Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
Breif For Young Vs Bella And Ed Ethics Critique
1.
2. Do Bella and Rowe warrant protection according to section 38 of the Child Welfare Act?
3. Does the law and evidence support the jury’s award of damages?
4.
5. No. While Bella and Rowe had a duty under section 38 (1) to report possible abuse they did not have reasonable cause to report this abuse as outlined in section 38 (6) of the Child Welfare Act.
6. Yes. It was within the jury’s province as the triers of fact to award damages.
7. No. While damages are higher than the Supreme Court would have awarded, the law awards the jury to assign the damages.
9. Bella and Rowe were found to not have upheld the duty of care they owed Young because of their positions as facility at the University at which Young was attending. They owed it to her to discuss the matter with her and get the facts before making a serious claim to CPS. They owed her this duty of care before the claim, and after the claim; and neither even brought the matter up to Young. While the main objective of section 38 of the Child Welfare Act is to protect children, it also seeks to do so in a way that takes into account the interests of the persons under suspicion as well as the interest of the informants. The interest of the informant is protected in this act by section 38(1) which states “where a person has information that a child has been, is or may be in danger of abandonment, desertion, neglect, physical, sexual, or emotional ill treatment or has been, is or may be otherwise in need of protection, the person shall immediately report the matter.” Section 38(6) of the Child Welfare Act seeks to protect the informant by stating informants need “reasonable cause” in order to implicate someone of child abuse. This section also states, “An action does not lie against the informant unless the making of the report is done maliciously or without reasonable cause. In this case , appendix A, was not found to be reasonable cause and could have been cleared up for what it was- a missing footnote, had the defendants gave the plaintiff her owed duty of care and met with her regarding the issue.
14. Below Average/PoorDepending on how many applications are in each category, the committee will take all of the 1 applications, after that the committee will take applications in the lower rating categories. If the committee chooses to take an application from a certain rating level, they must take all applications that received this same rating as well.<br />In the next phase of the evaluation process, the committee may assign a plus or minus to an evaluation rating, where the applicant’s personal characteristics and attributes (personal background, geographic considerations, race, and academic and co-curricular interests as well as other information provided in the student’s application) are being evaluated. It is in this phase of the application process where reviewers will be able to draw attention to special circumstances or characteristics that stand out in an application and merit particular consideration. When evaluating race of an applicant the committee can, because Hypothetical University has a voluntary race conscious admission policy, give a plus to a candidate who is a member of a race that is underrepresented at the university or within these programs. The committee will take into account Hypothetical University’s quest for diverse classroom experiences for all students in this phase of the process.<br />After the committee has exercised their professional judgment and experience in rating the applications they will then provide an overall rating for the application based on the following scale:<br />Rating of 1 = Outstanding + or -<br />All of the applicant’s materials exemplify superior and exceptional characteristics that contribute to the specific evaluation categories.<br />Rating of 2 = Excellent + or -<br />The applicant’s materials illustrate extremely strong, but not exceptional, characteristics. <br />Rating of 3 = Good + or -<br />The applicant’s materials demonstrate competitive, average characteristics in most of the criteria, but may be particularly strong in one or more areas. The committee may have reservations about the applicant’s academic competitiveness.<br />Rating of 4 = Average/Fair +<br />While the applicant’s materials are competitive in each of the evaluated areas, the committee has concerns about the overall strength of the application and may have concerns about the applicant’s academic competitiveness. <br />Rating of 4 = Average/Fair –<br /> The applicant does not stand out.<br />Rating of 5 = Below Average/Poor + or -<br />In the applicant’s materials, the committee sees serious deficiencies in most of the evaluation criteria in comparison to other applicants. In addition, evaluation criteria may not be met or may not have been addressed in the applicant’s materials, or may have been found to be misleading.