1 Kelsey Heiple February 24, 2013 Higher Education Law Spring Se ester 2013 Case Review: Powe v.

Miles I. Facts !resented to the "nited States #ourt o$ %ppeals, Second #ircuit, in 1&'(, !owe )* +iles is an appeal $ro the dis issal o$ a co plaint by students o$ %l$red "ni)ersity* ,he students

in)ol)ed in this suit all too- part in a de onstration on +ay 11, 1&'( on the %l$red "ni)ersity ca pus* Ha)ing e.perienced nu erous de onstrations in years prior, the "ni)ersity issued a !olicy on /e onstrations, e$$ecti)e 0anuary 1, 1&'(, which re1uired de onstrators to gi)e the /ean o$ Students 4(2hours notice o$ plans to de onstrate* %lthough two o$ the students atte pted to eet with !resident +iles during the wee- leading up to the de onstration, their ilitary re)iew

atte pts pro)ed unsuccess$ul* Howe)er, their plans to de onstrate during a acti)ity on !arents /ay would not change*

%d)ocating scholarships $or blac- students, the teaching o$ 3egro history, an end to co pulsory 45,#, and peace in 6ietna , si.teen de onstrators the $ootball $ield, where )isitors had gathered $or the arched down the sideline o$

ilitary re)iew* Shortly a$ter their

appearance, the /ean o$ Students announced that their actions were in )iolation with the !olicy on /e onstrations and re1uested they e.it the $ootball $ield* Eight student de onstrators obeyed his re1uest but the re aining se)en students and one $aculty e ber stayed on the $ield*

%$ter repeating his re1uest se)eral ti es to no a)ail, the /ean o$ Students then declared the re aining se)en students and one $aculty e ber were to be suspended $ro the "ni)ersity*

2 ,hree o$ the se)en students were $ro re aining $our were $ro the 3ew 7or- State #ollege o$ #era ics while the

the Liberal %rts #ollege*

,o better understand the $acts o$ the case, it is i portant to also understand the history and co position o$ %l$red "ni)ersity* #hartered in 1(43 and incorporated by the 3ew 7orLegislature in 1(89, %l$red "ni)ersity, $or erly %l$red %cade y, is a pri)ate uni)ersity go)erned by 33 indi)idual trustees* 5riginally $ounded as a select school, the "ni)ersity now has $our colleges to include the Liberal %rts #ollege, the :raduate School, the School o$ 3ursing, and the 3ew 7or- State #ollege o$ #era ics* ,he 3ew 7or- State #ollege o$ #era ics is considered a ;contract college< $ounded by the state at %l$red in 1&00* %lthough it operates as a #ollege within %l$red "ni)ersity, it is a contract o$ the state and, in 1&4( upon establish ent o$ a State "ni)ersity, Legislature directed that state uni)ersity trustees would be responsible $or the ad inistration, super)ision, and coordination o$ contract colleges such as the 3ew 7or- State #ollege o$ #era ics* ,he #ollege o$ #era ics recei)es annual state appropriations, which, at one point, accounted $or appro.i ately twenty percent o$ the "ni)ersity=s total budget* II. Issue #onsidering the relationship between %l$red "ni)ersity and the 3ew 7or- State #ollege o$ #era ics, does the regulation o$ de onstration by and discipline o$ all se)en students in)ol)ed constitute state action> III. Answer ,he #ourt $ound that state action did, in $act, e.ist in regulation o$ de onstrations by and discipline o$ students in the 3ew 7or- State #ollege o$ #era ics but not the students o$ the Liberal %rts #ollege*

3 IV. Reasoning of the Court ,he #ourt $ound that, with regards to the students o$ the 3ew 7or- State #ollege o$ #era ics, state action did e.ist due to the relationship between %l$red "ni)ersity and the State o$ 3ew 7or-* %lthough it ac-nowledged the di$$iculty in deter ining whether or not the action o$ %l$red "ni)ersity ad inistrators in establishing guidelines and en$orcing the with respect to

the 3ew 7or- State #ollege o$ #era ics constituted state action, the #ourt ulti ately decided that the contract college=s na e alone identi$ied it as a state institution and, there$ore, state action e.isted* %dditionally, $urther ?usti$ication o$ the e.istence o$ state action is $ound in the $inancing o$ the 3ew 7or- State #ollege o$ #era ics by the State as well as the role o$ the state uni)ersity trustees $or ad inistration, super)ision, and coordination o$ the #ollege* @ith regards to the students o$ the Liberal %rts #ollege, howe)er, the #ourt held that there was no reason why these students should )iew the "ni)ersity ad inistrators as ar s o$ the State* %c-nowledging the con$usion in ha)ing di$$ering policies $or #ollege o$ #era ics students and Liberal %rts students, it held that deter ination o$ policies $or students o$ the Liberal %rts #ollege would be le$t up to %l$red "ni)ersity ad inistrators* V. Conclusion ,his case is a good e.a ple o$ how state action ay apply to a pri)ate institution* +ore

speci$ically, this helps to illustrate how a state2supported acti)ity is present but not do inant enough to ha)e action o)er the entire institution* State action can be a di$$icult concept to grasp especially when you ust di$$erentiate between students o$ the sa e "ni)ersity* Howe)er,

when you loo- at the $acts and the relationship between %l$red "ni)ersity and the #ollege o$ #era ics, it is easy to conclude that the State does, in $act, ha)e a signi$icant interest and, thus, state action does e.ist*