Hakkin dalibai a makarantar sakandare ta Amurka

Hakkin dalibai a Amurka na ilimi mafi girma ana ba da su ta hanyar lissafi ko dokoki (misali Dokar 'Yancin Bil'adama ta 1964 da Dokar Ilimi mafi girma ta 1965) da kuma umarnin shugaban kasa. Kotuna sun tsara waɗannan zuwa matakai daban-daban. Amurka ba ta da lissafin haƙƙin ɗalibai na ƙasa kuma ɗalibai suna dogara ga cibiyoyi don ba da wannan bayanin da son rai. Duk da yake wasu kwalejoji suna aika takardun karatunsu, babu wata doka da ake buƙata cewa su yi haka kuma babu wata bukata cewa su aika duk haƙƙin doka.

 Dokokin hukuma 

 Hakkin kariya daga yanke shawara na son rai ko na son rai

Yin yanke shawara bai kamata ya zama na son rai ba ko kuma ya zama na saurin / ba zato ba tsammani kuma, saboda haka, ya tsoma baki da adalci.Bach, 2003Anderson v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 1995Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and Kaplan and Lee (2009) A legal guide for student affairs professionalsSharick v. Southeastern University of the Health Sciences, 2000Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences / Chicago Med. School, 1988) Duk da yake wannan shari'ar ta shafi makarantar masu zaman kansu, Healy v. Larsson (1974) ta gano cewa abin da ya shafi fahimta mai zaman kansa ya shafi jama'a.Bowden, 2007

 Hakkin samun cibiyoyin suna bin nasu dokoki

Ana buƙatar cibiyoyi, ta kwangila, don bin nasu dokoki.Bach, 2003Tedeschi v. Wagner College,
1978; 1980Schaer v. Braneis U., 2000Mawdsley, 2004Fellheimer v. Middlebury College, 1994 Hakanan ana iya la'akari da takardun ma'aikata masu ɗaurewa. Goodman v. Shugaba da Amintattun Kwalejin Bowdoin (2001) sun yanke hukuncin cewa takardun ma'aikata har yanzu suna da kwangila ba tare da la'akari da cewa suna da ƙin yarda ba.

Kotuna sun yanke hukuncin cewa ana kare dalibai daga karkatarwa daga bayanan da aka tallata a cikin labarai ko zagaye, Rafferty Ross v. Creighton University ka'idoji,  about="#mwt35" class="mw-ref reference" data-cx="{}" data-mw='{"name":"ref","attrs":{"name":"university"}}' id="cite_ref-university_13-1" rel="dc:references" typeof="mw:Extension/ref">[./Student_rights_in_U.S._higher_education#cite_note-university-13 [2]] kundin darussan, Andre v. Pace University, 1996 Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education lambobin ɗalibai,  Harwood v. Johns Hopkins, 2000 da littattafai. [4] [5]Fellheimer v. Middleburry College, 1994

 Hakkin ci gaba da kwangila

Cibiyar Kiwon Lafiya ta Mississippi v. Hughes (2000) ta tabbatar da cewa ɗalibai suna da haƙƙin ƙayyadadden kwangila a lokacin ci gaba da yin rajista yana ba da shawarar cewa ɗalibai na da haƙƙin kammala karatu muddin sun cika bukatun kamar yadda aka fara sadarwa.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education Canje-canjen da ake buƙata na digiri ba a yarda da su ba.Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 1988 Bruner v. Petersen (1997) ya kuma gano cewa kariya ta kwangila ba ta aiki a yayin da aka sake shigar da dalibi, wanda ya kasa cika bukatun, cikin shirin. Ana iya buƙatar ɗalibin ya cika ƙarin buƙatu waɗanda ke tallafawa nasarar su. Wannan na iya taimakawa wajen kauce wa batutuwan nuna bambanci.

 Hakkin lura da canje-canjen da ake buƙata na digiri

Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences Chicago Med. School (1998) ta yanke shawarar cewa ɗalibai suna da damar lura da canje-canjen da ake buƙata.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education

 Hakkin cika alkawuran baki

Yarjejeniyar magana ma tana da ɗaurewa.Rafferty, 1993Ross v. Creighton University, 1992 Kotun daukaka kara ta Arewacin Carolina a Long v. Jami'ar Arewacin Carolina da ke Wilmington (1995) ta gano, duk da haka, cewa dole ne a yi yarjejeniyar magana a matsayin hukuma don zama mai ɗaurewa (Bowden, 2007). Dezick v. Umpqua Community College (1979) ya gano cewa an biya dalibi saboda ba a ba da darussan da Dean ya bayar da baki ba.