<br />Recommendation Decisions<br />After conducting a comprehensive, holistic and individualized review of an each application, the committee will then make an admissions decision recommendation based on the evaluation rating and comments. <br />MA = Must Admit<br />Applications with a 1+<br />A = Admit<br />Applications with a 2 + <br />Applications with a 1, or 1-<br />AR = Admit with Reservation<br />Applications with a 3 + <br />Applications with a 2, or 2-<br />DR = Deny with Reservation<br />Applications with a 4 +<br />Applications with a 3, or 3-<br />D = Deny<br />Applications with a 4<br />Applications with a 4-<br />MD = Must Deny<br />Applications with a 5 +, 5, or 5-<br />Depending on the size of each recommendation decision category (as listed above), the committee will admit each category in the order listed until the admitting class is within the range of students the committee sees fit to maintain a small, individualized experience for each students. If the committee admits one applicant from a certain recommendation group category, they must admit all applicants from that same recommendation group.<br />For example, if an applicant with a 3+ is being admitted (only after all applicants with a 1+, 2+, 1, 1- are admitted) then all applicants with a 3+ must be extended admittance as well.<br />Essay on the Educational and Legal Justification of the Admission Policy <br />When crafting the admission policy for a hypothetical institution ,which was to be a public institution I knew that I had to be careful not to violate applicants’ fourteenth amendments, “which generally prohibits discriminary treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex, including “reverse discrimination” but applies only to public institutions,” (Kaplin & Lee, 2006, p. 339). I also knew that I would have to make sure the policy did not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “prohibiting race, color, and national origin discrimination and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex discrimination)” (Kaplin & Less, 2006, p. 339) all of which apply to public and private institutions that receive federal financial assistance.<br />In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court issued the opinion that a race conscious admission program was permissible when narrowly tailored, if the admission program did not use a quota. I was sure in the admission policy to not set any certain percentage of underrepresented racial groups to be admitted. I did use the “plus factor” used in the Grutter case, which was considered not a quota, but does give members of underrepresented racial groups a leg up in the admission process. In my proposed policy this only happens if they already were qualified to be admitted based on their academic and intellectual abilities. I also made my admission policy flexible enough to consider other factors under the “plus factor” system as well.<br />As seen in Bakke v. Regents of the University of California (553 P, 2d 1152 Cal 1976) “race or ethnic background may be deemed a “plus” in a particular applicant’s file, yet it may not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats” (Kaplin & Lee, 2006, p. 343). Knowing that race had to be a factor to help the underrepresented minority groups gain admission into these programs, but also knowing it could not insulate them in the process, I chose to have the same committee review all applications in all phases of the process. I also have the first phase of the process based solely on academic and intellectual ability, insuring anyone’s application that made it on past this point was academically qualified. Then using the “plus” factor I gave the application evaluation process and the evaluation committee the leeway to use their own expertise and knowledge of the current student body in these programs to better sort out what applications would be submitted for admission.<br />In cases such as Bakke, Grutter, Gratz, and Defunis, courts have historically left the admission decisions to the expertise of the committee charged with the assignment of deciding who is qualified. In “Lesser v. Board of Education of NewYork, 239 N.Y.S.2d 776 (N.Y. app. Div. 1963), the court declined to overturn the judgment of the college, stating that discretionary decisions of education institutions, particularly those relating to determining the eligibility of applicants, should be left to the institution” (Kaplin & Lee, 2006, p.318). <br />With this stance of the court not being uncommon, I chose to point out in the introduction to the admission policy that this hypothetical university deemed diversity in the classroom as a major factor as to why the program was successful, along with the small class sizes. Diversity in the classroom was said to be a major factor in the Grutter case when the applications committee was reviewing applications for admissions. The courts in the Grutter case upheld this interest by stating the court, “quot;
does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.quot;
Since, the court’s decision in this case was that a diverse classroom was a compelling state’s interest, I made a diverse classroom a compelling interest for the hypothetical institution as well which is stated in the introduction of the policy. <br />
