A high school in New Jersey is under fire after someone edited a photo of Grant Berardo in the yearbook without telling him. On picture day, Berardo wore a black t-shirt with the text, “TRUMP: Make America Great Again” on the chest. When he saw the result in the yearbook, he realized the text was gone. Now his parents are demanding answers and one teacher is suspended.

Critics are accusing the school, Wall Township High School, of censoring the kids and violating their First Amendment rights. Two other students also had their photos edited. Wyatt Dobrovich-Fago had a small Trump logo on his vest, and his sister Montana wanted to insert a Trump quote under her freshman class president photo. But both were missing in the final version of the yearbook.

A New Jersey high school is under fire for erasing Trump slogans from its yearbook https://t.co/8mAxFHin1H pic.twitter.com/XrPTkEaRfk

— CNN (@CNN) June 12, 2017

Now the parents of the affected students want the school to issue new yearbooks, including an explanation of what happened. According to Berardo’s father, Joseph, his son was very disappointed as this was the first election he was interested in. The school’s Superintendent Cheryl Dyer said one teacher who was overseeing the production of the yearbook has been suspended.

In a statement on its website, the school points out that there is nothing in the school’s dress code that prohibits students from expressing political views. The digital removal of the Trump slogans and logos was nothing the school’s administration was aware of. And the name of the specific teacher that was suspended has not been released. The statement said:

The allegations referenced above are disturbing, and any inappropriate challenge to these principles will be rectified as swiftly and thoroughly as possible. The actions of the staff involved will be addressed as soon as the investigation is concluded.

To the Berardos, it was peculiar that no one told Grant that there was a problem with his t-shirt to begin with. His mother Tammy works at the school and someone could easily have told her in time for him to re-take the photo. When the family received the photos by mail, the logo was still there. It was just in the final yearbook that it was gone, without any explanation.

Berardo’s father Joseph said that he doesn’t like excessive political correctness. “It gets in the way of meaningful discourse. And, frankly, I hate being on the other side of it now,” he said, referring to being the “victim.” He thinks that ultimately the whole conflict is a matter of freedom of speech. “And if we come to find out they blacked-out Clinton or Sanders shirts, that’s just as egregious,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey School Accused of Removing Trump Logo from Yearbook Photos appeared first on Law Street.

Students attending a suburban Chicago high school were hospitalized on Tuesday after eating gummy bears that authorities suspect to have been tainted.

The Naperville High School students hospitalized suffered varying degrees of illness, including rapid heart rate, dizziness, and dry mouth. The school encouraged parents to have an open dialogue with their children about healthy choices in a statement posted to Facebook on Tuesday night.

Today at Naperville North High School, 14 students were transported to Edward Hospital for medical treatment. We can confirm 12 are being treated as a result of consuming gummy bears that may contain another substance.

This candy made those students both uncomfortable and sick, so they were taken to the nurse’s office for care. For safety precautions, the students were transported to Edward Hospital to receive medical attention. Each student had varying degrees of discomfort and subsequent treatment.

Currently, 2 students are in stable condition and are undergoing evaluation, while 11 have been treated and released. They have been experiencing symptoms that include fast heart rate, dizziness and dry mouth.

We encourage all parents to have conversations with their children about making healthy choices. Our community is fortunate to have a number of resources available through school and other community partners to support the wellbeing of students.

We continue to review the specifics of the situation and will address it appropriately. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your school’s principal.

Students told police that they thought the gummy bears were “laced with something with marijuana, like a liquid-based marijuana substance,” said Naperville Police commander Jason Arres. Authorities determined that the gummy bears were ingested voluntarily, but investigations are underway to determine how the gummy bears were distributed.

According to local news station WLS, a 17-year-old male student was taken into custody, but released without being charged.

“There are a lot of avenues that we can take with juvenile discipline,” Arres said. “Again they’re young, so we want to work through these issues in partnership and collaboration with the school district to make sure the punishment fits the crime.”

One Facebook user commented on the Naperville Police Department’s post and suggested the students might have fallen victim to the notorious Haribo sugar-free gummy bears, which online reviewers have complained made them feel ill.

But this doesn’t seem to be the case.

The Naperville incident appears to be the latest in a string of cases where students have sought medical attention after consuming drug-laced candy. Similar reports have appeared in a variety of states–from Pennsylvania to Florida. It seems that students are slowly realizing a “harmless treat” isn’t always as it seems.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Students Hospitalized After Consuming ‘Laced’ Gummy Bears appeared first on Law Street.

Students in New Jersey’s Ridgefield Park School District can now legally receive medical marijuana treatments while on school grounds thanks to a recent Board of Education ruling.

The measure approved Wednesday permits parents or guardians to administer medical marijuana to students while on school grounds, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored event. Governor Chris Christie signed the legislation earlier this month in an effort to allow caregivers the ability to give edible medical marijuana to their sick and disabled children–the law specifically prohibits smoking marijuana.

In order to legally receive the drug, a child must be diagnosed with a developmental disability, and be a registered patient with the state medicinal marijuana program.

The bill was inspired by Roger and Lora Barbour’s fight to allow their 16-year-old daughter Genny to bring her medicine to school. Genny, who was diagnosed with autism and severe epilepsy, takes prescribed cannabis oil multiple times a day to treat her seizures. Since she began the regimen, she has been seizure-free.

Medical marijuana is now legal in 28 states, and four states, including New Jersey, Colorado, Maine, and Washington, have legislation specifically regarding schools.

According to NorthJersey.com, parents will need to submit a written request to the principal to have a primary caregiver administer the drug while on school property. The principal, school nurse, and superintendent will review each request to determine approval.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey BOE Approves Medical Marijuana on School Grounds appeared first on Law Street.

Forty-one Nigerian students have sued Alabama State University for misusing their government’s scholarship money, overcharging the students, and treating them “like animals.” Though it is one of America’s historically black colleges, the students think discrimination was a contributory factor. “I’m a black man and I’m proud to be black, but I felt discriminated against,” said former student Jimmy Iwezu to The Daily Beast. He also said the school called him and his fellow Nigerian schoolmates “cash cows”.

Students Godsgift Moses, Promise Owei, Thankgod Harold, Success Jumbo, Savior Samuel and others, came to America thanks to generous scholarships for four years of college from the Nigerian government. The government paid around $30,000–$35,000 per student per year—to cover tuition, books, room and board and any other expenses. But instead of forwarding excess money to the students’ accounts, the University held on to the money.

Nigerian students sue Alabama University for treating them ‘like animals’ https://t.co/eQNpI9WW4g via @todayng pic.twitter.com/JHpbbCWuP6

— Nigeria Newsdesk (@NigeriaNewsdesk) September 12, 2016

According to the students’ lawyer Julian McPhillips, who first filed a lawsuit in April that was dismissed, these students were treated differently from other attendees. The scholarship money that is supposed to go to the students was instead used to help solve the school’s “bond issues,” pay for a new stadium, and create a new civil rights awareness center.