Healy v. Larsson (1974) ya gano cewa dalibi wanda ya kammala bukatun digiri wanda mai ba da shawara na ilimi ya tsara yana da damar samun digiri bisa ga cewa wannan kwangila ne.

 Ba da shawara na ilimi 

 Hakkin cika alkawura da alkawura ta baki ta masu ba da shawara

Yarjejeniyar magana tana da ɗaurewa. Rafferty, 1993 Ross v. Creighton University, 1992Long v. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 1995 Dole ne a yi su a matsayin hukuma, duk da haka, don su zama masu ɗaurewa.Bowden, 2007 Dezick v. Umpqua Community College (1979) ya gano cewa an biya dalibi saboda ba a ba da darussan da Dean ya bayar da baki ba. Healy v. Larsson (1974) ya gano cewa dalibi wanda ya kammala bukatun digiri wanda mai ba da shawara na ilimi ya tsara yana da damar samun digiri bisa ga cewa wannan kwangila ne. Saboda haka, ya kamata a dauki mai ba da shawara a matsayin tushen bayanai na hukuma.

 Hakkin ci gaba da kwangila a lokacin ci gaba da yin rajista

Cibiyar Kiwon Lafiya ta Mississippi v. Hughes (2000) ta tabbatar da cewa ɗalibai suna da haƙƙin ƙayyadadden kwangila a lokacin ci gaba da yin rajista yana ba da shawarar cewa ɗalibai na da haƙƙin kammala karatu muddin sun cika bukatun kamar yadda aka fara sadarwa.Kaplan and Lee (2011) the Law of Higher Education and Kaplan Canje-canje na buƙatun digiri ba a yarda da su ba.Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 1988Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and Kaplan Bruner v. Petersen (1997) ya kuma gano cewa kariya ta kwangila ba ta aiki a yayin da aka sake shigar da dalibi, wanda ya kasa cika bukatun, cikin shirin. Ana iya buƙatar ɗalibin ya cika ƙarin buƙatu waɗanda ke tallafawa nasarar su. Wannan na iya taimakawa wajen kauce wa batutuwan nuna bambanci.

 Hakkin lura da canje-canjen da ake buƙata na digiri

Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences Chicago Med. School (1998) ya tabbatar da cewa ɗalibai suna da damar lura da canje-canjen da ake buƙata na digiri (Kaplan & Lee, 2011 Kaplan and Lee (2011) the Law of Higher Education and Kaplan). Idan dalibi, alal misali, ba ya nan don semester kuma ba a ci gaba da yin rajista suna buƙatar sanin idan bukatun digiri sun canza.

 Hakkin kariya daga yanke shawara na son rai ko na son rai

Yin yanke shawara bai kamata ya zama na son rai ba ko kuma ya zama na saurin / ba zato ba tsammani kuma, saboda haka, ya tsoma baki da adalci.Bach, 2003Anderson v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 1995Sharick v. Southeastern University of the Health Sciences, 2000Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and KaplanBrody v. Finch University of Health Sciences / Chicago Med. School, 1988 Wannan wani nau'i ne na nuna bambanci. Duk da yake wannan shari'ar ta shafi makarantar masu zaman kansu, Healy v. Larsson (1974) ta gano cewa abin da ya shafi fahimta mai zaman kansa ya shafi jama'a.Bowden, 2007

 Samun ma'aikata 

 Hakki ga ainihin abubuwan da suka faru da kuma adadi kafin shigarwa

Dokar Hanyar Ilimi ta 2008 (HOEA, 2008) HOEA, 2008 ta buƙaci cibiyoyin su bayyana kididdigar ma'aikata a shafin yanar gizon Ma'aikatar Ilimi (DOE) don ba da damar ɗalibai suyi ƙarin yanke shawara na ilimi. Bayanan da ake buƙata a shafin yanar gizon DOE sun haɗa da: karatun, kudade, farashin halarta, shirye-shiryen karatun, da kididdiga ciki har da jima'i, iyawa, kabilanci da canjin ɗalibai gami da ƙididdigar ACT / SAT, digiri da aka bayar, rajista, da kuma bayarwa. Hakanan ana buƙatar cibiyoyin su bayyana manufofin bashi na canja wurin da yarjejeniyar daidaitawa.

