2028/thumbnail.jp

HIV policy: the path forward--a joint position paper of the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American College of Physicians.

Executive Summary The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have jointly published 3 policy statements on AIDS, the first in 1986 [1], the second in 1988 [2], and the third in 1994 [3]. In 2001, the IDSA created the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), and this updated policy paper is a collaboration between the ACP and the HIVMA of the IDSA. Since the last statement, many new developments call for the need to reexamine and update our policies relating to HIV infection. First, there have been major advances in treatment for HIV infection that have transformed HIV/AIDS from a terminal illness to a chronic disease for many of those who have access to potent therapies and expert medical care [4]. Second, there has been a profound expansion and intensification of the global HIV pandemic, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, coupled with significant US leadership and resources aimed at providing prevention and care services to affected populations in developing countries. Third, the concerns that were prevalent in the mid-1990s regarding the possibility of HIV transmission in health care settings have ultimately proven to be unfounded as the result of the adoption of universal precautions in those settings. In this article, we emphasize the public health and clinical imperatives for earlier identification of persons with HIV infection; the urgent need to expand access to state-of-the-art HIV care and treatment for infected individuals; the need for access to comprehensive prevention and education for those living with and those at risk for HIV infection; and the need for stronger national leadership to respond to the HIV epidemic in the United States and in the developing world. In December 2008, the ACP and HIVMA released a guidance statement on screening for HIV infection in health care settings that recommended that clinicians adopt routine screening for HIV infection and encourage patients to be tested. Also included in the guidance statement is a recommendation that clinicians determine the need for additional screening on an individual basis

Still Disconnected: Current Failures of Statutory Approaches to Bullying Prevention in Schools

This Article will offer a brief critique of current bullying legislation and suggest changes to the legislation designed to achieve the good intentions that usually motivate such legislative efforts. It will also briefly address some of the less well-meaning legislative efforts and suggest that legislators duped by their uncharitable colleagues into passing counter-productive bullying legislation take the necessary steps to reverse the damage. Because of the brevity of this Article, I will focus primarily upon weaknesses that legislatures should address and will not discuss the strengths that can be found in a few legislative efforts to deal with bullying in schools. Section I of the Article will examine the most serious and most common flaw in anti-bullying statutes - the failure to require schools to engage in whole-school processes to transform bullying cultures. Section II will consider the counter-productive effects of crushing reporting requirements contained in some statutes, and Section III will discuss the lack of required ongoing assessments. Section IV will describe the especially troubling obstacles some legislatures have placed in the paths of LGBT students seeking protection from their bullying peers. Section V will examine constitutionally suspect definitions of bullying that give schools too much authority and too much responsibility for bullying that occurs off-campu

Dangerous Games: Student Hazing and Negligent Supervision

For years, some state courts have been willing to hold schools accountable for hazing injuries under a theory of negligent supervision. Outside the hazing context, a claim of negligent supervision will seldom help a plaintiff who has been injured by another student because courts hesitate to hold school officials liable for unanticipated tortuous acts of third parties. With regard to hazing, however, some courts are more willing to view such injuries as foreseeable and preventable, particularly if there has been a history of hazing in groups connected to the school. Where there is knowledge of hazing activities, the power to control students\u27 involvement in them, and a sufficient nexus between the activities and the school, these courts see a duty for the school to take reasonable steps to protect students from hazing. Because hazing and the resulting injuries are foreseeable, the fact that the actual hazing came at the hands of students does not preclude finding that the school\u27s failure to properly supervise students was the proximate cause of the injuries. This article analyzes existing precedent on the duty to protect students from hazing. Once that duty is recognized though, a failure to supervise must be the proximate cause of the injury before liability can lie against the school. It concludes that all schools should have anti–hazing policies in place and should make them known to students and parents. Schools that know or suspect their students are engaged in hazing activities should move quickly to stop further hazing by disciplining the students and organizations involved. They should also evaluate their current disciplinary policies and practices to be certain that future incidents are unlikely to occur. Even schools that are not currently aware of hazing among students would be well served by developing robust policies against hazing

You\u27re On Your Own, Kid... But You Shouldn\u27t Be

This article addresses the question: Should courts recognize a duty on the part of schools to implement proven strategies to reduce and prevent bullying? Nothing influences the answer to that question as understanding the nature of bullying in schools. Once understood, bullying seems less a rite of passage or builder of character and more like child abuse perpetuated by peers. The realization that many school children suffer such abuse that inflicts long-lasting and severe damage shifts the analysis from whether the problem is serious enough for courts to engage to how they might most effectively engage it. This article addresses what educational researchers mean by “bullying in schools,” its effects as well as what has long been known about proven strategies to reduce bullying. It then articulates two bases upon which courts might act to impose a duty on school officials to reduce the problem and protect students. The first theory is based on the second prong of the Tinker standard governing private student speech. The “Right of other students to be secure and to be let alone” is perfectly suited to recognition of a constitutional right of reasonable protection from peer-on-peer abuse in public schools. The second theory is based on a seldom cited comment to §320 of the Restatement of Torts where the duty of school officials to prevent bullying has been recognized for seventy years. The article concludes that both federal constitutional law and state common law require what common sense and professional competence plainly require – that school officials become serious and proactive against bullying in their schools and use proven methods for doing so