The Nigerian students were not allowed to eat anywhere other than the school cafeteria and their scholarship funds were charged for living in the school’s dorms even if they didn’t live there. The cost for living on campus was also allegedly raised specifically for the Nigerian students, who had to pay $3,000 per semester. One student named Success Jumbo was married and lived off campus, but the school took money from his scholarship for dorm expenses anyway, instead of transferring the money to his personal account to use for his actual rent. Jumbo told the Montgomery Advertiser:

I got married May 2014. I’ve approached ASU on several occasions, I even took my wife and my baby to them and said, ‘Look, I no longer live on campus. I believe you guys understand the importance of being married. I need to get this money so I can use it to pay for my housing elsewhere.’

“The school compelled us to buy books from the book store and eat only at the cafeteria,” said Iwezu. “I tried to make them understand, ‘Hey, we don’t want to live in the dorms anymore, and we don’t want to eat our entire meals at the dorms.”

After complaining and demanding a refund for the students, McPhillips received an answer from the school–its officials said: “there is no financial agreement between the University and the individual Nigerian students,”–and the request was denied. Another student was charged for summer school after he graduated that he never attended or even applied to.

“They had me as if I was going to school this summer. I asked them, ‘I graduated in May, so where is the scholarship money my government gives to you?’” said Kehinde Batife.

But the students won’t give up–on the other hand, they’re more determined than ever to fight for their cause. Batife said: “I cannot forget about this and I’m ready to fight the school, even if it means 10 years from now I’m still fighting to get justice.”

“I want justice to prevail, and the remaining money should go to [Nigeria’s] Treasury and make a better life for other Nigerians,” concluded Iwezu.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nigerian Students Sue Alabama University For Using Up Their Money appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

The next Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) is scheduled for September 24, 2016. Studying for the LSAT can be challenging, and there’s a lot of misinformation out there. So, Law Street has teamed up with TestMax, the creator of leading test prep apps LSATMax and BarMax to debunk some common LSAT myths. Check them out in the slideshow below:

You Can’t Study for the LSAT: True or False?

The LSAT is a test that measures things like logic, analytical reasoning, and reading comprehension. So, you might be wondering: is it even possible to study for the LSAT?

Yes! The idea that there’s nothing you can do to study for the LSAT is a total myth.

via GIPHY

It’s definitely a difficult test, but all of the material is learnable through practice and repetition. LSATMax’s founder, for example, started in the 140s but ended up with a 174 and a Harvard Law degree.

The problem isn’t the LSAT, but rather the myriad of subpar prep tools and strategies. So make sure you use something with a proven track record of success–like LSATMax, the app that gives you lifetime access to a comprehensive LSAT course on your phone, tablet and/or computer, so you can prep anywhere.

TestMax

LSATMax by TestMax is the top-rated comprehensive LSAT prep course available in the App Store, Google Play Store, and Amazon App Store, with online options also available. TestMax is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Studying for the LSAT: Myths vs. Facts appeared first on Law Street.

Armed men attacked the American University of Afghanistan in Kabul on Wednesday, while trapped students tweeted for help from inside the school. Gunshots and explosions were heard as hundreds of students and foreign staff members were trapped inside the campus.

According to Reuters, 12 people, of which seven were students, were killed in the attack. An additional 44 people were wounded. So far, no organization has taken responsibility for the attack.

One man who managed to escape the violence told the New York Times that the sound of gunfire made many students rush out through the emergency exits. Shortly after that, they heard an explosion. Two of his friends were injured and hospitalized; one jumped from a window, and one was shot in his back.

Ambulances and security forces quickly arrived at the university, and a team of police officers entered. Gunfire started again shortly after that and two attackers were killed. Even though the attack happened at night, many were still on campus taking evening classes after work.

Police officer Ahmad Jawad told the New York Times that someone detonated a car bomb outside of the school for the blind, which is adjacent to the American University. The attackers seem to have entered that school and then start shooting at the university.

In the early moments of the attack, students as well as relatives and friends on the outside desperately called for help on social media. A pillar of smoke was seen above the university during the attack. This picture from war correspondent Mustafa Kazemi shows the view from a distance.

Photo attributed to the attack on American University of Afghanistan in Kabul pic.twitter.com/EVunzOpyd3

— KAZEMI, Mustafa (@CombatJourno) August 24, 2016

Reporter: Fires on American University campus in Kabul; witnesses hear blast, gunfire. https://t.co/UBfOhQUFFapic.twitter.com/2lYGeLDL5x

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) August 24, 2016

Pulitzer Prize winner and AP photographer Massoud Hossaini was among the people on campus when the shooting started but escaped with minor injuries.

Afghanistan’s 24-hours news network TOLOnews posted updates about the situation.

#AUAF UPDATE – Relatives of wounded students donate blood at the Kabul Emergency Hospital

— TOLOnews (@TOLOnews) August 24, 2016

The American University in Afghanistan has been open since 2006 and has been an important symbol of partnership between Afghanistan and the United States. The U.S. funds many scholarships for Afghans to study there, including many for women.

On August 7, two professors, one American and one Australian, at the American University were kidnapped by a criminal group according to ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqqi. It remains unknown whether there is a connection between that kidnapping and the recent attack.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Armed Men With Explosives Attack American University in Kabul appeared first on Law Street.

The University of Missouri assistant professor who sparked nationwide controversy for yelling at a student reporter is in the spotlight and raising ethical questions yet again.

Assistant communications professor Melissa Click can be seen on a recently released Columbia Police Department video cursing at a cop who is attempting to clear a road for cars during the Mizzou homecoming parade in October. The footage was taken with two cops’ body cameras.

The footage, first published by the Columbia Missourian, shows Click as a part of a group of student demonstrators who were linked arms blocking the road. The cop can be seen trying to usher the group off of the road and onto the sidewalk in order to allow the parade to continue.

In November, Click, a communications teacher, was captured on video calling for a student journalist to be ejected from a protest site on campus. She requested “some muscle” to help her kick the student out. This incident caused many to call for her dismissal from the university.

So why are her actions especially troublesome and still being talked about now?

Well, what is increasingly frustrating while watching the 12-minute video from November is that the protest as a whole was completely overshadowed by the actions of the professor and the students that she didn’t wish to correct. Instead of a commendable peaceful protest being documented and praised, that message was lost in the actions of few.

Click, while not the center of the entire video, played a vital role in the fact that she did not aid the student reporters by allowing them to do their job. She of all people should have been able to understand their rights just as she understood the rights of the protesters.

All of a sudden the possible headline of “Peaceful Activists Protest for Black Lives Matter Movement,” turned into “Professor Needs Muscle to Block Student Journalists.” And that is really a shame.