 Hakkin kariya daga nuna bambanci a cikin daukar ma'aikata

Dokar Amurkawa da ke da nakasa ta 1990 (ADA) da Sashe na 504 na Dokar Gyara ta 1973 ta haramta nuna bambanci a cikin daukar ma'aikata. Wannan ya haɗa da nuna bambanci na iyawa a cikin daukar ma'aikata. Mutanen da ƙwararren likita ya ƙayyade tare da nakasa, waɗanda aka amince da su bisa doka tare da nakasarDoherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 1988Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and KaplanPushkin v. Regents of the University of Colorado kuma an dauke su da cancanta suna da damar samun daidaito da kuma masauki mai ma'ana.ADA, 1973Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1990 Kotun Koli ta bayyana In ba haka ba ya cancanta a matsayin mutum wanda zai iya yin ayyukan da ake buƙata duk da maimakon ban da nakasassu.  Hendrickson, 1986Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 1979

 Shigarwa 

 Hakkin kariya daga nuna bambancin jima'i a cikin shigarwa

Taken IX na Kwaskwarimar Dokar Ilimi mafi Girma ta 1972 HEAA, 1972 yana kare dukkan jinsi daga tambayoyin da aka yi kafin shigarwa game da ciki, matsayin iyaye, iyali ko matsayin aure. Ana iya ganin cewa wannan aikin yana karewa daga irin wannan bincike game da jima'i, jima'i mai canza launin fata, transgender ko androgynous mutane.

 Hakkin kariya daga nuna bambanci a cikin shigarwa

Dokar Amurkawa da ke da nakasa ta 1990 (ADA) ADA, 1990 da Sashe na 504 na Dokar Gyara ta 1973. Rehabilitation Act, 1973 Wannan ya haɗa da nuna bambanci a cikin shigarwa. Mutanen da ƙwararren likita ya ƙayyade tare da nakasa, waɗanda aka amince da su bisa doka tare da nakasar   kuma an dauke su da cancanta suna da damar samun daidaito da kuma masauki mai ma'ana a cikin ayyukan da suka shafi ilimi da aiki.Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 1988Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and KaplanPushkin v. Regents of the University of ColoradoADA, 1973Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1990 Kotun Koli ta bayyana In ba haka ba ya cancanta a matsayin mutum wanda zai iya yin ayyukan da ake buƙata duk da maimakon ban da nakasassu.Hendrickson, 1986Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 1979

 Hakkin kariya daga nuna bambancin launin fata a cikin shigarwa

Ba za a iya nuna bambanci ga mutane ba bisa ga launi a ko dai karatun digiri ko digiri na biyu.Kaplan & Lee, 2011Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 1956

 Hakkin yin gwaji a wuraren shiga

Kariyar daga nuna bambanci a cikin shigarwa Hendrickson, 1986 ya haɗa da cewa ɗalibai suna karɓar masauki da ake buƙata don tabbatar da cewa sun cancanci, kariya daga ayyukan gwaji marasa adalci, wuraren gwaji don magana, ƙarancin hannu da na ji da kuma samun dama ga madadin gwajin da aka bayar a wuraren da za a iya samu.Southeastern Community College v. Davis Dole ne a ba da wasu gwaje-gwaje akai-akai kamar yadda aka saba da gwaje-gaje.Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1973 Inda babu wani gwaji, cibiyoyin, duk da haka, ba su da alhakin masauki.Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 1991

 Hakkin kariya daga nuna bambanci tsakanin jima'i a gwajin shiga

Gwaje-gwaje na ilimi waɗanda ke da son kai don goyon bayan jinsi ɗaya, bazai dogara da su a matsayin tushen yanke shawara na bayanai ba.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and KaplanSharif by Salahuddin v. New York State Education Department, 1989

