Carlberg has not voluntarily subjected himself to the rules of the IHSAA; he has no voice in its rules or leadership. We note as well the relatively short span of time a student spends in high school compared to the amount of time often required for institutional policies to change. These factors all point to the propriety of judicial scrutiny of IHSAA decisions with respect to student challenges. But what should be the standard of review? This Court has never applied de novo review to IHSAA decisions and emphatically rejects it here. Rather than de novo review, since Sturrup, the appellate courts of this state have applied an “arbitrary and capricious” standard in reviewing the decisions of the IHSAA. Sturrup, 261 Ind. at 470, 305 N.E.2d at 882; see also Avant, 650 N.E.2d at 1171 (<HOLDING>); Kriss, 180 Ind.App. at 609, 390 N.E.2d at 202
holding constitutional the granting of student activity funds to the campus newspaper holding that the forest service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with ontheground data holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding the ihsaa did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in granting student limited eligibility holding that juveniles use of the f word in dispute with principal and another student over whether student had stolen her money did not constitute fighting words