1–6. Procedural Due Process. Robert Brown applied for admission to the University of Kansas School of Law. Brown answered "no" to questions on the application asking if he had a criminal history and acknowledged that a false answer constituted "cause for... dismissal." In fact, Brown had criminal convictions for domestic battery and driving under the influence. He was accepted for admission to the school. When school officials discovered his history, however, he was notified of their intent to dismiss him and given an opportunity to respond in writing. He demanded a hearing. The officials refused to grant Brown a hearing and then expelled him. Did the school’s actions deny Brown due process? Miller, Roger LeRoy. Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials: Text and Summarized Cases (p. 29). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition.

Yes, the school's action denied Brown due process.

Explanation:

The school forgot the equal protection clause when taken their action. In the equal protection clause, an entity cannot prohibit any individual on the basis of gender or sex without due process. The school did not give Brown the hearing he demanded and this is a violation of the equal protection clause.

the due process clause is defined as "the provisions in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” (Miller, 2015). Inorder to acertain whether the schools’ actions denied Mr. Brown due process, we have to determine whether the ruling has denied Mr. Bbrown of liberty, life or property. In the court document for the case, it is stated that we will assume that Mr. Brown has liberty or property interests implicated by his dismissal from the law school. That being said, Mr Brown, was aware that providing false information on his admission application would be detrimental and could result in expulsion and, intentionally lied on his application.

The admission board of the school of law stated that had they known of the convictions beforehand, they would not have accepted Mr. Brown into their school. Thus, the school acted within their rights to expel him for providing false information on the admission application.

answer; /// i believe that the correct answer is(cognitive revolution);

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.