This study examines the special place college and university attorneys have come to occupy as the legal environment of higher education has been dramatically redefined during the last several decades. More specifically, this study evaluates major institutional legal service typologies; explains the principal duties, responsibilities and interrelationships of campus counsel; and analyzes the importance of centralized coordination for delivering quality, integrated and efficient legal services. Special attention is devoted to the professional relationship and protocol which exists between college and university attorneys and their respective institutional clients. The organization of this study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One traces the historical development of campus counsel's role in American higher education amid the currents of changing case law, recently enacted legislation, increased litigation and government regulation. With this historical context in perspective, Chapter One posits significant legal service issues confronting campus counsel as the legal environment grows more complex and the pitfalls of liability more serious. Chapter One closes with an assessment of the scholarly significance and practical application of the dissertation. Chapter Two of the study provides an overview of the published literature including textbooks, academic journals, scholarly monographs and practitioner oriented handbooks and other reference materials. Chapter Two organizes the literature search by source of authority and topical focus. Chapter Three of the study details the overall research, methodology, sampling techniques and design of study inquiry employed by the investigator. Data sources include national, state and local surveys. Chapter Four reports out analytical outcomes based on the data collected, and further compares and contrasts research results in terms which are of practical usefulness to appropriately involved institutional client groups. Chapter Five projects the role of campus counsel into the 1990's and includes a distillation of future conditions shaping legal service delivery systems coming into place at American colleges and universities.

This thesis has examined selected federal legislation, presidential executive orders, and regulatory agency guidelines to determine the impact the federal government and its various regulatory agencies have had upon personnel administration in higher education. The federal legislation analyzed in this study is: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII as amended; Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended; Wage and Hour Provisions, Equal Pay Act of 1963 as amended; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 as amended.The Presidential Executive Order analyzed is #11246, "Nondiscrimination under Federal Contracts." The regulatory agency guidelines examined are those promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The guidelines are the Sex Discrimination Guidelines, Religious Discrimination Guidelines, National Origin Discrimination Guidelines, and the Testing and Selecting Employee Guidelines.The survey instrument measured participants' responses to thirty-seven questions encompassing several phases of the personnel and employment system.The compilation and analysis of the participants' responses clearly support the original hypothesis that the federal government and its various regulatory agencies have had an impact upon personnel administration in colleges and universities. The various laws, presidential executive orders, and regulatory agency guidelines have prompted a reshaping of the personnel policies and practices of institutions of higher education.

Not available / text

Following the mass shooting at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, institutions of higher education appeared to restructure themselves and change the way that they worked with students who may pose a risk to self or others. They formed committees, sometimes known as Communities of Concern, to help review these concerns and respond appropriately. The purpose of this study was to examine how the Community of Concern Committee at the University of Kentucky was developed following the incident at Virginia Tech. Particular attention was focused on the change and learning that took place. Using the frames of single-loop and double-loop learning, this study examined six oral history accounts of the development of the Community of Concern Committee at the University of Kentucky. The oral histories coupled with historical documents provided a timeline of events related to the development of the committee. In addition, the oral histories revealed a complex learning process which blended single and double-loop learning to guide this institutional change. The comparison between this incident and other legal issues within higher education was explored as well as the opportunity to expand this exploration outside of the current case study.

