Comments on Quick Takes: Court Upholds (But Critiques) College's Disciplinary Process, Ranking Universities Worldwide, Fla. Alters Policy on Community Colleges' 4-Year Degrees, Wisconsin Suspends Researcher Following Monkey Deaths

• Flaim
• Posted by Larry on August 18, 2005 at 11:18am EDT

• It is worth noting that at every step of the court’s analysis, the court noted that the plaintiff had not shown any specific prejudice. (E.g. when analyzing the lack of cross-examination the court concludes that “We assume that any discrepancies, to the extent they might have existed, would not have been sufficient to convince the Committee that Flaim had not been convicted of a felony.”)

  In situations where “facts” beyond mere “conviction” may be at stake, it is likely that a student would suffer real prejudice from not being allowed to cross-examine a witness, and schools should not see this as a license to further abridge their procedures. Though, an easier procedure would be to simply allow the school to move for a form of “summary judgment” in advance, and allow the student to make an offer of proof regarding exactly dispute facts he intends to prove or disprove at trial.

• FLAIM
• Posted by Flaim , FLAIM on October 5, 2005 at 4:23am EDT

• Being the recipient of the school's action in this case (and initiator of litigation), perhaps the most interesting note to the decision was the fact that the Court acknowledges (as I did) that it was never stated that I was not guilty of the charges. What the suit was about was the procedure used to decide the penalty for the conduct. In that respect, the Court declined to address the issue, instead sticking with the idea that because I was convicted of (and indeed pleaded guilty to) a felony, of course any action of the school was therefore justified.

  My argument was that disciplinary hearings have a two-fold purpose. To determine guilt or innocence, and to determine a penalty. While the procedure used was adequate to determine guilt or innocence, the procedure was inadequate to properly determine a penalty because I received "bare minimum" procedures, which while constitutionally adequate, certainly were at the bottom end of the scale.

  At best, the ruling vidicates my fervent belief that the school did not live up to the standards that all institutions should strive for. While a personal loss for me, I think it's a defining case in education law with some forward reaching guidance for institutions of higher education on how to uphold not just the wording of the Constitution, but the spirit as well.