The lack of trust of the media is understandable, but should you really shut out someone for trying to accurately document your protest just because they are a journalist? Is it worth the negative backlash from the country just to push a student reporter around whose ‘agenda’ is just to take photos from the event? Not only did the actions of those shown in the video hinder their cause, but it shed such a poor light on the university and the protesters, when it didn’t have to.

What is even more of a shame is the lack of understanding of basic rights. Students were screaming that the photographer, Tim Tai, had to back up and could not legally be there and photograph the event. He was surrounded and barricaded from what was going on and at times pushed by protesters. The right that the students were citing as to why they should be left alone to protest is the same right that allows the journalists to be there documenting what is going on. In addition, they were in public space–which grants the photographer and videographer the right to document freely.

What strikes me most are the ethical dilemmas that come with this debate. As a teacher who is up for tenure, a heavily sought-after academic position, Click will surely be hearing about these two incidents during her deliberations. I hope the board members ask themselves, can she be an effective communications professor if she has gotten herself into these communications conundrums? How can she teach a topic that she herself doesn’t seem to have mastered in her practice? It is certainly hard to support her in her communications endeavors when she curses at cops and calls for the obstruction of the media from a protest on public property.

Check out the November incident in full below (I highly recommend watching the entire video):

And check out the video of the October incident below:

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mizzou Teacher Melissa Click Seen Cursing at Cops, Raises Ethical Concerns Again appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier today, the hashtag #ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet began trending, prompting tons of funny, serious, and occasionally thought-provoking responses. Those who used the hashtag appeared to fall into two camps–some college students used it to lament the economic climate they’ve inherited–citing “affordable tuition,” “jobs,” and “a break” as things they don’t get. But there was also a way louder voice using the hashtag–those who are critical of college students following recent instances of contentious protests about race and equality across the country, most notably Mizzou and Yale. The hashtag is an interesting look into the generational divide in the U.S. that may be widening even further.

Let’s take a look at the tweets from those who believe that college students are overly sensitive:

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet that college is unbelievably easy, your degree impresses no one, and real life has no “safe spaces”

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) December 14, 2015

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet A job after majoring in Lesbian Dance Theory.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 14, 2015

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet You can’t be anti capitalism and post on twitter with your Iphone.

— Cyborgwolf (@Cyborgwolf) December 14, 2015

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet The first amendment, apparently. — ScottInSC (@ScottInSC) December 14, 2015

The narrative that college students have become increasingly over-sensitive is a popular one right now. Pew conducted a widely-circulated poll that appeared to indicate that it’s true–40 percent of millennial respondents answered that the government should be allowed to limit speech that is offensive to minorities. In contrast, only 27 percent of Gen X-ers felt that way, as well as 24 percent of boomers, and 12 percent of the silent generation.

In light of the recent protests at Mizzou, Yale, and other schools, many (mostly conservative) writers and thinkers pointed to that Pew poll as evidence that millennials were overly sensitive and didn’t appreciate or understand the First Amendment. But is the concept that young people, particularly college students, are way more likely to be offended a fair assessment? Not so fast–these numbers can’t be taken out of context, and this is way more nuanced than a straight up-and-down vote on free speech. Jesse Singal, of NY Magazine, pointed out that the numbers reported by Pew weren’t some sort of crazy outlier just happening with American millennials. Singal stated, in regards to American tendencies when discussing free speech attitudes:

They’ve shown over and over again that they favor free speech in theory, when asked about it in the broadest terms, but they also tend to be fairly enthusiastic about government bans on forms of speech they find particularly offensive (what’s considered offensive, of course, changes with the times). On this subject, millennials are right in line with reams of past polling, and it would be wrong to hold up last week’s results as an example of anything other than an extremely broad tendency that’s existed for a long time.

There’s also not necessarily compelling evidence that college environments are turning our young people toward reactionary sensitivity. Michael McGough, of the Los Angeles Times, pointed out that “it seems that college students and college graduates are less prone to support punishment of ‘offensive’ speech than those who haven’t attended college.”

But this isn’t just all about numbers–there is, generally speaking, a legitimate and frustrating ideological split among older Americans and younger Americans when it comes to things like free speech and what constitutes “offensive.” #ThingsCollegeStudentsDontGet seems to be a manifest of that frustration–and indicative of the fact that the generational divide on social issues is very much alive and well. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet: Twitter Users Slam Millennials appeared first on Law Street.

I don’t know that we need a new think piece on the controversy on Mizzou, or on the email backlash at Yale. We don’t need to publish another op-ed on the developments at Ithaca and at Clairmont McKenna. You don’t need another talking head questioning whether this will be a growing trend among college students. Counterpoints to counterpoints, unsubstantiated claims on both sides of the aisle, social media feuds–we have plenty of all of those. And we especially don’t need these things from a privileged white girl a few years out of college who has no academic background in these issues nor any connection to any of these places, and can’t possibly know what students, particularly students of color, are experiencing there.

So ironically–here’s my opinion: all of us who aren’t at Mizzou, Yale, Ithaca, or Clairmont McKenna, let’s all just shut up for a few. Seriously. Let’s take a couple of minutes and shut the hell up, put our metaphorical pens down, and listen instead. Let’s listen to the people who are there.

This isn’t to say that I don’t have my own opinions–I do. I freely share them in my personal life.  I stand #InSolidarityWithYale, #InSolidaritywithMizzou, I try my best to be an ally, with the recognition that I don’t always do as good job as I could. And I don’t pretend to know what will fix these clearly deep seated, uncomfortable, and visceral problems in American society.

But in my professional life, I’m hesitant to share these, because I can only imagine that my voice adds to that tangled mess of op-eds, thinkpieces, and social media snippets that I believe no longer make a difference.

Here’s the thing: a lot of the people who write these pieces, like me, probably have an opinion. They probably feel strongly about one side of the debate or another. But they also realize something–we as writers and journalists in this 24/7 news cycle are tasked to write about the things that people are talking about. There are trending hashtags and search engine optimization, and I’m not saying that everyone who has written their opinion about these controversies in recent days are doing so because they want to get clicks to their respective media outlets, but I’ve got to think that it is a motivating factor for at least some. And as long as we in the media can keep pushing both sides of the controversy, as long as we add to the din of voices overshadowing the students, the faculties, and the people who really matter, the less we listen.

Regardless of how you feel about the protests at Mizzou, Yale, Ithaca, Clairmont McKenna, regardless of how you feel about the way they’ve been conducted (which frankly, is none of most of our businesses), and regardless of your opinion on overall college culture–these things don’t happen by accident. Students don’t just decide to fabricate how they feel, protest, or push for change for no reason. By speaking over them–by putting the media’s voices over theirs–we perpetuate the problem of no one listening. We need to listen to them, and quiet our voices so that other people listen too. Because that’s the only way that their voices are going to be heard and allow the conversations that so desperately need to be had.