 Hakkin kariya daga manufofin gwajin wariyar launin fata

Daidaitawar dalibai ya haifar da cewa mutane ba za a bi da su daban ba ko kuma tsarin tsarin. Don haka, manufofin gwaji waɗanda ke nuna bambanci, ba bisa ka'ida ba ne bisa ga kundin tsarin mulki. Amurka v. Fordance (1992) ta haramta amfani da ƙididdigar ACT a cikin shigarwar Mississippi, alal misali, saboda rata tsakanin ƙididdigaren ACT na fararen ɗalibai da baƙar fata ya fi girma fiye da rata ta GPA wacce ba a la'akari da ita ba.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and Kaplan

 Hakkin yin amfani da tseren tseren tsayayya a cikin shigarwa don gyara don nuna bambanci

Lokacin da makarantar ta shiga nuna bambancin launin fata a baya doka ta buƙaci su dauki mataki na tabbatar da launin fata don gyara shi.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and KaplanBakke v. Regents of the University of California, 1978Hopwood v. Texas, 1996Podberesky v. Kirwan, 1994

 Hakkin kariya daga nuna bambanci

Ana kare daliban fararen fata daga nuna bambancin launin fata a cibiyoyin 'yan tsiraru na tarihi.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and KaplanMcDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 1976Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, 2005 Daidaitawar launin fata yana kira ga daidaito ga dukkan mutane; duk da haka, ba ya ba da izini, ƙananan buƙatun gwajin shigarwa   ko hukunce-hukunce na ra'ayi ga 'yan tsiraru launin fata lokacin da akwai ƙa'idodin ma'ana ga duk masu nema.Kaplan & Lee, 2011 about="#mwt169" class="mw-ref reference" data-cx="{}" data-mw='{"name":"ref","attrs":{"name":"autogenerated1986"},"body":{"id":"mw-reference-text-cite_note-autogenerated1986-45","html":"<i id=\"mwCFM\">United States v. League of United Latin American Citizens</i>, 1986"}}' id="cite_ref-autogenerated1986_45-0" rel="dc:references" typeof="mw:Extension/ref">[./Student_rights_in_U.S._higher_education#cite_note-autogenerated1986-45 [5]]Woods v. The Wright Institute, 1998

 Hakkin kariya daga tambayoyin da aka yi wa mutum

Wataƙila babu rarrabewa a cikin tsarin shigarwa ciki har da tambayoyin ra'ayiKaplan and Lee (2011) the Law of Higher Education and KaplanBakke v. Regents of the University of California, 1978Hopwood v. Texas, 1996Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003McDonald v. Hogness, 1979 lokacin da akwai ƙa'idodi masu ma'ana ga duk masu neman.Kaplan & Lee, 2011Woods v. The Wright Institute, 1998

 Hakkin kariya daga buƙatun gwaji daban-daban

Ana kare dalibai daga amfani da ƙananan ƙididdigar gwajin shigarwa.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and KaplanUnited States v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 1986

 Hakkin kariya daga ƙididdigar shigarwa bisa ga yawan jama'a

Ana kare dalibai daga amfani da ƙididdigar da ke ware kujeru don wasu ƙididdigas.Kaplan & Lee, 2011Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 1978Hopwood v. Texas, 1996McDonald v. Hogness, 1979Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003

 Hakkin bin kayan rajista

Ana kare ɗalibai daga karkatarwa daga bayanan da aka tallata a cikin kayan rajista.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and KaplanMangala v. Brown University Wannan na iya zama kwangila mai ma'ana-ainihin. Goodman v. Shugaba da Amintattun Kwalejin Bowdoin (2001) sun yanke hukuncin cewa takardun ma'aikata har yanzu suna da kwangila ba tare da la'akari da cewa suna da ƙin yarda ba.

