Private Universities: Student Dismissal Due Process Rights?

Private universities are not legally required to provide students with constitutional due process. However, they are often contractually bound to follow their own established disciplinary processes. In many states, university handbooks create a contractual relationship between students and their universities. This means that while private universities have broad discretion to adopt whatever procedures they want for deciding campus conduct cases, they must generally follow those procedures. For example, if a university's student handbook promises students five days' notice before a hearing, but gives a student only one day, that university may have breached its contract with the student.

Due process at private universities

Due process is a set of rules and procedures that authorities must follow to ensure that their decisions are fair and just. In the context of college campuses, due process is a safeguard for students who are facing suspension or expulsion.

At private universities, students' rights are primarily contractual. University handbooks create a contractual relationship between students and their universities, which means that while private universities have broad discretion to adopt procedures for deciding campus conduct cases, they must generally follow those procedures. For example, if a university's student handbook promises students five days' notice before a hearing, but gives a student only one day, that university may have breached its contract with the student.

However, private universities are not legally required to provide students with constitutional due process. Nevertheless, some courts have held that disciplinary procedures at private colleges and universities may not be "arbitrary and capricious". This protection flows from old common law ideas about how private associations must treat their members.

Due Process at Public Universities

Public universities, as an arm of the government, are constrained by the Constitution in setting rules and disciplining students. Students at public universities have both liberty and property interests at stake in disciplinary hearings and are therefore entitled to due process protections.

Procedural Due Process Rights at Public Universities

Students facing disciplinary hearings at public universities are entitled to:

• Notice of the charges against them
• An explanation of the evidence against them
• An opportunity to tell their side of the story

Substantive Due Process Rights at Public Universities

Substantive due process rights protect students from vague, overbroad, and unfair rules. For example, public colleges and universities may not improperly restrict these substantive due process rights by establishing vague or unfair rules that can be sprung upon students unfairly or that can be interpreted, unfairly and surprisingly, to cover seemingly ordinary conduct.

Due process for medical students

Due process is a citizen's protection under the law. It refers to the safeguards in place to protect a person from actions by the state government (according to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) or the federal government (the 5th Amendment).

Public colleges and universities are required to provide due process to students and faculty. The same is not true at private schools. Due process is guaranteed under constitutional law, which means it applies to schools operated by federal, state, and local governments.

The two parts of due process are procedural and substantive. Procedural refers to the processes or steps involved in disciplining a student. This includes notification of possible dismissal and a hearing for the student to refute evidence and present their own case. Substantive due process, on the other hand, is related to the substance of an accusation. The school's decision for dismissal or sanctions should not be unfair, arbitrary, or on a whim. There should be a legitimate concern about the student's performance.

The amount of due process required depends on the type of dismissal or sanction being levied. For example, courts give education institutions more leniency with due process if the dismissal is academic in nature. In contrast, for disciplinary actions, courts have set the precedence that students facing disciplinary sanctions have the expectation of full due process under the law.

Due process considerations in medical education are outlined in the article "Due Process in Medical Education: Legal Considerations" by Richard M. Conran, PhD, MD, JD, and colleagues. The article notes that throughout the medical education continuum, some students encounter difficulty in meeting academic or professional standards that lead to remediation or dismissal. Termination of a student without due process may lead to litigation by deprivation of a student's property or liberty interest.

The article outlines the concept of procedural and substantive due process as applied to litigated student dismissal cases in undergraduate and graduate medical education. It states that the determination of the amount of due process owed is based on whether the dismissal is academic or nonacademic. The decision to dismiss a student where the entire student record has been reviewed, due process provided, and the institution complied with its own policies is usually upheld by the courts in litigation.

The article further highlights legal precedents, such as the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in the Horowitz and Ewing cases, which have set the standard for due process in academic dismissals. In these cases, the Court determined that courts are not well-suited to assess academic performance, especially when it's a purely academic decision.

The article also provides an overview of due process considerations in undergraduate and graduate medical education, including common issues that have led to student dismissal. It emphasizes the importance of documentation by faculty, as courts will look at the written record in making determinations. Additionally, it notes that all medical schools, undergraduate and graduate, should have policies for due process as it is an accreditation standard.

Due process is a fundamental right that protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state or federal government. In the context of medical education, due process considerations arise when students encounter difficulty in meeting academic or professional standards. Termination of a student without due process may lead to litigation. The amount of due process required depends on the nature of the dismissal, with academic dismissals generally requiring less procedural safeguards than disciplinary actions.