So, with all the weight of that hypocritical lecture, I’m going to shut up and listen. I hope you do the same.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fellow Writers: Let’s Shut Up about Mizzou and Yale appeared first on Law Street.

College students are big partiers–that’s no secret. But their vice of choice may be changing. Marijuana use is up among college students, surpassing cigarettes for the first time. Even more surprisingly, rates of alcohol abuse are also falling.

The study looked at 1,500 students at two and four year universities around the country in order to reach its conclusions. According to the study, habitual cigarette usage among students is down to about five percent, a sizable drop from years past. Just 16 years ago, in 1999, 19 percent of college students reported daily cigarette use. On the other hand, almost six percent of college students use marijuana daily. That’s the highest rate since 1980, when data reporting marijuana use among college students was first reported.

The rate of students using marijuana semi-regularly is also up. According to the Chicago Tribune: “Twenty-one percent of the college students surveyed said they had used marijuana at least once during the previous month, and 34 percent said they had used it in the past year.”

Incidences of dangerous drinking among college students are also decreasing. Binge drinking among college students, defined as having five or more drinks in a row in the past two weeks has dropped  from 44 percent in 1984 to 35 percent in 2014. Extreme binge drinking, which is defined as “having had 15 or more drinks in a row at least once in the previous two weeks,” is falling. Only five percent of students reported that behavior in this year’s study.

But this news isn’t unique to college students. This sort of shift is consistent with the general population’s views on cigarettes and marijuana. Now that multiple states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and medical use is all but commonplace in many other states, the use of weed is becoming more and more acceptable. A majority of Americans–a slim majority, but a majority all the same–believe that recreational marijuana should be legalized for adults. Additionally, a majority of Americans believe that alcohol is more dangerous to an individual’s health than marijuana. And possibly most strikingly, almost exactly half of Americans have tried marijuana at some point in their lives.

Of course as weed becomes more acceptable generally nationwide, it’s important that the risks that are still associated with marijuana, particularly for young people, are not overly minimized. Some studies have raised concerns that for young people whose brains are still developing, marijuana can have some negative long term effects.

That being said, overall there’s a lot of good news in the study. Alcohol and cigarettes have long been consumed at worrisome levels by college students. College students will probably always partake in illegal substances, but changes to the ways in which they do so will probably continue to reflect the national zeitgeist when it comes to drug and alcohol acceptance.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Students Are Smoking More Marijuana, Fewer Cigarettes appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best of the week from lawyers and law students on Twitter in the slideshow below.

Whistle When Angry

My judge once told me to whistle when angry at work. Feel like a dwarf following Snow White today after so much whistling. #lawyering

— Ryan Ashley (@Ripe_Ryan) June 15, 2015

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The NCAA’s amateurism rule is rubbish. On its website, the college athletics governing body claims it has “adopted amateurism rules to ensure the students’ priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably.” The page goes on to list all the things student athletes are not allowed to do under the principle of amateurism, including:

1. Salaries for participating in athletics;
2. Contracts with professional teams;
3. Benefits from an agent or a prospective agent;
4. Agreement to be represented by an agent; and
5. Tryouts, practice, or competition with a professional team.

In the meantime, the University of Texas basketball program collected more than $165 million in revenue for the 2013-2014 season, according to the Office of Postsecondary Education. Forbes values its football program at a cool $139 million, while the NCAA as a whole made nearly $913 million for the fiscal year 2013.

If the NCAA is starting to sound like a cartel, that’s because it is. By definition, a cartel is an agreement between competing firms to fix prices. A long time ago, colleges got together and decided not to pay players, fixing the salaries of their student-athlete employees at zero for the benefit of NCAA and participating universities’ leadership.

So then, it becomes evident that the NCAA needs to get rid of its amateurism rule. Fortunately, the rule is already under assault in the court room.

In a March 2014 National Labor Relations Board decision, Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr ruled that a group of Northwestern University football players are eligible to form a union on the basis that players devote as many as 50 hours a week to football, and that scholarships, which can be terminated yea to year and require student athletes to adhere to certain guidelines, are a contract for compensation.

In an August 2014 California District Court decision, Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that “NCAA rules unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools” in a case involving a former UCLA basketball star who claimed the NCAA and EA Sports violated his right to use his image for marketing purposes when his image was used in a video game without his consent and without compensation.

Nevertheless, there are numerous arguments against compensating student athletes.

Some argue that a vast majority of athletic programs at universities are losing money and need help from their basketball and football programs to stay afloat. Compensating student athletes, they contend, will force athletic departments across the country to cut programs.

Tough luck. We live in a capitalist society where businesses close every day because they fail to make a profit. If a university believes that maintaining these programs leads to more donations from alumni, fine, fund them through donations. But student athletes contributing to profitable programs should not be punished for the financial woes of their unprofitable counterparts.

Others argue that scholarships reasonably compensate student athletes.

No, they don’t. In a Drexel University and National College Players Association study, the average Division I college basketball player would earn $266,000 per year, and the average Division I football player would earn $114,000 per year, if players received 50 percent of the revenue earned by their respective programs, which is approximately the revenue sharing model of the NBA and NFL.

Still, others argue that high school athletes have the right to decide whether or not they want to accept a scholarship and be bound by NCAA regulations.

Well, the NBA enforces a 19-year age minimum for draftees, and the NFL requires its draftees to be three years removed from high school. With the emergence of European and Chinese leagues, some high school basketball stars have opted to spend their last years of ineligibility abroad. With no comparable foreign football leagues, football stars are out of luck.

There is yet another denomination of people who argue that the NFL’s three-year rule protects young athletes who are more susceptible to injuries such as concussions.

In most states, minors become legal adults at the age of 18, and the legal age of consent is 16. High school football players are well aware of the risks associated with playing the sport, and they should have the option to get paid millions of dollars to take on the higher risks of playing professionally with better athletes, or receive scholarships and develop their skills in a less physical college setting.

Consequently, the most sensible solution to the NCAA amateurism problem is for the NBA and NFL to eliminate their age requirements. Unfortunately, college athletics function as a phenomenal developmental league for professional leagues that professional franchises do not have to pay for.

So, as long as these age requirements are in place, amateurism in college athletics is dead. The NCAA needs to stop pretending that its student athletes are students first, athletes second, and open up its leagues to all the intricacies of the free market.

Doing so may involve sports agents that specialize in college athletes, or a free agency period where eligible players can transfer to other universities. The market will invariably take many twists and turns before it settles into a final model, but it will certainly be better than a system in which a cartel blatantly exploits the services of helpless college athletes.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Capitalism and College Sports: Time to Pay Student Athletes appeared first on Law Street.

One of the biggest hurdles to overcome in terms of providing education for lower-income American children is the sheer lack of resources and money that some schools and states have to spend on things like books and libraries. However, a new plan proposed by the Obama Administration–and involving the help of large book publishers and others–is aimed at closing some of those gaps. The new goal is to provide thousands of free e-books for low-income children.

