Running

head: CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Case Law Analysis

Matt Lyons

November 24, 2015

SDAD 5800 Dr. Allison Lau

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

Chipman v. Grant County School District involves two female high school students who
were pregnant and excluded from the National Honor Society organization because it was
provable that they were going to have children out of wedlock.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits gender discrimination.
Although pregnancy has been described as the quintessential sex difference. Title IXs
prohibition of gender discrimination in the context of parenting and pregnant students
has often been left of of the discussion and therefore the understanding, of the
implementation of Title IX Regulations. (p. 211-212 Gough, 2011)
This quote showcases that the National Honor Society was enacting gender
discrimination because of the facts that only women can become pregnant. Men who have
children out of wedlock can deny they have children unless asked to provide proof. Which, in
the case of National Honor Society and when I was in high school, no male was ever asked if
they have any children. The overall question that is raised by this case is why are pregnant
students allowed to be excluded from the National Honor Society, and why did they find it to be
okay to exclude these students? However, the question I want to ask to pertain this to higher
education is how do we handle traditional college-aged students (18-22 years old) if they are
coming to our institutions as parents?
The facts of this case center around the fact that each chapter of the NHS may
establish different admission criteria so long as those criteria are consistent with the NHS
constitution (Chipman v. Grant Country School District, 1998). Both plaintiffs, Chasity Glass
and Somer Chipman had GPAs above 3.5 and had given birth to daughters prior to the spring of
1998 when they were juniors in high school (Chipman v. Grant County School District, 1998).

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

The Grant County National Honor Society selection committee voted to offer an NHS
membership to every junior that had a 3.5 GPA or better, except for the plaintiffs (Chipman v.
Grant County School District, 1998). Inside the high school it was well known that Hurston was
pregnant. There is strong evidence that the selection committee did not ask those students
offered admission to the National Honor Society male or female if they had engaged in
premarital sexual activity (Chipman v. Grant County, 1998).
The ACLU took to seek justice for these students and thankfully, they won the case for
these two students for the fee of $999 (American Civil Liberties Union, 1999). Furthermore,
Title IX prohibits sex discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (Chipman v. Grant County
High School, 1998).

The ruling of the case was that the admission to the National Honor Society, and that

that "Grant County High School had to admit the plaintiffs by January 31, 1999. (Chipman v.
Grant County High School, 1998). The reasoning behind this decision is that two cases provided
precedents when it comes to the Pregnancy Deiscrimination Act. The first case is Ilhardt v. Sara
Lee Corp and Pfeiffer v. Marion Ctr. Area Sch. Dist. (Chipman v. Grant County, 1998). Ilhardt v.
Sara Lee Corp used Title VII to clarify that pregnancy discrimination is included in Title VIIs
prohibition on sex discrimination (Chipman v. Grant County, 1998). Pfeiffer v. Marion Ctr. Area
Scho. Dist.s precedent is regulations promulgated pursuant to Title IX specifically apply its

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

prohibition against gender discrimination to discrimination on the basis of pregnancy

(Chipman v. Grant County School District, 1998).

Questions must be asked about why being pregnant out of wedlock was a problem in

the first place. Gabrielle Morgan (2013) had this question to ask regarding the Chipman v. Grant
County case:

Has American society stayed so rigidly moralistic (Morgan, 2013, p. 116)? Morgans

first question regarding the rigid morality compared from 1776 to 1998 is a legitimate question
with an obvious answer of no. America has become less and less religious on the west coast
and censorship has become lower and lower simply by the amount of of skim women on TV are
now supported to wear. The point of women showing skin has become a part of the feminist
movement and has developed progress because it showcases women being proud of their
bodies and who they are. To tie into womens rights progress and being proud of their bodies
and their behavior, why was pregnancy being shamed in the Chipman v. Grant County case?
On college campuses females are beginning to be the larger majority of students on campus.
Going forward pregnancy and women with children is going to need to be a focus on college
campuses to cater to the expanding to the new population.

