The most popular programs for the Judicial Proceeding - Education Issues type. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/browse?browse=format&id=33 en-US Copyright 2013, National Cable Satellite Corporation info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 GMT Sat, 25 May 2013 22:46:46 GMT Judicial Proceeding - Education Issues Justices heard oral arguments on two cases involving affirmative action and college admissions practices. At 10 a.m. the justices heard arguments in [Grutter v. Bollinger], a case involving admission to the University of Michigan's law school. At 11 a.m., they heard [Gratz and Hamacher v. Bollinger], a case involving admission to the University of Michigan's undergraduate program. Lee Bollinger served as the president of the University of Michigan at the start of the two suits. Among the issues in the case were the school's interest in maintaining a diverse student body, consideration of race as one of many qualifying factors, and the degree to which the school's admissions tests resembled quota systems. The U.S. Supreme Court does not permit cameras in its proceedings. This video features audio with still picture images of the participants. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/175895-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/175895-1 Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 GMT The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case of [Harper v. Poway Unified School District] in Pasadena, California. The case involved a high school student suspended for wearing a T-shirt that read "homosexuality is shameful" and references to biblical passages at an event hosted by the school's Gay-Straight Alliance Club. Arguments focused on allowable speech in the classroom, civics education, and retaining decorum and discipline in schools. Tyler Chase Harper, a high school student in San Diego, alleged his First Amendment speech was violated when he was suspended for refusing to take off a T-shirt that on the front read, "Be Ashamed" and "Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned," and on the back read, "Homosexuality is Shameful" and "Romans 1:27." He wore the T-shirt in April 2004 in protest of an event sponsored by the school. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/187077-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/187077-1 Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 GMT Following some court business including the release of an opinion by Justice Thomas and admissions to the Supreme Court Bar, attorneys made oral arguments in the case of [Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights]. The case revolved around the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that requires universities to allow military recruitment on campus or lose federal funds. Solicitor General Paul Clement argued for the Department of Defense. Joshua Rosenkranz argued for the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. A New Jersey federal court rejected FAIR's argument that the Solomon Amendment violated the First Amendment. FAIR contended that universities should not have to allow military recruitment on campus because of the exclusion of homosexuals from the military violated their non-discrimination policies. On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and ruled that the law violated the First Amendment by conditioning federal funds on allowing military recruiters on campus. Congress originally passed the Solomon Amendment in 1994. The Department of Defense interpreted the amendment as merely requiring schools to give recruiters access to the campus, but not requiring schools to affirmatively assist the recruiters. After September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) indicated that it interpreted the amendment to require schools to treat military recruiters in the same way that they treat all other employment recruiters. In 2004, Congress amended the Solomon Amendment to reflect the DoD policy. This program contained audio released by the court immediately after the arguments were presented with still images of participants as they spoke. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190181-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190181-1 Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 GMT The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case of [Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District]. The Seattle School Board adopted a plan to assign students to schools on the basis of race in an effort to overcome the effects of segregated housing patterns. Parents of children who were not assigned to the school they chose sued, questioning the validity of both the desegregation plan. The previous year, a three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit ruled that the plan violated students' rights to equal treatment. The Court agreed to rehear this case before a full panel of judges. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/187341-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/187341-1 Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 GMT This telecast of the case [Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby] was the first time television cameras were allowed to record oral arguments of the Texas State Supreme Court. The case involves equality of school financing in Texas. Mr. Mauro and Mr. Dunham offered commentary on the case before the telecast of the proceedings. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/15595-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/15595-1 Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 GMT The Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of [John Ellis Bush v. Ruth Holmes] on whether Governor Jeb Bush's school voucher program violates the state's constitution. The case centers on using public money to help students attend religious schools. The Florida constitution prohibits giving public money, directly or indirectly, to religious institutions. The lower court ruled against Governor Bush, deciding the voucher program, which had been operating since 1999, was unconstitutional. Ruth Holmes is the first name in the list of parents and groups who filed the lawsuit. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/187101-1 info@c-spanarchives.org (National Cable Satellite Corporation) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/187101-1 Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 GMT