Academic Dismissal Ryan J Service Introduction Four short

Academic Dismissal Ryan J. Service

Introduction � 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.

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS � 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

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS � 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

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS � 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. 2003 Rogers failed course evaluation ◦ Rogers appealed and administration denied the appeal

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS � 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.

ROGERS vs. TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS � 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.

Qualls vs. Cunningham � 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.

Qualls vs. Cunningham � 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

Qualls vs. Cunningham � 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.

Qualls vs. Cunningham � 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

Qualls vs. Cunningham � 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.

SINGH vs. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH � Issue ◦ Singh sued because she said academic dismissal was violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

SINGH vs. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH � 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

SINGH vs. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH � 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.

SINGH vs. GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH � Decision ◦ Unreasonable to not act on disability diagnosis. ◦ Learning not test taking was student’s major life activity ◦ Student was otherwise qualified.

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO � Issue ◦ Sharon G. Trotter was dismissed due to poor academic performance. Trotter sued based on violation of due process rights.

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO � 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

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO � 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

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO � 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.

TROTTER vs. THE REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY of NEW MEXICO � 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.

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