A case involving childcare, De La Cruz. Tormey, focused on childcare on college

campuses (Gough, 2011). When looking at the Chipman and Glass and the future implications
on their higher education experience and having their children taken care of while attending
classes on campus, questions should be asked about child accessibility. Last spring, a group I
was a part of for a group project visited Bellevue College. Bellevue had a childcare center
located on their campus. Due to being an open access institution that does have students with

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

charges and convictions with sexual assault on their campus, the childcare center has to be a
certain distance from classrooms and the center of campus. This center allows students with
children to attend class while knowing their children are being taken care of and close to them.

Seattle University, a private institution strongly recommends/requires traditional

college-aged first and second-year students to live on-campus. I also attended an institution
with the same requirement. I am unaware of a childcare resource center on either of those
campuses for all students. When looking at Somers and Glass, they would be traditional aged
first and second-year students on 4-year university campuses like Seattle U. If they wanted to
attend Seattle U, what resources would be in place to provide these students with childcare?
For that matter, what would Seattle U do with a set of unwed parents who attend their
institutions? Seattle Us website has one page for students who are parents and all that it lists
are off-campus resources to help with childcare (Seattle University, 2015).

Students who are parents can provide all colleges with an underrepresented population

with community wealth (Yosso, 2005). When it comes to aspirational wealth, students who are
parents have the hope and aspirations to be regarded as honor students and provide for their
children for the rest of their life. Linguistic capital takes place in the form National Honor
Society using language that degrades women due to the fact there is no general observation to
know if a man is in a relationship involving pregnancy. Students who are pregnant can bring a
perspective to the classroom that is not represented, especially in institutions with a majority of
traditionally-aged college students.
In addition, familial capital is shown with the fact that students with children are
creating a family and are gaining that experience at a young age. The National Honor Society

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

shamed the plaintiffs in Chipman v. Grant County because of them being parents. The National
Honor Society hurt the social capital of the plaintiffs because they dismissed the students for
being pregnant. A welcoming college like Bellevue College shows inclusiveness toward students
with parents and encouraging them to attend your college and being involved in a social
capacity. Being a member of the National Honor Society improves a high school seniors college
application as it is an award based on academic merit. This hurts the navigational capital of the
plaintiffs because academic merit can result in winning scholarships and having scholarships
available to them. Colleges who have resources for students who are parents are more likely to
have students who are parents navigate their way through college with less stress. Lastly,
resistant capital takes place because students who are parents who have been recently shamed
because of having children may feel discouraged to advance their education beyond high
school. Once again, colleges should proudly showcase they have resources available for as
many student populations as possible.
Overall, the case of Chipman v. Grant County brought attention to academically
successful students becoming parents during high school being shamed and excluded from a
prestigious organization like the National Honor Society. The ACLU stepped in and provided a
platform for these students to receive attention and the recognition they deserved for their
academic success. The plaintiffs, Chasity Glass and Somer Chipman won their case and were
allowed to join the National Honor Society of Grant County. Looking at the next steps for their
education, how are colleges planning to include students who are parents? With that point,
how will colleges showcase on a platform that they are excluding students who are parents?
Students who are parents have different forms of community wealth to provide to a college

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

student body. As future leaders of higher education, we should brainstorm and find ways to
provide an inclusive space for students of all identities and populations.

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

7
References:

American Civil Liberties Union. (1999, October 22). Aclu settles Kentucky case of pregnant teens

denied entry to Honor Society. Retrieved November 10, 2015, from American Civil

Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-settles-kentucky-case-pregnant
teens-denied-entry-honor-society

Chipman v. Grant County Sch. Dist., 30 F. Supp. 2d 975, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20445 (E.D. Ky.

1998)

Gough, M. (2011). Parenting and pregnant students: An evaluation of the implementation of

the other Title IX. Michigan Journal of Gender and Law , 17 (2), 211-268.

Morgan, G. (2013). Character standard or sex discrimination - Students' exclusion from National

Honor Society called a violation of Title IX. Berkely Journal of Gender, Law & Justice , 14

(1), 116-125.

Seattle University. (2015, November 30). Students who are parents. Retrieved November 30,

2015, from Seattle University: https://www.seattleu.edu/ctsl/parents/

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community

cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education , 8 (1), 69-91.