Please elaborate. You say it's shaky yet have not attempted to dispute anything I have said (throughout this thread).
I in fact am well versed in Iowa Administrative code and the limitations of actions and declatory rulings by a state board and the recourse prescribed by law for those rulings in which this case was filed. In fact it is an area I deal with almost daily.
Student discipline requires due process at a public university (per the supreme court). Declatory rulings by Iowa's Administrative Boards and Commissions are subject to judicial oversight per Iowa Code.
Scholarships do not have to be renewed however, and a coach has authority over who makes the roster. Hence, had they just removed Bubu from the team or not renewed his scholarship he would not have been on Iowa State's roster last year.
Because they made it a punishment as part of their formal student discipline process it was subject to appeal to the regents and that appeal was subject to judicial oversight.
Universities have control over who represents them. However, Public universities have a duty to dicipline in a fair manner. That is what is being questionned. If ISU does not want courts interfering then ISU should not use athletic participation as a formal punishment for non athletic student conduct. They could have simply santioned him and then Leath call Pollard and told him he wants him off the team because he does not represent University values it would not have been subject to any appeal. If they choose to make participation a penalty for a student code violation then the Board of regents should make sure they are acting in a matter that affords the student appropriate due process because if they don't the courts may intervene if appealed as they did in this case. It is really that simple. The judicial overreach argument was bogus and was a strawman by the university to obscure how they mismanaged this process and thus allowing the courts to become involved.
Last edited:
Travis Hines 