 Sake karantawa 

 Hakkin daidaito a sake shiga

Dole ne cibiyoyin su yi hankali tare da sake dawowa bayan ɗalibai sun kasa kammala bukatun shirin da ake buƙata. Sake shigarwa yana haifar da tambayoyi game da dalilin da ya sa aka cire mutane daga shirin da farko da kuma ko za a iya shigar da masu neman gaba a ƙarƙashin irin wannan yanayi. Ana iya zargin nuna bambanci game da cirewa na farko da kuma yanayin da ba a sake shigar da wasu dalibai a irin wannan yanayi ba. Kaplan & Lee da Lee (2011) Kaplan and Lee (2011) the Law of Higher Education and Kaplan sun ba da shawarar cewa cibiyoyin, idan suna so su guji karya kwangila da zarge-zargen nuna bambanci, suna da manufofin sake dawowa ko da wannan manufofin ya hana sake dawowa. Idan dalibai sun dauki izinin son rai, cibiyoyin dole ne su sami ingantaccen dalili don ƙin sake shiga.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and KaplanCarlin v. Trustees of Boston University, 2000

 Hakkin aji 

 Hakkin bin tsarin aji

Ana kare ɗalibai daga karkatarwa daga bayanan da aka tallata a cikin syllabi na aji.Parkes and Harris, 2002Hill v. University of Kentucky, Wilson, and Schwartz, 1992Keen v. Penson, 1992 Wannan na iya zama kwangila mai ma'ana-n-gaskiya. Goodman v. Shugaba da Amintattun Kwalejin Bowdoin (2001) sun yanke hukuncin cewa takardun ma'aikata har yanzu suna da kwangila ba tare da la'akari da cewa suna da ƙin yarda ba.

 Hakkin abubuwan da aka tallata

Dalibai suna da damar karɓar umarni a kan abubuwan da aka tallata.Bach,Riggin v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball St. Univ., 1984, 1986 Cibiyoyin suna da 'yancin buƙatar ɗaukar kayan karatun da aka tsara ta hanyar malamai   kuma ana kare malamai da ɗalibai gabaɗaya idan sun bi jagororin tsarin karatun.Poskanzer, 2002Clark v. HolmesBishop v. University of Alabama, 1991Edwards v. California Univ. of Pa., 1998Parkes and Harris, 2002Hill v. University of Kentucky, Wilson, and Schwartz, 1992

 Hakki zuwa matakin koyarwar da aka tallata

Dalibai na iya sa ran koyarwa daidai da matakin karatun da aka tallata.Mawdsley, 2004Andre v. Pace University, 1996 Jami'ar Andre v. Pace (1994) ta ba da ladabi bisa la'akari da rashin wakilci da karya kwangila.Bach, 2003

 Hakkin kula da manufofin hanya

Dole ne malamai su ba da hankali ga duk batutuwan da aka bayyana.Clark v. Holmes, 1972, 1973

 Hakkin abubuwan da aka tallata da aka rufe cikin isasshen zurfi

Dalibai na iya samun duk abubuwan talla da aka rufe a cikin isasshen zurfi.Poskanzer, 2002Clark v. Holmes, 1972

 Hakkin daidaito a fadin sassan aji

Scallet v. Rosenblum (1996) ya gano cewa "tsananin iko akan tsarin karatun ya zama dole don tabbatar da daidaito a fadin sassan aji".Poskanzer 2002

Ana iya ba da ɗalibai daidai kuma daidai da ka'idojin da aka tsara ta tsarin karatun kuma ana iya kare su daga ƙarin sabbin ka'idoji.Parkes and Harris, 2002Keen v. Penson, 1992 Cibiyoyin suna da alhakin adana inganci a cikin wakilcin digiri da kwatankwacin tsakanin azuzuwan da kuma hana hauhawar farashi.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and Kaplan Malamai suna da 'yanci, a karkashin gyare-gyare na farko, don isar da ra'ayoyinsu game da maki na dalibai,   amma ana buƙatar cibiyoyin su sadu da' yancin kwangila na dalibai don ayyukan daidaitawa.Poskanzer, 2002Parate v. Isibor, 1989 Sashen na iya canza maki da malamai suka bayar waɗanda ba su dace da manufofin grading ko marasa adalci ko marasa ma'ana.Hills v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 1982

 Hakkin koyo

Dalibai suna da 'yancin koyo.Poskanzer, 2002Kapan, 2011Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 1995Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin University, 1982 Malamai ba su da 'yanci a cikin aji. Dole ne suyi aiki a cikin bukatun sashen wanda ke tabbatar da haƙƙin ɗalibai na koyo kuma dole ne a ɗauka suna da tasiri.Clark v. Holmes, 1972 Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957)  ya gano cewa malamai suna da damar yin lacca. Ba su da 'yancin ilimi a karkashin doka. Dukkanin ka'idojin 'yancin ilimi ana sanya su ne ta hanyar makarantar.

