Question

FACTS Robert Steinberg applied for admission to the Chicago Medical School as a first-year student and paid an application fee of $15. The school, a private educational institution, rejected his application. Steinberg brought an action against the school, claiming that it did not evaluate his and other applications according to the academic entrance criteria printed in the school’s bulletin. Instead, he argues, the school based its decisions primarily on nonacademic considerations, such as family connections between the applicant and the school’s faculty and members of its board of trustees and the ability of the applicant or his family to donate large sums of money to the school. Steinberg asserts that by evaluating his application according to these unpublished criteria, the school breached the contract it had created when it accepted his application fee. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and Steinberg appealed. DECISION Trial court’s dismissal reversed and case remanded. OPINION A contract is a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy. ‘‘A contract’s essential requirements are: competent parties, valid subject matter, legal consideration, mutuality of obligation and mutuality of agreement.’’ Generally, parties may contract in any situation where there is no legal prohibition. To be binding, however, the terms must be ‘‘reasonably certain and definite.’’ The contract must also be supported by consideration. Defined in its most general terms, consideration is some benefit accruing to one party or some detriment undertaken by the other, such as the payment of or promise to pay money. In addition, the parties must mutually agree to the contract’s essential terms and conditions to make the contract binding. Mutual consent is gathered from the language employed by the parties or manifested by their words or acts. In this situation, the school’s promise to evaluate the applications according to academic standards is stated in a ‘‘definitive manner’’ in its bulletin. Steinberg accepted this in good faith, and his $15 application fee served as valid consideration. When the school accepted this money, it bound itself to honor the obligations stated in its bulletin. Therefore, its failure to use the stated academic criteria in evaluating applications constituted a breach of its contractual obligation to Steinberg. INTERPRETATION An agreement meeting all of the requirements of a contract is binding and legally enforceable. ETHICAL QUESTION Is it ethical for a school to consider any factors other than an applicant’s merit? Explain. Should the courts resolve this type of dispute on the basis of contract law? Explain.

Answer 1

The question asks whether it is ethical for a school to consider factors other than an applicant's merit, and whether courts should resolve this type of dispute based on contract law.

1. Ethical considerations: The ethicality of a school considering factors other than an applicant's merit is subjective and can vary depending on the context. On one hand, some argue that considering factors like family connections or the ability to donate money can lead to unfair advantages and undermine the principle of meritocracy. It may result in qualified applicants being overlooked in favor of those with privileged connections or financial means. This can be seen as ethically questionable since it goes against the idea of equal opportunity.

2. On the other hand, some argue that considering nonacademic factors can be justified in certain cases. For example, a school might prioritize diversity and inclusion by considering factors like an applicant's background or life experiences. In this case, it can be argued that such considerations contribute to a richer and more diverse educational environment, which can be seen as an ethical goal.

3. Resolution through contract law: In this particular case, the court resolved the dispute based on contract law. They found that the school's bulletin constituted a contractual agreement with applicants, and the school breached that contract by not evaluating applications according to the stated academic criteria. This approach focuses on the legal obligations and promises made by the school.

4. However, it is worth noting that resolving disputes based on contract law might not address the broader ethical questions at hand. While contract law provides a mechanism to enforce the terms of a contract, it may not fully address whether it is ethically acceptable for a school to consider factors other than an applicant's merit. These broader ethical questions might require a different framework or approach beyond contract law to be fully explored and resolved.

In conclusion, the ethicality of a school considering factors other than an applicant's merit is subjective and context-dependent. Courts can resolve disputes based on contract law, but it might not fully address the broader ethical questions involved in such cases