Mississippi College School of Law
Not a member yet
1198 research outputs found
Sort by
CHARTING A COURSE TO GENDER EQUITY: SEXUAL HARASSMENT REPORTING RATES IN CHARTER SCHOOLS
Full text linkCharter schools and sexual harassment are two hot-button issues in the education landscape, but their intersection is seldom addressed in research or public discourse. This Article examines whether K-12 charter schools report allegations of sexual harassment, including harassment on the basis of sexual orientation, at a rate different from that of traditional public schools. I analyzed data from the Department of Education’s 2015-16 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) report and found that the average national reporting rate of sexual harassment allegations is significantly higher among traditional public schools than it is among charter schools. I then used the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ (NAPCS) state charter law scoring system to conduct a nonsystematic comparison of state policies, which allowed me to identify charter authorizer accountability as a charter policy category that is potentially correlated with reporting rate differences across states. I theorize that an ideology of broad-based exemption from public education regulations can lead to total resistance to government oversight within charter schools, which may translate to a lack of transparency in federal civil rights accountability. This study invites greater public attention and research into sexual harassment in K-12 schools, as well as the possibility that without appropriate policy design, the school choice movement risks eroding civil rights accountability in public education
THE RISE AND FALL OF PREMISES LIABILITY FOR INJURIES ARISING FROM THIRD-PARTY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN MISSISSIPPI
Full text linkOn July 1, 2019, the Landowners Protection Act (the “Act”) became effective in Mississippi. The Act modified existing law as to premises liability for failure to protect against the criminal acts of third-parties in two respects. First, a new Code section was enacted, granting property owners several protections from such claims. Second, Mississippi’s joint and several liability statute was amended to allow for apportionment of fault between premises owners and intentional tortfeasors, i.e., criminal actors.
In the debate leading to the Act’s passage, proponents of the legislation provided that it was intended to codify prior court rulings and ensure that juries could apportion liability between criminal actors and landowners. Opponents argued that the Act would make it nearly impossible to establish liability against a premises owner. A key opposition point was the new requirement that a plaintiff proves the property owner “actively and affirmatively, with a degree of conscious decision-making, impelled the conduct of said third party.” Subsequent to July 1, 2019, reported actions alleging premises liability for failure to provide adequate security have dramatically decreased, while incidents of violent crime have in no way abated. It thus appears the opponents of the Act had valid concerns.
This Article will review the historical underpinnings of premises claims for negligent security in Mississippi. Pre-Act court opinions grappling with the issue of allocating fault between intentional and negligent tortfeasors will also be addressed. Further, the Article will examine all substantive parts of the Act, and detail how one new protection effectively renders all other provisions moot by immunizing property owners unless they aid and abet criminal activity
TITLE IX 50 YEARS LATER. . . REFLECTIONS FROM A TITLE IX COORDINATOR
Full text linkOn June 23, 1972, Congress enacted the Title IX Education Amendment of 1972. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities operated by recipients of federal financial assistance. Title IX’s core is the concept that students may not be denied educational opportunities based on their sex. Title IX’s protections extend to school activities, including admissions, financial aid, student services, counseling services, athletics, and physical education. The Title IX legislation eliminates sex-based discrimination to ensure all students—both male and female––have access to and equality in education.
The enactment of Title IX led to an upward trajectory for women pursuing higher education and sports. A 2011 report by the White House Council of Women and Girls found that forty years after the enactment of the Title IX Amendment, approximately 87% of women had at least a high school education.1 Approximately 28% had at least a college degree.2 This is a substantial increase from the 59% of women with high school education and 8% of women with a college degree in 1970.3 A more recent study conducted in 2021 states that around 91.6% of women have graduated high school, and 39.1% of women have completed a college degree.4 Over the past fifty years, there has been a substantial increase in women admitted to institutions of higher learning. In fact, more women in today’s world are earning college degrees than men
DEFEATING RUMPELSTILTSKIN: WHY THE TEMPORARY PROVISION THAT EXCLUDES STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS FROM GROSS INCOME SHOULD BE MADE PERMANENT
Full text linkDespite the advances in higher education that have been made in the United States over the years, there is still a crisis in this country concerning student debt and its fallout. One aspect of the student debt crisis that has the potential to loom over many individuals is the taxation of student debt forgiveness. Up until March 11, 2021, when all or part of one’s student debt was discharged, the amount was taxed as ordinary income for the year in which it was forgiven. Fortunately, on that date, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was passed which included a provision that temporarily excludes forgiven student debt from gross income. This development may seem trivial given the myriad of important problems to be addressed in the United States. Remarkably, the story of Rumpelstiltskin provides a fitting context for why the tax-free forgiveness of student debt should be at the forefront of our consideration
FOR THE ONES WHO ENDURED SO THAT A NATION MIGHT LIVE: A PLEA TO THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIARY TO AMEND MISS. CODE. ANN. 9-25-1 AND ADOPT A MISSISSIPPI STATEWIDE VETERANS TREATMENT COURT
Full text linkVeterans provide an invaluable service to protect and defend the ideals of this nation. Today, there are roughly 18 million veterans living in the United States, and Mississippi is home to over 187,000. While many servicemen successfully integrate back into civilian life, trauma and addiction follow others which often leads to confrontations with the criminal justice system. The traditional Mississippi court system is ineffective for many veterans because the underlying issues that led to their incarceration cannot be treated with mere confinement.
Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) address the underlying issues that often lead to criminal activity and offer a veteran the opportunity to rehabilitate as an alternative to incarceration. Though three Mississippi Circuit Courts have implemented VTCs in their jurisdiction, Mississippi remains limited in its ability to efficiently and effectively aid justice-involved veterans due to limitations regarding jurisdiction, crime status, and discharge status.
To that effect, the ultimate purpose of this Article is to address the underlying, service-related issues that correlate with many veterans’ involvement with the criminal justice system and propose a solution to properly rehabilitate every justice-involved Mississippi veteran. This objective may be accomplished in two ways: (1) The Mississippi Judiciary should adopt a statewide VTC; and (2) the Mississippi Legislature should amend Mississippi Code Annotated § 9-25-1 to remove VTC participation limitations concerning jurisdiction, discharge status, and crime status
AMBIGUITY AND EXCEPTIONS: DISSECTING CFTC V. MONEX CREDIT CO. AND THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT TO EXPLAIN ACTUAL DELIVERY
Full text link“Leveraged trades” are transactions in which an investor borrows the capital to purchase or sell a commodity using the commodity itself as collateral. These transactions are vital to the health of commodities markets as they relate directly to market participation and liquidity, both essential components. A recent Ninth Circuit decision threatens these types of valuable transactions by adopting a narrow interpretation of a key exemption from the applicability of Commodity Exchange Act regulations. This Article will argue a broader interpretation is more consistent with the purpose behind the Commodity Exchange Act, recent Commodity Futures Trading Commission interpretations, and will better serve commodities traders along with the markets themselves
A CALL FOR EFFECTIVE LENIENCY: HOW THE CIRCUIT SPLIT REGARDING THE PRISON MAILBOX RULE FAILS TO PROPERLY ALLEVIATE ISSUES FOR PRISONERS
Full text linkThe prison population has long been an overlooked segment of society. This is particularly true when it comes to pro se litigants within the federal prison system. A pro so litigant is someone involved in litigation, whether civil or criminal, and is representing themselves instead of being represented by an attorney. In other words, pro se prisoners do not have the aid of counsel at their disposal. Although it is an individual’s constitutional right to represent themselves, it can come at a cost, especially when it comes to understanding the nuances of civil or criminal court procedure. For pro se prisoners, filing a notice of appeal can be exceptionally challenging.
Unlike non-imprisoned litigants, prisoners face several challenges when it comes to filing court documents. Regarding notices of appeal specifically, prisoners are unable to converse with their attorneys (if they are represented); to send and receive mail freely without interruption; or to monitor the receipt of notices and documents by the clerk of court. The Supreme Court first recognized these hardships in 1964 in Fallen v. United States. Fallen established that a pro se prisoner who had done all he could to comply with the rules governing appellate filings had, in fact, timely filed his notice of appeal. Then, in 1967, Congress codified the rules for filing appeals as of right in federal court, attempting to provide all the necessary information for both civil and criminal cases in one location. This location was Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 (“Rule 4”), with the only codified subsections being subsections (a) and (b). Rules 4(a) and (b) applied to all litigants who filed an appeal as of right. Even then, however, Congress did not provide a separate procedure for the process for filing an appeal as of right for federal prison litigants generally, nor did it provide a procedure for pro se federal prisoners specifically
