Posted: March 4th, 2021

ENG 314 Fall 2020 Take-Home Midterm

ENG 314
Fall 2020
Take-Home Midterm
October 2020

Instructions
READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY, FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THESE INSTRUCTIONS MAY RESULT IN THE INVALIDATION OF YOUR ANSWER. Read each question carefully and answer the questions asked. Points are awarded for the precision, completeness, and analytic thoroughness of your answer. Be sure to answer both arguments FOR and AGAINST your ultimate conclusion. For example, if you think Person A has violated the law, YOU MUST PRESENT ARGUMENTS THAT THEY BOTH DID AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAW. You then can explain why your conclusion should prevail. Truly outstanding answers will also share the weaknesses in even the winning argument.
This examination has two fact patterns, and three questions for each set of facts. The fact patterns are weighted equally (50% each). Answer both questions for credit.
Fact Pattern #1
Over after-work cocktails one day, Harry Ham and Sally Lamb were sharing their thoughts that the “Me Too” movement was taking things too far. Sally, as she played with Harry’s toes under the table, said, “These folks are going to make flirting a federal crime, if they have it their way.” Harry responded, as he tickled Sally’s ear, “Hey, I’ve got a great idea! We should form an organization called ‘Flirting is No Crime’ (FINC). Besides flirting at our meetings, we can work to stop some of these so-called sexual harassment cases that involve only words exchanged at work. If someone’s making unwanted sexual contact, that’s one thing. But words are just words. What’s the big deal?” And just to make it clear we’re not a bunch of marriage-breakers, we should limit membership to single people only.”
Before long, Harry and Sally had formed FINC and began recruiting members. The organization seemed to find a receptive audience, especially among men, and soon grew to have over 3,000 members in several chapters around the Midwest.
One wealthy member, who had once been the victim of what he called “a totally bogus” sexual harassment suit, donated $3 million to the association which, he said, could be used for FINC-sponsored events and to promote “sane policies” regarding workplace interactions. FINC has subsequently advertised and lobbied to rollback or revise certain provisions of Title 7, the law governing discrimination and harassment in the workplace on the basis of sex.
…
Steamy Stevens is a sociology professor at Western Dakota State, a public university in North Dakota. Steamy is single and is a chapter president of FINC. She frequently teaches her sociology classes while wearing a FINC button, which displays a pair of pink winking eyes with the motto below, “Flirting is No Crime.”
Steamy’s research assistant is a 23-year-old graduate assistant, Stud Wannabe. Steamy frequently critiques Stud’s choice of dress. When he came into Steamy’s office one day with research for her paper on sexual promiscuity in the Fiji Islands, Stud was wearing a pair of tight-fitting jeans. Steamy smiled at Stud and said, “Now that’s more like it. You show very well.” On another occasion, Steamy suggested that Stud find a pair of Speedos to wear to the Sociology Department’s annual pool party.
When Stud reported Steamy’s comments to the Human Relations Director at Western Dakota State, an investigation was launched. The resulting report led to a decision to terminate Steamy Stevens. Western Dakota State told Steamy she was being fired because: (1) she wore her “flirting is no crime” button while teaching classes; and (2) she made “sexually suggestive” comments to a research assistant.
Steamy challenges the decision to fire her in federal court, alleging that her dismissal violated her rights under the First Amendment. Use your knowledge of the First Amendment (not the Fourteenth) and the case Wozniak v. Adesida to answer the following questions:
1. Was Steamy’s termination based on her wearing of a “flirting is no crime” button a violation of Steamy’s first amendment free speech rights? Why or why not? EACH ARGUMENTATIVE PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE IN THE FORM OF (C)ONCLUSION (R)ULE (A)PPLICATION (C)ONCLUSION. Explain why a conclusion you favor prevails over a conclusion that you do not favor.
2. Was Steamy’s termination based on her making of “sexually suggestive” comments to a research assistant a violation of Stemay’s first amendment free speech rights? Why or why not? EACH ARGUMENTATIVE PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE IN THE FORM OF (C)ONCLUSION (R)ULE (A)PPLICATION (C)ONCLUSION. Explain why a conclusion you favor prevails over a conclusion that you do not favor.
3. Does or should your analysis change if Steamy were male and Stud were female? If not, why not? If so, why? Here the CRAC method of writing is not required.

Fact Pattern #2
Senator Kiljoy of the Colorado State Legislature drafted a bill entitled “Keeping Colorado’s Female Minority Youth Safe and Sound.” The provisions -of this bill would establish a statewide curfew between the hours of 10 p.m and 6 a.m. for non-emancipated Hispanic, African-American, Native American, and Asian females under the age of 18. The basis for this legislation is nationally accepted research proving that minority females are most likely to be assaulted, injured in accidents, or become pregnant between the hours of 10 p.m and 6 a.m Numerous civil liberties groups have threatened to challenge the bill as unconstitutional if adopted.
Use the attached case, Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 188 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (en banc) to answer the following questions:
1. Hutchins holds that laws affecting one’s “fundamental rights” are subject to “strict scrutiny;” meaning a law is justified only if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. In Fact Pattern #2 (a curfew imposed on children of color), what is the state’s “compelling interest” and is the law narrowly tailored to serve that interest? If so, why? If not, why not?
2. Use Hutchins to argue on behalf of the civil liberties groups that the bill is unconstitutional if adopted. Your answer should have the following: (a) ARGUMENTS USING THE (C)ONCLUSION (R)ULE (A)PPLICATION (C)ONCLUSION FORMAT; (b) counterarguments (meaning arguments that the state will make against the civil liberties groups); (c) the tests available to the court (strict scrutiny mentioned above and intermediate scrutiny mentioned in Hutchins); and (d) distinctions between the bill in Fact Pattern #2 and the facts in Hutchins.
3. Hutchins states, in relevant part, “That juvenile curfews are common is, of course, not conclusive in determining whether they comport with due process, but the historical prevalence of such laws is ‘plainly worth considering’ in determining whether the practice ‘offends some principle of justice so deeply rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’” Identify how this law would threaten the civil rights of female juveniles and link them to your previous analyses of the due process and/or equal protection rights discussed in questions 1 and 2 of this fact pattern.

Order | Check Discount