The initiative was proposed by President Obama at Anacostia Library, part of a low-income neighborhood in Southeast Washington, D.C.

The plan has a lot of high profile players involved. In addition to the Obama Administration, the five major publishers–Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck’s Macmillan, CBS Corp’s Simon & Schuster Inc, Penguin Random House, Lagardere SCA’s Hachette Book Group Inc, and News Corp’s HarperCollins Publishers LLC–have all signed on to help. Overall, 10,000 books will be added to the list that will be provided to low-income children via an e-book format. The books will be chosen from volunteers from the Digital Public Library of America. Yet another organization lending a hand will be the New  York Public Library, which has agreed to develop the application through which the children will be able to access the works. Overall, the plan allots $250 million for the project.

Both libraries and schools are beginning to provide more hardware so that students can access the internet–presumably these e-books would be read on those. This is part of Obama’s ConnectEd program, which encourages using technology to promote and further the American education system. Additionally, tech leader Apple recently pledged to donate $100 million in tech devices to lower-income schools.

One of Obama’s domestic policy advisors, Cecilia Muñoz, pointed out how odd this push for e-books may seem to older American generations, stating:

It’s very different than from our generation. More and more, you’re going to be seeing kids using devices, and what we’re doing is making sure that there’s more books available on those devices.

That assessment does seem accurate. But given that low-income families have significantly less access to the internet and corresponding devices with which to access it, the move to incorporate schools and libraries into the plan is a good call.

The exact specifics of the plan seem to still be up in the air. Whether or not the books will only be accessible in some places, for example, such as libraries or schools, or whether children with accessible devices will be able to access them at home, doesn’t seem to be set in stone. Whether or not the books will be “loaned” like from a library, or distributed freely also seems undecided.

Regardless of how those details are sorted out, however, this certainly seems like a good move to provide more students with access to books. Moreover, the partnership with publishing companies and public institutions is laudable. Someday I hope we can reach a point where every child has access to all the resources he or she needs to reach educational success–this is a small, but great step, in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Education Initiative to Provide Free E-Books For Low-Income Students appeared first on Law Street.

Lawsuits, crime, and drugs ruled the news last week and the most popular articles at Law Street were no exception. The #1 article of the week, from Anneliese Mahoney, detailed the suit over royalties earned by “50 Shades of Gray” won by a woman in Texas; #2, also from Mahoney, covers the explosive news out of Chicago that there is a secret ‘black site’ where Americans are held outside of the justice system; and #3, from Alexis Evans, is the story from Wesleyan University where nearly a dozen students were hospitalized in apparent Molly overdoses. ICYMI, here is the Best of the Week from Law Street.

#1 Texas Woman Wins Big “50 Shades of Grey” Royalties Lawsuit

It seems like one of the most popular topics of conversation these days is the movie version of the erotic novel sensation “Fifty Shades of Grey.” (Spoiler alert: It’s really bad. I went hoping to make fun of it and have a few laughs, and it was too awful to even laugh at.) But one woman may be laughing soon–laughing all the way to the bank, that is. An Arlington, Texas woman named Jennifer Lynn Pedroza just won a major “Fifty Shades” related lawsuit. Read full article here.

#2 Chicago “Black Site” Allegations Yet Another Example of Police Brutality

News of a secret detention facility in Chicago broke this week and it’s sparking horror and outrage across the country. This “black site,” revealed by the Guardian, is a nightmare image straight out of a post-apocalyptic movie. People are “arrested” and taken to this site, which is inside a warehouse in Chicago’s Homan Square. Then they are subjected to inhumane treatment. They aren’t afforded the rights that the U.S. Constitution promises all of us. Read full article here.

#3 Mass Molly Overdose Hospitalized 11 Wesleyan Students

Connecticut’s Wesleyan University was flooded with sirens Sunday night as almost a dozen students were rushed to hospitals after reportedly overdosing on the party drug commonly known as Molly, or MDMA. The exact number of alleged victims varies, with police reporting that 11 students were hospitalized for the drug, while Wesleyan University President Michael S. Roth reported the figure as ten students and two visitors in a letter sent to students Monday morning. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college education in this country has gotten extremely pricey. For more and more students, the only possible way to gain a higher education is to apply for student loans. Unfortunately, many of the students who take out loans then have a difficult time paying them back. The Department of Education used to employ debt collection companies to track down that money. However, the Department of Education just announced that it will be no longer contracting five of those companies, after they provided inaccurate information to borrowers.

The companies whose contracts are being terminated are Pioneer Credit Recovery, Coast Professional, Enterprise Recovery Systems, National Recoveries, and West Asset Management. According to Bloomberg the reasoning for the decision included findings that:

The companies gave borrowers misleading information about ‘the benefits to the borrowers’ credit report’ and about ‘the waiver of certain collection fees,’ the agency said.

It appears that the Department of Education isn’t going to cut its work off with these five companies overnight. Rather, its planning on “winding down” the contracts and transferring them to other companies.

This is a good public relations move for the Department of Education. The department has long been under fire for working with the debt collection companies. Various watchdogs have accused the Department of Education of turning a blind eye to the companies’ practices. For example, the Government Accountability Office, the part of the U.S. government which investigates and evaluates other departments’ practices, claims that the Department of Education found the debt collectors violated the federal law yet didn’t do anything about it.

However, the five debt collection companies are claiming that they were “blindsided” by the Department of Education’s decision. Pioneer Credit Recovery claimed that it had been told last April that it was complying with various regulations. Pioneer also claimed that the Department of Education had conducted 17 different reviews over the course of 2014, and never brought up any concerns or violations to Pioneer.

This decision comes during the middle of a nationwide discussion on student loans, and the viability of for-profit universities. Earlier this week, a letter written by 15 students who attended the for-profit Corinthian Colleges network was shared around the internet. The so called “Corinthian 15” are asking the Department of Education for loan forgiveness. The letter includes the following:

We trusted that education would lead to a better life. And we trusted you to ensure that the education system in this country would do so. But Corinthian took advantage of our dreams and targeted us to make a profit. You let it happen, and now you cash in.

Each month you force us to make payments into an immoral system that profits from our aspirations.

We paid dearly for degrees that have led to unemployment or to jobs that don’t pay a living wage. We can’t and won’t pay any longer.

It’s a powerful message to the Department of Education, and while the department’s move away from predatory debt collectors is a good thing, it’s just a very small step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Department of Education Dumping Misleading Debt Collectors appeared first on Law Street.

Connecticut’s Wesleyan University was flooded with sirens Sunday night as almost a dozen students were rushed to hospitals after reportedly overdosing on the party drug commonly known as Molly, or MDMA.

The exact number of alleged victims varies, with police reporting that 11 students were hospitalized for the drug, while Wesleyan University President Michael S. Roth reported the figure as ten students and two visitors in a letter sent to students Monday morning.