The right to education is entrenched in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The Constitution, together with various policy documents, provides guiding principles for the transformation of higher education in South Africa. Several universities were placed under administration, before and after the attainment of democracy in South Africa. The independent assessors reports on these institutions have one thing in common, namely that they point out poor administration and ineffective corporate governance practices. Despite many commendable initiatives by Government since 1994 to improve an apparently flawed higher education system, some aspects could be enhanced further, especially concerning corporate governance and governance accountability. Council members and the executive management of higher education institutions are subject to common law fiduciary duties and duties of care and skill. However, their accountability for breaches of these duties is not always clear and is seldom enforced. There is a need to balance effective accountability and the exercise of discretionary powers that are integral to effective governance and management. This thesis considers how corporate governance and compliance in higher education can be improved further, taking into account various legislative changes to the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997, direction provided by the Companies Act 71 of 2008 and the Banks Act 94 of 1990 in respect of the regulation of directors’ duties. An in-depth investigation into the relevant provisions of these Acts was not intended nor undertaken. Rather, the thesis draws from these Acts so that the problems concerning corporate governance in the higher education sector may be dealt with. The regulation of higher education in the foreign jurisdiction of the State of Georgia in the United States of America and in the Canadian province of Ontario was also considered. Based on the research undertaken, specific amendments are proposed to the Higher Education Act of 1997 and the Regulations for Reporting by Public Higher Education Institutions 2014, which are aimed at improvin higher education. / Die reg op onderwys word in die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 1996 verskans. Riglyne vir die transformasie van hoër onderwys in Suid-Afrika word in die Grondwet en verskeie ander beleidsdokumente vervat. Voordat en nadat ‘Suid-Afrika demokraties geword het, is verskeie universiteite onder administrasie geplaas. Luidens die onafhanklike assessore se verslae, het hierdie instellings een ding gemeen gehad: swak administrasie en ondoeltreffende korporatiewe regering. Ondanks talle prysenswaardige stappe van die regering sedert 1994 om die probleme in die hoëronderwysstelsel te ondervang, kan bepaalde aspekte steeds verbeter, in die besonder korporatiewe regering en regeeraanspreeklikheid. Raadslede en lede van die uitvoerende besture van hoëronderwysinstellings is verplig om hulle gemeenregtelike fidusiêre pligte en hulle sorgvuldigheids- en kundigheidsplig na te kom. Hulle verantwoordingspligtigheid in geval van pligsversuim is egter dikwels vaag en word selde afgedwing. Die juiste ewewig moet gevind word tussen doeltreffende verantwoordingspligtigheid en die uitoefening van diskresionêre magte wat onlosmaaklik deel is van doeltreffende korporatiewe regering en bestuur. In hierdie tesis word gekyk hoe korporatiewe regering en nakoming in hoër onderwys verbeter kan word met inagneming van verskeie wysigings van die Wet op Hoër Onderwys 101 van 1997, riglyne in die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 en in die Bankwet 94 van 1990 aangaande die pligte van direkteure. Geen grondige ondersoek na die toepaslike bepalings in hierdie wette is beoog of gedoen nie. Hulle word eerder gebruik om oplossings vir die probleme met korporatiewe regering in hoër onderwys te vind. Hoe hoër onderwys in die Amerikaanse deelstaat Georgia en die Kanadese provinsie Ontario gereël word, is eweneens in ag geneem. Wysigings van die Wet op Hoër Onderwys van 1997 en die Regulations for Reporting by Public Higher Education Institutions 2014, wat poog om verantwoordingspligtigheid en voldoening in hoër onderwys te verbeter, word voorgestel. / Ilungelo lokufunda liqukethwe uMthethosisekelo woMbuso waseNingizimu Afrika, wangonyaka ka 1996. UMthethosisekelo, kanye neminye imibhalo eyahlukahlukene yemigomo, inikeza umhlahlandlela wemigomo yokuguqulwa kwamaziko emfundo ephakeme eNingizimu Afrika. Amanyuvesi ahlukahlukene amiswa futhi, ngaphambili nangemuva kokuthola idemokhrasi eNingizimu Afrika. Imibiko yabaphenyi bamanyuvesi abazimele inophawu olufanayo, lokuthi iveza ukungahanjiswa kahle kohlelo lokuphatha kanye nokungalandelwa kwezingqubo zokuphatha amabhizinisi. Yize kunemizamo eminingi encomekayo evela uHulumeni kusukela ngonyaka ka 1994, imizamo yokuthuthukisa uhlelo lwemfundo ephakeme olwehlulekayo, ezinye zezimpawu zaqhubeka nokuqiniswa, ikakhulu lezo ezimayelana nokuphathwa kwamaziko kanye nokuziphendulela kwamaziko. Amalungu omkhandlu kanye nesigungu sabaphathi bamaziko emfundo ephakeme bayaphoqeleka ukulandela umthetho ngokuthi benze imisebenzi ngokuthembeka okuyimisebenzi emayelana nokunakekela kanye namakhono okusebenza. Yize-kunjalo, ukuziphendulela kwabo uma bephula imithetho kaningi akucaci kahle kanti le mithetho ayivamisile ukuqiniswa. Kunesidingo sokulinganisa uhlelo olusebenzayo lokuziphendulela kanye nokusebenzisa amandla okuphatha onikezwe wona, okungamandla ayinsika ekuqiniseni uhlelo lokuhanjiswa kahle kwamaziko kanye nokuphathwa. Le thesis iqonde ekutheni ngabe uhlelo lokuphathwa kwamaziko kanye nokulandelwa kwemithetho emazikweni emfundo aphakeme kungathuthukiswa kanjani, uma kubhekwa izinguquko zomthetho ezahlukahlukene, kuMthetho 101 weMfundo