 Hakkin kariya daga amfani da lokaci mara kyau

Dalibai na iya sa ran kariya daga amfani da lokaci mara kyau; [1] malamai bazai ɓata lokacin ɗalibai ba ko amfani da aji a matsayin masu sauraro don ra'ayoyi ko darussan da ba su da alaƙa da darasi. [2]  Riggin da Bd. na Trustees of Ball St. Univ. sun gano cewa masu koyarwa bazai "yi lalata lokacin ɗaliban da suka zo can kuma suka biya kuɗi don wani dalili daban ba".[e]ya gano cewa malamai bazai iya "yi lalata lokacin ɗaliban da suka zo can kuma suka biya kuɗi don wani dalili daban ba".[e]

 Hakkin ingantaccen koyarwa

Dalibai na iya sa ran ingantaccen koyarwa koda kuwa yana buƙatar sa hannun sashen a cikin koyarwa da ci gaban tsarin karatu.PoskanzerRiggin v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball St. Univ., 1986 Kozol (2005)  ya lura cewa ci gaban tsarin karatu bazai amfana ga dukkan dalibai ba tunda wasu dalibai sun fito ne daga kasashe marasa galihu inda ba kowane dalibi ba ne ke da damar samun nasara a makaranta. Idan akwai sashen shiga cikin ilmantarwa na ɗalibai to sassan suna buƙatar yarda cewa ɗalibai sun bambanta lokacin da suke cikin ƙungiyar 'yan tsiraru. Ogbu (2004)  ya yi jayayya cewa don ingantaccen koyarwa ya faru, sassan suna buƙatar fahimtar ɗalibai a matakin rukuni da kuma matakin mutum saboda har ma ɗalibai a cikin ƙungiyoyin 'yan tsiraru iri ɗaya sun bambanta. Ganin cewa ɗalibai suna da 'yancin ingantaccen koyarwa, shigar sashen yana buƙatar fahimtar bambancin al'adu da bambance-bambance na al'adu kafin a yi la'akari da ci gaban tsarin karatu. 

 Hakkin kariya daga rubuce-rubuce ko cin zarafin baki

Malamai suna da 'yancin yin magana da aka tsara Poskanzer, 2002 amma ba za su iya amfani da hakkinsu na farko na gyare-gyare ba ko nuna bambanci Clark v. Holmes, 1972 ko kuma ta hanyar da ke hana ɗalibai koyo ta hanyar yin ba'a, tuba, tayar da hankali ko amfani da ayyukan da ba daidai ba. Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and Kaplan about="#mwt311" class="mw-ref reference" data-cx="{}" data-mw='{"name":"ref","attrs":{},"body":{"id":"mw-reference-text-cite_note-77","html":"<i id=\"mwCR8\">Axson-Flynn v. Johnson</i>, 2004"}}' id="cite_ref-77" rel="dc:references" typeof="mw:Extension/ref">[./Student_rights_in_U.S._higher_education#cite_note-77 [4]]Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 2001

 Hakkin kariya daga nuna bambanci a cikin ilmantarwa

Dokar Amurkawa da ke da nakasa ta 1990 ADA, 1990 da Sashe na 504 na Dokar Gyara ta 1973 Rehabilitation Act, 1973 sun haramta nuna bambanci game da nakasa a cikin aji. Dokar Wannan ta haɗa da nuna bambanci a cikin ilmantarwa   kuma an yi la'akari da cancanta ba tare da an ba su damar samun daidaito da kuma masauki mai ma'ana a cikin ayyukan da suka shafi ilimi da aiki. Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 1988 Kaplan and Lee (2011) the Law of Higher Education and KaplanPushkin v. Regents of the University of ColoradoADA, 1973Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1990 Kotun Koli ta bayyana 'Wani Mai cancanta' a matsayin mutum wanda zai iya yin ayyukan da ake buƙata duk da cewa maimakon idan akwai nakasa.  Hendrickson, 1986Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 1979
manazarta
Rukuni:Shafuka masu fassarorin da ba'a duba ba