According to the university’s student newspaper, The Wesleyan Argus, two all-campus emails were sent to students providing updates from Vice President for Student Affairs Michael Whaley. The first email reported:

A Wesleyan sophomore was transported to Middlesex Hospital early this morning and is in critical condition as a result of an apparent overdose. Two other students were transported in less serious condition but with similar symptoms.

In a second email sent out in the early afternoon, Whaley informed students that three more individuals had been hospitalized due to complications from using the drug. The email urged students to check in on one another for their safety. Whaley would later report to the Argus that the number of hospitalized students had risen to 11, as some students began to admit themselves on their own volition.

For many this mass overdose may come as a surprise since Molly is assumed to be a much safer alternative over harder substances like cocaine and heroin. The truth is this supposedly purer form of ecstasy is often not what it says it is, but instead a potentially lethal cocktail. In a CNN article about the 9 things everyone should know about the drug Molly, writers explain:

Someone who buys or takes Molly now is probably ingesting dangerous synthetic drugs that have not been tested and are produced in widely varying strengths. The DEA says only 13% of the Molly seized in New York state the last four years actually contained any MDMA, and even then it often was mixed with other drugs. The drugs frequently found in Molly are Methylone, MDPV, 4-MEC, 4-MMC, Pentedrone and MePP.

At least two individuals still remain in critical condition at Hartford Hospital, but none have reportedly passed.

There are still so many questions that surround the mysterious mass overdose that need to be answered, such as: why were so many students doing Molly that night, were these students together, and where was the drug consumed?

According to the Hartford Courant, Capt. Gary Wallace stated that a Middletown detective was on his way to Hartford Hospital to get more information about the students.

The story is still developing, but our hopes are that kids on this campus see this freak incident as warning of the dangers of taking unknown substances. Life is better than any high.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mass Molly Overdose Hospitalized 11 Wesleyan Students appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who went to public school (and probably a decent chunk of the children who went to private school, as well) remember school lunch time. You file into the cafeteria, grab one of the brightly colored plastic trays, and then take whatever they give you, with maybe a scant handful of options along the way. Of course, some students bring lunch, and others have dietary concerns–in middle school I ordered a peanut butter and jelly sandwich approximately 75 percent of the time–but that was of course before peanut butter was banned from many cafeterias. But for the vast majority of the many, many students who order lunch each day there is very little choice. In addition, in many places there are very specific rules governing students during lunchtime. An overall unhappiness with their school-provided nutrition is why students at Farmington High School in Farmington, Connecticut, started boycotting school lunches.

Students at Farmington High in particular have a problem with Chartwells, the food provider for the school. They allege that the food is disgusting–according to a Washington Post article:

Since Chartwells replaced the district’s in-house meal program in 2012, according to the students, it has meant an increasingly unpalatable menu, with food that sometimes features mold, human hair, dangerously undercooked meats, insects and portion sizes fit for a small, starving child.

In addition, students have butt up against policies by the school involving the ability of students to charge food. So, they boycotted the lunches this week. The boycott has apparently been ended, and dialogue has opened up between the students, the school, and Chartwells. Principle William Silva stated:

We had some of the boycott organizers, so to speak, and other student leaders who we had reached out to make sure we were hearing all student voices. Everyone contributed, it was very positive, very respectful and we talked about some of the things we’re immediately going to do.

This nation has a big problem when it comes to school lunches, especially because so many of them are served to students who do not have any other choice when it comes to their nutrition. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the government provided free or reduced-price meals to nearly 31 million students–totaling about 5 billion lunches. That’s an essential source of nutrition for students whose families don’t necessarily have the resources to pay for healthy nutrition outside of school, and its exactly those kind of students whom the aid programs are designed to help. In addition, while it’s easy to make the argument that students who have the means but do not want to buy lunch can just bring it from home, it’s not really a fair one. Even students who could make lunches at home might not have the time, the ability, or the support, or they have to contend with long bus rides that mean that they don’t have access to proper refrigeration.

The students of Farmington High School were right to boycott the fact that they were not being provided adequate nutrition. And it’s not just that particularly school–Everett High School in D.C. is also undertaking a boycott for pretty much the same reasons. Meghan Hellrood is a senior at the school and is organizing the boycott, complaining that the lunches aren’t filling enough. While these are just a few isolated incidents, I’d love to see students nationally stand up for themselves and make sure that make their voices heard about bad school nutrition.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Lunch Boycotts in Connecticut, D.C. Highlight Bad School Nutrition appeared first on Law Street.

For the last few days a video has been making its way through certain circles of the internet. One of our bloggers, the awesome Allison Dawson, even wrote a piece about it entitled, “9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly for These GW Students.” The video is a handful of students from The George Washington University here in D.C. answering a few questions on current events. The interviewer is Ashley Pratte, a spokeswoman for Young America’s Foundation. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s right here:

Now before I continue, full disclosure here. I’m a recent GW alum. I still have some school spirit. I had a great time at GW, made some of my best friends there, and will always be thankful for the opportunities I was offered. That being said, there are plenty of things that I will always slam GW for — looking at you former GW President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg for making offensive comments about rape into a particularly lurid art form. When it comes to this video though, I’m going to stand with my alma mater.

The tactics that YAF used were cheap, gotcha journalism. It seems like they came in with a hypothesis — students at a mostly liberal university that’s often named one of the most politically active schools in the country are a shining example of how today’s young people are ignorant about world events. I mean come on, the video started with the interviewer standing in front of kegs being unloaded. I’m sure that was just the most convenient place to stand, and not at all an entirely unsubtle reference to the fact that occasionally college kids drink rather than watch CNN.

And then let’s think about the questions they asked: 9/11, ISIS, and the celebrity nude photo leak. The phrasing of the 9/11 question was vague at best: “Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?” I was an international affairs major, so I’m just going to need you guys to believe me when I say I know a fair bit about 9/11. But to be honest, I don’t know I would have gotten that question right. I am a self-sufficient adult, yet I came really damn close to not realizing my birthday was coming up a few weeks ago. That’s not a fair question — ask me what major national event is coming up next week and I’m pretty sure my response is going to be “remind me what dates are next week?” A fairer question would have included at least an attempt at context, for example, “What major national event falls in the second week of September?” or an actually substantive question, such as “What happened on September 11, 2001?” or “Who committed the acts of terror against the U.S.?” Should more students have gotten the question right as it was? Probably. But is it fair to conclude from a vaguely worded question that those students don’t know what 9/11 is, or remember it? Hardly.

And let’s talk about the sample size used in this “study.” Thirty students who were put completely on the spot while cameras were rolling…out of a population of roughly 24,000, including grad students… who were randomly found on campus. Congrats, that’s a statistically negligible sample size of .00125 percent! Listen, if YAF had gone ahead and conducted a legitimate survey of a real sample size and gotten the same results, I’d be embarrassed on behalf of my alma mater. But this is just silly. Grabbing students on their way home from class or work, asking them poorly contextualized questions, and then watching your hypothesis come true is hardly good journalism.

