Busines Law Question

Question

Case Scenerio:

Ewing was a medical student at the University of Michigan. When he failed a qualifying examination, he asked for a chance to retake it. He knew that everyone else who had failed the exam was allowed to retake it. The university refused to allow Ewing to retake the exam. He sued, arguing that the university had acted unconstitutionally by depriving him due process as promised by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US constitution.

1. Restate the case you see it.
2. Explain the legal principles that apply to this case and its likely outcome.
3. What implications could this case have on you personally or on others today?

Answer 1

Let’s break down this case and address each part of the question as follows:

1. Restate the Case as Seen:

Ewing, a medical student at the University of Michigan, failed a crucial qualifying exam. He requested a retake, citing that others who had also failed were given this opportunity. However, the university denied his request, prompting Ewing to sue. He argued that the university’s refusal violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights, particularly due process, as he was not treated fairly in comparison to other students.

2. Legal Principles and Likely Outcome:

The key legal principle in this case is the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which ensures due process and equal protection under the law. Due process generally means that an individual should be treated fairly and given a chance to be heard in cases involving life, liberty, or property.

Since Ewing’s case involves educational rights rather than life, liberty, or property in the traditional sense, courts typically have limited intervention in academic decisions by universities. Courts often give universities wide discretion over their academic standards and procedures. For Ewing to win this case, he would likely have to prove that the university acted arbitrarily or capriciously by denying him a retake, which might be difficult if they had specific policies for denying exam retakes or could justify their decision in his specific case.

In similar cases, courts have generally ruled in favor of universities unless there was clear evidence of discrimination or denial of equal protection. For example, if the university provided a valid reason for treating Ewing’s case differently, they may be protected from liability.

3. Personal or Broader Implications Today:

This case highlights issues of fairness and transparency in educational institutions’ decision-making processes, especially when it comes to policies on academic performance. If institutions appear inconsistent in applying policies, it can create distrust among students, who may feel their rights are not adequately protected. For students and others today, this case underscores the importance of understanding institutional policies and advocating for transparency in educational standards and procedures.

In professional or educational settings today, individuals might feel empowered to seek fair treatment in similar situations but also should recognize the limitations courts place on intervening in academic decisions.

If you’d like more detailed information or specific cases, feel free to reach out.