Appellant’s Argument

Access to education is a basic human right which every child is supposed to enjoy. However, this right has been converted into a privilege, and, in most cases, children from poor background are the casualties (Halbrook 32). Paul is a victim whose right to education has been terminated by the university president without considering the impact of his decision. The ruling is unconstitutional and an abuse of office and power. Illustratively, the university president used his power to dismiss Paul against the Constitution. Paul’s comments resulted from the frustration of seeing his talent subliming due to poor management and inadequate practice time. His concerns are genuine basing on the results of the games. Additionally, the scholarship does not have a clause that indicates that having been awarded the opportunity then the freedom of expression is stripped off. Further, the president’s failure to communicate his decision to the appellant is a violation of his right to information. To this end, the president’s decision in violation of the constitution and therefore, his ruling should be reversed.

Appellee’s Argument

The motive of an athletic scholarship is to promote both talent and education, the beneficiaries of such scholarship are expected to be patriotic to the university. When the beneficiaries show signs of betrayal and a lack of devotion to the basics of the scholarship, then it is equivalent to the violation of the scholarship agreement. Additionally, Paul is expected to be an ambassador of the university, and, therefore, posting the information that is demeaning to the sponsor makes the scholarship irrelevant since it does not meet its objective. The university president was justified to terminate the scholarship without Paul’s input since his loyalty was compromised.

Works Cited

Halbrook, Stephen P. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Revised and Updated Edition. UNM Press, 2013.