![ITEC 5070<br />April 13, 2009<br />Jessica Hollon<br />Brief for Young v. Bella<br />Title: Young v. Bella, 1 S.C.R. 108, 2006 SCC 3<br />Parties: Plaintiff: Wanda Young<br />Defendants: Professor Leslie Bella, William S. Rowe, and Memorial University of Newfoundland<br />Intervener: Child Welfare League of Canada<br />Court: Supreme Court of Canada<br />Procedural Posture: <br />This case was heard in 2001 before a civil jury. The jury found that the defendants, Bella and Rowe both professors at Memorial University of Newfoundland, had breached the duty of care owed to Young as a student of the University where they were employed. The jury also concluded that the report made to the Department of Child Protection Services (CPS) was made without reasonable cause and that the professors failed to meet the required standard of care. In addition, the jury also found that the loss and injury that Young suffered were foreseeable consequences of the professors' acts and that Young had not contributed to these damages. The jury awarded damages to young in the amount of $829,400.<br />In 2004 this case went to an appeals court and the appeals court overturned the jury award. The judge in this court concluded that section 38(6) of the Child Welfare Act which protects individuals from legal action when reporting “information that a child has been, is or may be in danger,” should protect the University from liability relating to the report made to CPS. This concern about what damages should be awarded from this case lead the appeals judge to conclude that a new trial was necessary. Wanda Young then appealed to The Supreme Court of Canada.<br />Facts: <br />In 1994 Wanda Young, a then 23 year old student was taking distance courses from Memorial University of Newfoundland with the goal of being admitted to the School of Social Work and eventually becoming a social worker. Her grades thus far had been marginal and the year before, in 1993, her application to pursue specialized courses in the School of Social Work had been rejected. Since then she had been taking courses she was eligible to take. For one of these courses taken in 1994 Young submitted her final assignment, over two weeks late, to Professor Leslie Bella. The paper was on the topic of juvenile sex offenders, a topic which Young says she had preapproved in the only meeting she had ever had with Professor Bella. The paper included a section discussing how abused child may grow up to become sexual abusers themselves. Young attached to this section of her final paper appendix A which was a case study copied from a textbook and was a first person account of being sexually abused as a child and then growing up to become a sexual abuser herself. The textbook from which this excerpt was taken was listed in Young’s bibliography, but the appendix was not footnoted in the body of her paper. <br />After reading the final paper Professor Bella speculated that perhaps this portion of the paper was autobiographical and a “cry for help” from Young. Professor Bella also speculated that the term paper was plagiarized. Professor Bella expressed these concerns to the Acting Director of the School of Social Work and Chair of the School’s Admissions Committee, Professor Jane Dempster. After seeing the excerpt of the Appendix, but not the entire term paper it was attached to, Dempster counseled Bella to meet with Young and discuss the appendix and if the meeting did not clear up the matter to then contact CPS. Instead, Bella wrote a letter to Young suggesting the paper was written for another course, which would be self plagiarism or that it was written by someone else because it was not written in the same style as Young’s previous papers. Bella then without waiting to hear from Young, contacted CPS who also advised Bella to speak to Young to obtain some clarification on the matter. <br />Young testified that she did, after receiving Professor Bella’s letter provide documents that rebutted the suspicion of plagiarism. However, Bella did not grade the term paper, and gave Young a zero. Bella then took her concerns of possible child abuse to the Director of the School of Social Work, Dr. William Rowe. Bella told Rowe the appendix, “was neither referenced nor had any explanation in terms of the paper,” and Dr. Rowe attached appendix A to a report that he then sent to CPS in which he stated “the case study was attached without explanation.”<br />In the meantime, the University had rejected Young’s request for reconsideration of her application to pursue a degree in social work. Young, still not aware of the child abuse allegation, approached Professor Jane Dempster to see how she may be able to improve her chances of acceptance into the program. Dempster advised Young that the facility did not think she had what it took to be a social worker and to look for a career elsewhere. Young then sought employment as a youth care worker at various facilities still not knowing there was an allegation she was a child sexual abuser which was disclosed to many social workers, many of which Young knew through her summer employment.<br />In 1996, a staff worker for CPS set up a meeting with Young and for the first time Young became aware of the long standing report against her. Young then delivered the textbook from which the excerpt in her tern paper had come from. It was then clear that the excerpt was not autobiographical and CPS immediately cleared Young. However, as late as 2001 the fact that Young had a “red flag” on her applications as once being mistakenly considered a potential child abuser, still plagued her when searching for employment. <br />Issues: <br />,[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/breifforyoungvsbellaanded-ethicscritique-100317181954-phpapp02/85/Breif-For-Young-Vs-Bella-And-Ed-Ethics-Critique-1-320.jpg)