What this was was a poorly laid trap.

Out of curiosity, I actually tracked down one of the students in the video. Noah Katz, a freshman in GW’s Elliott School of International Affairs, told me that while Pratte was very polite, he though the question about 9/11 was weirdly phrased. Katz told me, “they asked what landmark United States event is having its anniversary in the next coming weeks. I immediately thought about things like Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education.” 

Finally, let’s stop and think for a minute here. Even if some students don’t know the names of the journalists beheaded by ISIS, but do know that Jennifer Lawrence had her nude photos leaked, does that really tell us anything about them as people? You could play this game with anything. If you tracked me down on the street and asked me about music or physics, my answers would probably be pretty embarrassing. One of the greatest things about my college experience was that i was exposed to people from different backgrounds, different political affiliations, and with different interests, hobbies, and priorities than myself. That’s how real life is, that’s how America is, and that’s OK.

Yes, we should all strive our best to be informed, but a three-minute video on the street with 30 students and blatantly biased techniques doesn’t do much to convince me that we’re doing a bad job of that. Instead of tearing each other down for some gaps in knowledge, let’s celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we have the freedom to have those kinds of differences.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Response: Stupid GW Students or Gotcha Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we’ve written a lot about the steps that some law schools are taking to the buck the trend of lower enrollment that is taking a widespread toll on almost all law schools. One really great way to attract students, especially for schools that aren’t as highly ranked as others, is to offer unique programs. That’s exactly what the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii is doing, and it seems like they’re seeing great success.

Hawaii Law is the only law school in the state, and it has been able to draw on its unique history when creating its programs. One of the most unique offerings it has is a specific focus on indigenous law. The school, which is home to the Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law, offers a Native Hawaiian Law Certificate that can be earned along with a Juris Doctorate. According to the Center, the focus on Native Hawaiian law allows them to connect with the community; Director Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie explains how the center is able to incorporate students’ studies into the law school environment, stating that it “provides our students with the legal principles to advance the rights of indigenous and Pacific peoples, and it also increases knowledge and protection of customary practices and values.” 

The Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law’s ability to offer such a unique joint degree program can definitely be considered a draw for their students. Allowing them the opportunity to study such a unique facet of law makes Hawaii Law stand out. The center goes beyond just offering classes and the joint-degree program, to hosting a number of events and symposia. Given that Hawaii Law is the only law school located in the state, and that 20 percent of Hawaii’s population is made up of people who are at least part Native Hawaiian ancestry, it’s obvious that the Ka Huli Ao Center is a great resource.

According to recent news coming out of the school it seems like offering such a unique program is working, among other things, to increase Hawaii Law’s enrollment. Last week, Hawaii Law had the most students in its history, with 145. The school also saw more applications (639) last year. Hawaii Law was hit by the same drop in applications that many law schools saw a few years ago, but they’re well on their way to recovery now. The fact that they have such a large class this year is certainly an indication of that.

Cost is also an incredibly important facet of the conversation about law school enrollment. Hawaii Law has been able to keep its cost fairly low — just south of $10,000 per semester for in-state students. This pairs well with the Native Hawaiian Law focus. It seems like Hawaii Law has found its appeal — creating a program that allows its students to focus on issues that are important for their community while still remaining a part of that community.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unique Program Creates a Home for Native Hawaiian Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law.

Featured image courtesy of [Widener University School of Law via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [JRKagen via WikiMedia Commons]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #1 Southwestern Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I was just doing my normal internet surfing, riding the news wave and trying to find something that hasn’t bombarded your TV or social media outlets yet. What I stumbled upon is so ridiculous and infuriating I just could not let it go.

So, the University of Wisconsin – Madison has come up with a new policy that states good grades should be distributed equally among different races. Known as the “Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence,” this policy calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.”

I’m sorry, WHAT!?! Obviously colleges like the idea of diversity — they promote it every chance they get — but if you go back and actually read what the policy calls for then you’ll see that while they may be promoting diversity, they are also promoting racial oppression. “Historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups” — it is stated right there. In most cases white people have not been historically underrepresented. So what UW-Madison is saying is let’s give out free grades to students who are not white and who may not have worked as hard as other students. What about those students who are “historically underrepresented” who work their asses off to get those good grades? Why should they have to work so hard for their grades but their peers simply get handed the same grade because of their race or ethnicity?

By all means please promote diversity at a university, it is one of the best ways for people to learn from one another. But handing out grades based on race is a slap in the face to every student and professor at any university.

W. Lee Hansen, professor of economics at UW-Madison, was outraged by this policy and shared his opinion. “Suppose there were a surge of interest in a high demand field such as computer science. Under the ‘equity’ policy, it seems that some of those who want to study this field would be told that they’ll have to choose another major because computer science already has “enough” students from their ‘difference’ group.” Professor Hansen goes on to say, “Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, ‘historically underrepresented racial/ethnic’ students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.”

How would any professor or student be okay with even the idea of this policy? How did UW-Madison get away with putting this policy into effect! Each student had to work hard to get into the university but now all of a sudden the school is saying that no matter what you did in the past if you are considered “historically underrepresented” you can simply show up to class and still get a good grade.

What’s the point of going to college if this is how it is going to be? These kids are going to end up with a four-year degree that they did not earn but simply purchased. If that’s the case why not just close down all institutions and require people to write a check for $80,000 – $125,000 to the government and have them hand out degrees.

Instead of promoting hard work, dedication, and real education, UW-Madison has basically said, “Come to UW-Madison where you pay tuition and we will give you the grades.” Is this really the kind of reputation that a university wants to have? Is this the kind of reputation that any student graduating from this institution wants to have? I know if I were ever in a situation where I was going to hire someone I would never want to hire the graduate from UW-Madison because he may not have understood the purpose of college and may not have learned anything except that things can apparently just be handed to you.

Life does not work that way. Life is not easy or fair and part of that statement includes the idea that school is not easy. You get the grade you worked for, not the grade that was assigned to you because of your race.

Too many of today’s youth are just expecting a hand out. They aren’t being taught the value of a dollar or a strong work ethic. Here comes the reference again, Idiocracy at its finest.

I also find it very interesting how hard generations before us fought for equality but here we are creating more separation than ever before. Is it not obvious to the world that subtle lines are being drawn in the sand? No one is created equal anymore. We might as well throw out the Declaration of Independence and forget about our past because nothing has really changed. People talk about how racism and sexism are still very alive in our world and how things need to change for the better. But how can anything change when universities are promoting policies that demonstrate separation over equality? Equality is not being promoted in this “Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence” policy at all.

You want to be equal? Take the same classes as your peers, work as hard as you can and get the grade you deserve. That makes you equal with your peers, not waiting around for a professor to give you an A for a class that you probably barely attended, never studied for and possibly slept through.