Ephakeme ka 1997, uma kubhekwa indlela enikezwa uMthetho 71 weziNkampani ka 2008 kanye noMthetho 94 wamaBhange ka 1990 mayelana nomthetho wemisebenzi yabaqondisi. Akukaze kube nenhloso futhi kwenziwe uphenyo olujulile mayelana nemithetho efanele yale Mithetho. Kunalokho, ithesisi yencike phezu kwaleMithetho ukuze izinkinga ezimayelana nokuphathwa kwamaziko emkhakheni wemfundo ephakeme zidingidwe kahle. Umthetho wemfundo ephakeme esiyingini somthetho sangaphandle se-State of Georgia ngase-United States of America kanye nasesifundazweni saseCanada ngase-Ontario nawo uye wabhekwa. Ngenxa yocwaningo olwenziwe, sekuye kwaphakanyiswa ukuthi kube nezinguquke ezithile eMthethweni weMfundo ePhakeme ka 1997 kanye naseMithethweni yokuBika yamaZiko eMfundo ePhakeme oMphakathi ka 2014, okuyimithetho ehlose ukuthuthukisa izinga lokuphatha okunokuziphendulela kanye nokulandela umthetho wemfundo ephakeme. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

The widening of access to Higher Education (HE) with a concomitant call for more accountability in the HE sector locally and globally, has altered the former elitist status of the university and impacted the professional standing, autonomy, and working conditions of lecturers negatively. Lecturers are increasingly held to account for providing quality teaching and delivering employable graduates. Yet their work environment has been characterised by poor support, dwindling resources, lack of recognition and reward for teaching efforts and excellence, and absence of legal protection when failing to fulfil the undefined yet high accountability expectations in their teaching-related work. This state of affairs has had an inevitable influence on lecturers’ perceived security in their labour environment. The overarching purpose of this study was therefore to generate guidelines to improve the existing juridical foundation for accountability of South African (SA) HE lecturers with a view to enhance their security in their employment context. In order to assist in the fulfilment of this central purpose, the study aimed to develop understanding of how lecturers perceive their accountability and security in light of diverse teaching-related responsibilities and vagueness in terms of expected conduct; and the protection (or lack of protection) of their rights and professional status. An international perspective on these issues was imperative to shed some light on how regulation elsewhere could improve practices in the SA context. While SA lecturers are equally entitled to all the rights stipulated in the Bill of Rights, they are also subject to and accountable for upholding the provisions of the SA Constitution and derived labour legislation relevant within the HE environment. The founding values of the Constitution, namely equality, human dignity and the protection of human rights and related freedoms, form not only the basic standard for measuring lecturer conduct, but also the legal basis for challenging policy, system or conduct that might threaten constitutional or labour rights. Yet, despite the existing juridical foundation for the regulation of accountability and rights protection of SA lecturers, comprising the SA Constitution, general labour and HE legislation, there is an absence of HE-specific teaching-related accountability regulation, resulting in lecturer insecurity regarding expected conduct, professional recognition and support, and accountability expectations in their teaching-related work. In comparison, a number of Australian legal imperatives, including the Commonwealth of Australia Learning and Teaching Council’s standard for quality teaching with corresponding quality indicators, provide for more clearly defined teaching-related accountability regulation. In addition, the Mission Based Compacts, the Threshold Standards, and the national Modern Award for the Higher Education Industry, afford Australian lecturers the protection of HE-specific rights relevant to enhance security in their unique work environment. These legal imperatives proved to be significant for informing the improved juridical foundation for lecturer teaching-related accountability in the SA context to enhance the security of the SA lecturer. With a focus on the development of in-depth understanding of the phenomena of lecturer accountability and security via the perspectives and interpretations of lecturers themselves, the empirical study was grounded in an inductive qualitative methodology from an interpretive-phenomenological perspective. To ensure richness of descriptive data, lecturers actively involved in undergraduate teaching at three different local, and one Australian university, were purposively selected to participate in semi-structured individual and focus group interviews. The analysis and interpretation of the interview data included a comparative component to explore perceptions of lecturer accountability regulation and security protection in an Australian context with a view to identify inadequate legal provisioning for these phenomena in the SA HE environment. From the data analysis and interpretation, seven meaningful themes were identified, associated with either lecturer accountability or lecturer security. The findings offered not only a clear delineation of internal and external lecturer teaching-related accountability, but also a comprehensive definition of lecturer professional security that was found wanting in all legal sources and other literature studied for this thesis. Moreover, in realisation of the primary aim of this study, twelve significant guidelines are presented to establish an improved juridical foundation for lecturer accountability that will enhance lecturer security in the SA Higher Education context. Amongst these are: the development of a clear delineation of teaching-related roles and responsibilities articulated for different academic post levels; the establishment of a professional HE teaching-oriented career path affording professional recognition via a professional body for lecturers, and requiring continuous professional teaching development; and the development of minimum conditions of employment unique to the work of the HE lecturer. / PhD (Education Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

