Student rights associated with disciplinary and academic hearings and sanctions

College Student Journal, March, 2005 by Claire R. La Roche

This paper examines whether students have due process rights associated with disciplinary and academic hearings. Constitutional challenges, case law, and the requirements of due process are discussed. Suggestions are made for procedures a school should follow to fulfill the requirements of due process.

**********

An important legal issue with significant implications for both school administrators and students is whether students have due process rights associated with disciplinary and academic hearings. There are several common misconceptions regarding what process is due in connection with honor and judicial board hearings. Students assume that during these hearings they are entitled to the same protection afforded traditional trials in state or federal court. This assumption could not be further from the truth.

Due process is guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and is required whenever "a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him ..." (Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 1971, p. 437). The Fifth Amendment applies to the Federal government and the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." In other words, when actions of a state or federal government affect a protected liberty or property right, due process guarantees fair procedures that include adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. At state supported schools, students are guaranteed due process of law in connection with disciplinary proceedings and to a lesser degree with academic suspensions and dismissals.

Disciplinary Versus Academic Dismissals

Although case law has consistently held that the pursuit of an education is a right afforded the protection of the due process clause, the United States Supreme Court has indicated that "due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." (Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972, p. 481) In fact, "there is a clear dichotomy between a student's due process rights in disciplinary dismissals and in academic dismissals" (Mahavongsanan v. Hall, 1976, pp. 449-450). State and federal court decisions have held that school disciplinary hearings require more stringent due process procedures than academic dismissals, even though an adverse decision may have the same effect on a student. This distinction is based upon the following rationale: "Misconduct is a very different matter from failure to attain a standard of excellence in studies.... A public hearing may be regarded as helpful to the ascertainment of misconduct and useless or harmful in finding out the truth as to scholarship." (Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne. 1913, p. 1097)

Applicable Case Law

Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Greater procedural safeguards are required in a dismissal hearing for violating rules of conduct in contrast to suspensions or expulsions for failing to meet academic standards. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) is a landmark case that articulated the standards of due process associated with disciplinary dismissals. The plaintiffs in the Dixon case were expelled from Alabama State College for requesting to be served at a white lunch counter and for participating in several mass demonstrations. Expulsion came without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before students at a tax-supported college may be expelled for misconduct. The notice should contain a statement of specific charges and grounds that could justify expulsion. The nature of the hearing depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. With a charge of misconduct, due process requires "something more than an informal interview with an administrative authority at the college" (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 1961, p. 158).

The opinion in the Dixon case provides guidance on the nature of the notice and hearing standards. Although the court in Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (1961) did not require a 'full-dress judicial hearing' to comply with the rudiments of due process, the court indicated that the student be given the following:

* Names of the witnesses against him.

* An oral or written report of the facts to which each witness testified.

* The opportunity to present a defense before the disciplinary board or a college administrative official.

* The opportunity to produce supporting oral testimony or written affidavits.

Several interesting cases involve the University of Virginia because the University's Honor System calls for a single sanction (dismissal) for breach of the Honor Code. One such case is Cobb v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (2000), a disciplinary dismissal involving academic dishonesty. Cobb argued that a nine-month delay between the time the professor accused him of cheating and the honor trial denied him the right to a timely hearing. In addition, Cobb claimed that he was not given a student-advisor for seven months prior to the trial. The District Court noted that a nine-month delay is not per se unconstitutional. Furthermore, the court noted that while having a student advisor during the pre-trial stage is advisable, it is not required by the due process clause.