Shame on you University of Wisconsin – Madison for not only promoting racial and ethnic oppression but for also basically telling your students that they aren’t smart enough to get the grades on their own. Not to mention telling the world that handing out grades because of race or ethnicity is okay, thanks for basically showing the world that the fight for desegregation in all aspects meant nothing. I’m sure Medgar Evers, Betty Friedan, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr. are all turning in their graves.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Okandasan via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Wisconsin Policy Calls for Grade Distribution by Race and Ethnicity appeared first on Law Street.

When most students attend a university, be it public or private, the money they pay into tuition goes back into the school–be it for new dorms, professors’ salaries, taxes, or any other expense. For years, our institutions of higher learning have operated in this manner. But a growing trend in higher education is for-profit schools, ones that operate to make money for their investors and shareholders by offering a service, in this case, and education. They are often characterized by fierce publicity campaigns, and wide recruitment techniques, getting as many people as possible to enroll in programs.

Do these names ring a bell….University of Phoenix and DeVry University? They, among others, are examples of these for-profit schools.

But recently, for-profit schools are under fire, and seven former employees of Premier Education Group, a company that owns over 24 schools in almost a dozen states, filed a lawsuit against their former employer. The plaintiffs allege that administrators purposefully misled students and gave them false information about graduation, testing, and certification; all as a means to rake in the federal funding they received from the students. They say the schools were willing to keep under-performing students at the school, and mislead others, so that they could collect this funding, thereby increasing their profits. The allegations go so far as to say test scores were fudged in order to keep students in school rather than risk losing them- and their money. Obviously, this is unacceptable at any establishment of higher learning. The programs Premier offers cost about $10,000 a year, oversee 17,000 students, and the company receives $112 million per year in Pell Grants. Needless to say, this isn’t pocket change.

Politicians have also taken notice of for-profit schools. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation in 2013, which would restrict the amount of federal funding for-profit schools could collect. Rather than getting up to 90% of funding from the federal government, schools would only be eligible to receive up to 85% through federal funding. While this doesn’t seem like a huge drop, it would be a step in the right direction for deterring for-profit schools from treating students as cash cows. Hopefully, publicity raises awareness for students to make more informed decisions about attending a for profit school.

But aside from this lawsuit, what’s the deal with for-profit schools?

The lawsuit points toward a bigger trend of people being skeptical of for-profit colleges potentially taking advantage of students- whether by preying on them for the federal money they bring in, or providing less than exceptional educations leading to hardship post-graduation. Studies have shown that students at for-profit schools end up having higher rates of unemployment and greater debt after graduation than their counterparts at traditional schools, according to some studies, at almost double the rate- as this graph shows.

These stats are important because students at for-profit universities account for almost 10% of all degree-seeking students in the United States, a number that continues to increase with time. If a large contingent of students are going to use for-profit schools to get a degree, they should be protected as much as possible against any unfair practices the schools may have.

Imagine if a well-known state school was employing similar tactics: people would be up in arms about it. For-profit colleges, though not as well known, still graduate thousands of people into the workforce each year. These students need to be as prepared as much as possible for what’s ahead, and informed of the challenges attending a for-profit college can present…. before enrolling in one.

Even Adult Swim joined in on the fun, making this video that mimics the advertising strategies for-profit colleges often use, poking fun at the lack of accreditation, lax admission standards, and lofty claims many of these schools make to students.

This isn’t to say that all for-profit schools rip off their students. In fact, for-profit schools have been an effective way for many students to receive degrees in their field. But this lawsuit shows how important it is to keep for-profit colleges honest when giving students their options, especially when receiving federal funds.

[NYT] [Bill] [YouTube] [GAO]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Tracy O via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post For-profit Schools Getting Sued: A Growing Trend in Higher Ed? appeared first on Law Street.

I would like to go to law school sometime in the relatively near future. Whenever I tell current lawyers or law school students about my career plans, they tell me one of two things. They either tell me to make sure I take a few years off between undergrad and law school, or they tell me to absolutely not go to law school.

It’s true that having a law degree doesn’t really have the prestige that it used to. As the economy continues to slowly rebuild after the recession, young lawyers are having a difficult time finding employment in their field. Above the Law looked at one of the most recent crops of young lawyers—the class of 2012—only 56% are in full-time, long-term legal employment nine months after their graduation. They are doing slightly better than their predecessors: at the same point last year only 55% of the class of 2011 could report such success. Only about 10-12% of these students are in classic “Big Law” jobs. Furthermore, legal educations are expensive. The cost averages at about $50,000 a year. As a result, it is not unusual for students to graduate with exorbitant debt.

Google “is it worth it to go to law school?”,  you’ll get thousands of results. Every news outlet, blogger, and Internet commentator wants the last word on the law school debate. Now a Chicago attorney is putting his money where his mouth is, literally.

Matt Willens, who heads up the Willens Law Offices in downtown Chicago, is offering a $1000 scholarship to students who chose to pursue a graduate degree in anything that is not law. It seems like he plans to make this a repeat offer for at least the next few years. The firm’s website actually has a page for the scholarship where they outline their motivation behind the incentive program:

“Some of you may be wondering, why would a law firm create a scholarship to dissuade students from practicing law? The answer is simple; we currently do not have enough jobs to be able to effectively train the current number of freshly minted lawyers in our profession. To protect the reputation of our profession, Willens Law Offices has created this scholarship to persuade undergraduates to pursue another graduate degree for a limited time.”

Willens himself commented to the Sacramento Bee:  “the situation has become untenable. Too many of our best and brightest are pursuing a career where there just aren’t any more seats at the table.” The offer is nice, but $1000 is obviously much more of a statement than a generous scholarship. That being said, it could be nice help for a student who is pursuing a non-law degree.

While I understand the logic, I take issue with part of Willens’s idea. While law school is very expensive, so are most other types of graduate programs. While this scholarship is open to any student who chooses a different field over law school, it clearly aims for students who were considering law school and then instead chose another subject. For example, I doubt the Willens Law Office will receive any applications from people who are attending medical school. Students who are passing up law school tend to stick to the humanities, and pursue a graduate degree in something like Political Science, Public Policy, or English. None of these fields necessarily have better career prospects than law. For example, according to the National Science Foundation, among Humanities Ph.D recipients, 43% reported “no definite commitment for employment or postdoctoral study.” People with a Ph.D in a humanities field are doing better than new lawyers, but not by much.

I don’t think the question of “whether or not a legal education is worth it in our current economy?” will be answered anytime soon. Legal education and the legal field as a whole are clearly going through changes, but we don’t know what will happen in the long term. As for me, I still pretty much plan on going to law school—but if anyone wants to offer me a bit more than $1000 to do something else? Well, I’d consider it.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Tinworth via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Would You Rather: Law School or $1000? appeared first on Law Street.