Ryan J. Service

 Four short briefs involving cases of academic dismissal  In general, most cases reviewed plaintiffs/students are suing on grounds of due process rights.  Cases that were won by students tended to be because of due process right violations.  Courts believe that the classroom is not the courtroom.

 Issue- ◦ Student was dismissed from the nursing program at Walters State Community College after receiving a failing grade in a clinical nursing course. ◦ Student appealed decision and administration denied the appeal. ◦ Student sued for violation of her procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment

 History ◦ December 10, 2004, Rogers filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee ◦ Granted summary judgment ◦ Appealed to Court of Appeals

 Facts ◦ Rogers failed a course sequence during the Fall 2002 semester. ◦ WSCC's academic policy does not allow a student who failed a nursing course to progress. ◦ WSCC readmitted Rogers and allowed her to retake the course sequence during the Fall 2003 semester. ◦ November 2003, Rogers was given a warning she was failing ◦ Dec Rogers failed course evaluation ◦ Rogers appealed and administration denied the appeal

 Decision ◦ Court of Appeals held that (1) student was afforded constitutionally sufficient process, and (2) student's interest in her nursing education was not protected by substantive due process.

 Decision ◦ In cases of academic dismissal from a state educational institution, as long as student is informed and care is taken with dismissal due process is met. ◦ NO formal hearing is required.

 Issue ◦ Qualls, a former business student at Northern Illinois University sued the university and a number of its officers under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state tort law, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to the existence of a racially hostile educational environment that caused his academic dismissal.

 History ◦ United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of defendant ◦ Student appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals

 Facts ◦ In the fall of 1998, Qualls joined the campus chapter of the NAACP and role of Public Relations Officer ◦ Wrote several letters about racial profiling to the editor of the student newspaper ◦ He and other members of the campus NAACP executive board took up the cause of a black campus police officer who was allegedly terminated for complaining about his fellow officers discriminatory treatment of black students. ◦ Qualls ended his affiliation with the NAACP because of fear of retaliation from police.

 Facts ◦ Spring 2000, the university dismissed Qualls for repeatedly failing to maintain a minimally acceptable grade point average. ◦ In January 2001, he filed a formal grievance under the school's Affirmative Action procedures which was unsuccessful

 Decision ◦ No reasonable person could find that Qualls was deprived of his educational opportunities just because the campus police kept tabs on him from a distance and the university administrators ignored his complaints. ◦ NIU policy for dealing with racial discrimination were adequate. ◦ Qualls failed to support his claim of retaliation.

 Issue ◦ Singh sued because she said academic dismissal was violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 History ◦ The United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that  Singh partial summary judgment on the issue of impairment, holding that she “suffers from some kind of mental impairment,” either “a learning disability” or a “psychiatric disorder such as depression.”  court found that Singh had failed to prove that she was disabled under the ADA ◦ Appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals

 Facts ◦ Singh had great academic career however she did poorly on multiple choice tests including MCATs. ◦ She was admitted on a reduced load basis and with lower academic dismissal boundaries. ◦ Singh received failing grades even within her program and faculty member moved to have her dismissed ◦ Soon after GW's Disability Support Services diagnosed Singh with dyslexia and a mild disorder of processing speed, and recommended various accommodations to improve her performance. ◦ Singh communicated the diagnosis and a request for accommodations to Dean Williams. ◦ Singh was dismissed.

 Decision ◦ Unreasonable to not act on disability diagnosis. ◦ Learning not test taking was student’s major life activity ◦ Student was otherwise qualified.

 Issue ◦ Sharon G. Trotter was dismissed due to poor academic performance. Trotter sued based on violation of due process rights.

 History ◦ April 10, 1998, Trotter filed complaint in U.S. District Court for District of New Mexico. ◦ Dismissed action ◦ Appealed to U.S. Court of Appeals

 Facts ◦ Trotter dismissed for poor academic performance ◦ Trotter filed a lawsuit, but she was reinstated however, she must meet academic conditions ◦ Trotter dismissed a 2 nd time ◦ Appealed 2 nd dismissal to the Education Council which upheld dismissal

 Facts ◦ Appealed to the Dean who reinstated her based on academic conditions ◦ Trotter dismissed a 3 rd time. ◦ Trotter appealed to President, and board. All upheld dismissal ◦ Filed complaint with Dept of Ed Civil rights office who said her due process was not violated.

 Decision ◦ University went beyond what was constitutionally required. ◦ Trotter has failed to show that any of the defendants violated her due process rights ◦ notice of appeal was timely filed ◦ university officials were entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

 What is the difference between academic dismissal and disciplinary dismissal?  Do the courts have a place in the classroom?