The widening of access to Higher Education (HE) with a concomitant call for more accountability in the HE sector locally and globally, has altered the former elitist status of the university and impacted the professional standing, autonomy, and working conditions of lecturers negatively. Lecturers are increasingly held to account for providing quality teaching and delivering employable graduates. Yet their work environment has been characterised by poor support, dwindling resources, lack of recognition and reward for teaching efforts and excellence, and absence of legal protection when failing to fulfil the undefined yet high accountability expectations in their teaching-related work. This state of affairs has had an inevitable influence on lecturers’ perceived security in their labour environment. The overarching purpose of this study was therefore to generate guidelines to improve the existing juridical foundation for accountability of South African (SA) HE lecturers with a view to enhance their security in their employment context. In order to assist in the fulfilment of this central purpose, the study aimed to develop understanding of how lecturers perceive their accountability and security in light of diverse teaching-related responsibilities and vagueness in terms of expected conduct; and the protection (or lack of protection) of their rights and professional status. An international perspective on these issues was imperative to shed some light on how regulation elsewhere could improve practices in the SA context. While SA lecturers are equally entitled to all the rights stipulated in the Bill of Rights, they are also subject to and accountable for upholding the provisions of the SA Constitution and derived labour legislation relevant within the HE environment. The founding values of the Constitution, namely equality, human dignity and the protection of human rights and related freedoms, form not only the basic standard for measuring lecturer conduct, but also the legal basis for challenging policy, system or conduct that might threaten constitutional or labour rights. Yet, despite the existing juridical foundation for the regulation of accountability and rights protection of SA lecturers, comprising the SA Constitution, general labour and HE legislation, there is an absence of HE-specific teaching-related accountability regulation, resulting in lecturer insecurity regarding expected conduct, professional recognition and support, and accountability expectations in their teaching-related work. In comparison, a number of Australian legal imperatives, including the Commonwealth of Australia Learning and Teaching Council’s standard for quality teaching with corresponding quality indicators, provide for more clearly defined teaching-related accountability regulation. In addition, the Mission Based Compacts, the Threshold Standards, and the national Modern Award for the Higher Education Industry, afford Australian lecturers the protection of HE-specific rights relevant to enhance security in their unique work environment. These legal imperatives proved to be significant for informing the improved juridical foundation for lecturer teaching-related accountability in the SA context to enhance the security of the SA lecturer. With a focus on the development of in-depth understanding of the phenomena of lecturer accountability and security via the perspectives and interpretations of lecturers themselves, the empirical study was grounded in an inductive qualitative methodology from an interpretive-phenomenological perspective. To ensure richness of descriptive data, lecturers actively involved in undergraduate teaching at three different local, and one Australian university, were purposively selected to participate in semi-structured individual and focus group interviews. The analysis and interpretation of the interview data included a comparative component to explore perceptions of lecturer accountability regulation and security protection in an Australian context with a view to identify inadequate legal provisioning for these phenomena in the SA HE environment. From the data analysis and interpretation, seven meaningful themes were identified, associated with either lecturer accountability or lecturer security. The findings offered not only a clear delineation of internal and external lecturer teaching-related accountability, but also a comprehensive definition of lecturer professional security that was found wanting in all legal sources and other literature studied for this thesis. Moreover, in realisation of the primary aim of this study, twelve significant guidelines are presented to establish an improved juridical foundation for lecturer accountability that will enhance lecturer security in the SA Higher Education context. Amongst these are: the development of a clear delineation of teaching-related roles and responsibilities articulated for different academic post levels; the establishment of a professional HE teaching-oriented career path affording professional recognition via a professional body for lecturers, and requiring continuous professional teaching development; and the development of minimum conditions of employment unique to the work of the HE lecturer. / PhD (Education Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015