Due process at private institutions

Due process is a set of rules and procedures that authorities must follow to ensure that their decisions are fair and just. The right to due process is grounded in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that no one may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

Private universities are not part of the government and are not legally required to provide students with constitutional due process. However, they are often contractually bound to follow their own established disciplinary processes. In many states, university handbooks create a contractual relationship between students and their universities. This means that while private universities have broad discretion to adopt whatever procedures they want for deciding campus conduct cases, they must, generally speaking, follow those procedures. For example, if a university’s student handbook promises students five days’ notice before a hearing, but gives a student only one day, that university may have breached its contract with the student.

In addition, some states follow an ancient “common law” doctrine that binds private organisations to treat their members with at least a minimal level of fairness and decency. This doctrine reinforces the contract law rules requiring universities to follow their own procedures.

Procedural Safeguards

In addition to the constitutional rights students at public institutions enjoy, students at both public and private institutions may be afforded additional procedural safeguards through school policies or state legislation. For example, federal law does not require colleges and universities to offer a full and formal judicial hearing, but many institutions offer a more robust hearing to students accused of misconduct.

Due Process Red Flags

Due process rights may be infringed not only by unfair or unclear disciplinary procedures, but also policies that are vague, overbroad, or unfair. Rules must be written with enough clarity that individuals have fair warning about prohibited conduct. The courts do not demand perfect precision in the formulation of rules, but they can find a law “void for vagueness” if people of common intelligence would have to guess at its meaning or would easily disagree about its application.

In a ruling that could have national implications for campus sexual assault proceedings, a federal judge has suggested that a private institution in an alleged rape case may not have followed due process standards -- a constitutional concept that generally applies only to public universities. This is the first time a judge, in a case involving a private college, directly linked due process to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that bars sex discrimination, including sexual violence, at educational institutions.

Due process rights at private universities

However, the right to due process is grounded in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides that no one may "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Because this "Due Process Clause" constrains government actors, and state colleges and universities are government actors, this means that students at state universities have constitutional due process rights that their universities cannot violate in the course of conducting student disciplinary proceedings.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that public school students facing even a short suspension are entitled to notice of the charges against them and the opportunity to present their side of the story. Cases involving longer suspensions or expulsion may require more formal procedures.

At private universities, students' rights are not constitutionally guaranteed, but there are some protections. For example, in some states, there are rules that require administrative agencies to follow their own regulations. If a student lives in such a state, these administrative rules may provide an additional legal theory to force a private university to obey its own rules.

Additionally, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974 makes a student's "education records" confidential but gives students and their parents the right to inspect them. FERPA applies equally to all institutions, public or private, that receive any Department of Education funding.

Due process red flags

• Not receiving notice of the charges against you: Students facing suspension or expulsion from a public university have a right to hear the evidence against them and to have an opportunity to rebut it. This right was established in the case of Goss v. Lopez, where the Court ruled that students must be given "oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story".
• Not being allowed to present your side of the story: In the case of Goss v. Lopez, the Court also ruled that students must be given an opportunity to "present their side of the story to an impartial arbiter or panel". This is a crucial aspect of due process, and its denial is a major red flag.
• Not being allowed to cross-examine your accuser: In the case of Brandeis University, a student was expelled without being allowed to cross-examine his accuser. This was deemed a violation of his due process rights, and the university was forced to reinstate him.
• Withholding of evidence: Withholding evidence that might exonerate an accused student is another violation of due process rights, as seen in the case of Brandeis University.
• Not being allowed to see the evidence against you: In the case of Brandeis University, the university was found to have withheld evidence from the accused student, which was deemed a violation of his due process rights.
• Biased hearing panels: Hearing panels must be free from unreasonable bias. If you believe that the tribunal hearing your case is biased, you should object in writing before the panel even considers your case. Give specific reasons for your challenge and place facts, not speculations, on the record.
• Not being allowed to call exculpatory witnesses: In the case of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that accused students must be allowed to "produce either oral testimony or written affidavits of witnesses in his behalf".
• Being compelled to incriminate yourself: The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to remain silent in criminal proceedings. However, this right does not extend to university disciplinary hearings, and students can be punished or have negative inferences drawn from their silence.
• Not being allowed to appeal a decision: While universities are not legally required to provide an appeal process, the majority of them do so. If your university does provide an appeal process, you have the right to utilise it if you believe there were irregularities in the initial hearing.

Frequently asked questions