Select the year you wish to search:
1993 / 1994 / 1995 / 1996 / 1997 / 1998 / 1999 / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 / 2004 /
Due Process / 1993
93.145 Campus judicial systems viewed as "a mockery of justice," 137
93.155 Individual student disciplinary records open to the public in Georgia, 153
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 1994
94.4 Sexual harassment, the media, and cultural diversity at Swarthmore, 172
94.14 Why the honor code failed at Annapolis [honor systems and due process requirements], 192
94.25 Limiting the role of lawyers [Rising incivility; 1992 deposition example; C. S. Lewis on "wecastrate and bid the gildings be fruitful"], 203
94.28 Disciplinary case/criminal case [imposing discipline prior to hearings, or criminal proceedings],208
94.31 Disqualification for bias, 211
94.35 Rape shield statutes and the right to testify, 218
94.41 Employing Japanese police techniques on campus [making discretionary judgments in minorcases], 225
94.42 Resolving sexual misconduct complaints in the 1990s, 226
94.51 Mental disorders and violence [danger of misusing disciplinary process for wrong motives], 243
94.54 Lawyers' ethics [Derek Bok on need for mediation], 248
94.63 Dismissed professor awarded $500,000 [wrongful dismissal for alleged sexual assault;inadequate due process].
94.67 Professor reinstated in sexual harassment case [Silva v. University of New Hampshire; WilliamKaplin on academic freedom and "hostile environment" sexual harassment; sexual innuendo andprofessional competency; Nadine Strossen on feminism and the First Amendment], 271
94.70 UVA's honor code and "student politics" [benefits outweigh the risks of honor systems], 277
94.73 Gender discrimination against men in college disciplinary cases [Yusuf v. Vassar College], 280
94.75 Evidence of similar acts in sexual misconduct cases, [new rule 413 of the Federal Rules ofEvidence; Nash v. Auburn University], 284
94.77 Court encourages informal resolution of disciplinary cases [guidelines for informal resolution andmediation in student disciplinary cases], 286
94.90 Notice of disciplinary action [requirements for proper notice], 309
94.92 Silva case settled, 311
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 1995
95.3 Disciplinary records remain confidential--for now [value of confidentiality; initial FERPA effort tolimit "values" education; media hypocrisy; public distrust of higher education], 315.
95.23 A media focus on academic fraud [teacher provides test answers at Chicago high school;creating false transcripts and references for Yale; misleading an interviewer at Harvard;revocation of admission does not require due process hearing], 354.
95.26 No punishment for "offensive personality" [defining ethical standards with reasonable precision;hostile environment sexual harassment requires a pattern of misconduct], 359.
95.39 Liability of mediators [successful mediation programs require candid discussion; protection formediation discussions and agreements; possible application of judicial and quasi-judicialimmunity to campus judicial administrators], 375.
95.67 Sexual harassment and e-mail [expulsion for e-mail sexual harassment at Caltech, and the roleof circumstantial evidence; community censure (not formal punishment) for offensive e-mail atCornell; hormones and electrons don't mix], 423.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 1996
96.11 Campus justice and student privacy [first civil suit under "Violence against Women Act" filedagainst Virginia Tech in aftermath of sexual assault; renewed debate about secrecy in campusjudicial proceedings], 456.
96.16 Classroom disruption ["new" diversity on campus; troubled students should be held accountable;due process and classroom dismissals; practical advice to faculty members], 466.
96.21 Advocacy journalism and campus crime, [outline of and response to New York Times series oncampus sexual assault; colleges have a responsibility to enforce their own rules, Nzuve v.Castleton State College; significant due process protections must be accorded to the accused;complainants also desire confidentiality; example of St. John's University case; not every sexualassault is a rape; many complainants seek mediation and moderate penalties], 480.
96.22 Resolving sexual assault allegations [Campus Security Act regulations; suggestions forinformation to be given complainants; notification to parents and law enforcement authorities; theimportance of hearing cases before deciding them], 483.
96.42 The value of "investigatory" procedures ["drug courts" and college "disciplinary conferences"replace traditional adversarial procedures with the investigatory model], 540.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 1997
97.3 Privacy and due process: public statements about students and employees [students andemployees at public institutions have constitutional claims that can be made against governmentofficials who allegedly make damaging or demeaning public comments about them], 566.
97.11 The resurgence of common sense [implied waiver of privacy protection under FERPA], 583.
97.12 Sexual misconduct cases in the news [reducing the number of sexual assaults; adjudicatingcases], 584.
97.13 The unintended consequences of ACCRA [The "Accuracy in Campus Crime Reporting Act" of1997 would insert the current style of "gotcha" journalism into the heart of the campusdisciplinary process], 586.
97.19 Resolving academic dishonesty allegations [due process standards recommended], 604.
97.24 The value of privacy in sexual assault cases [in People v. Ramirez, a California appellate courtupheld the constitutionality of a California law allowing sexual assault victims to be identified as"Jane Doe" at trial], 617.
97.31 Another step toward "open" disciplinary proceedings, [The Ohio Supreme Court joined theSupreme Court of Georgia in declaring that university disciplinary records are not "educationrecords" as defined in FERPA], 633.
97.32 Limiting the pursuit of "perfect justice," [opportunity to be heard may be provided after initialdeprivation; legal representation not required for academic dismissals; distinguishing disciplinaryaction from academic judgments], 635.
97.42 Ohio universities: between a rock and a whirlpool [Ohio public universities caught betweencontrary rulings of the U.S. Department of Education and the Ohio Supreme Court; August 1997correspondence from Department of Education official LeRoy Rooker to the president of MiamiUniversity; excerpts from Miami University petition for certiorari; comparable case pendingbefore Maryland Court of Appeals], 654.
97.52 Double jeopardy and administrative penalties, [after the U.S. Supreme Court holding in Hudsonv. United States, the likelihood of applying double jeopardy findings to public college disciplinaryproceedings is reduced, but not eliminated; suggested precautions for avoiding successfuldouble jeopardy claims], 681.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 1998
98.50 Fighting alcohol abuse: 1998 summary [recent data on nature and extent of alcohol abuse,especially early teen drinking; evolving strategies to control binge drinking; seniors pledge torefrain from the "fourth-year fifth" at the University of Virginia; Boston area colleges develop "53-point" plan to reduce student drinking; alcohol rioters appear to have little sustained peersupport], 804.
Return to Top Return to Topical Index
Due process / 1999
99.10 EEOC policy guidance on "reasonable accommodation" [SWR commentary: students with disabilities may be held accountable for disciplinary violations; First Circuit opinion on disciplinary codes as "an integral aspect of a productive learning environment"], 831.
99.31 Courts defer to campus disciplinary procedures-for now [appellate decision in Flynn v. University of Scranton; distinction between public and private institutions; "fundamental fairness" standard; language from 1968 "General Order on Judicial Standards of Procedure and Substance in Review of Student Discipline in Tax Supported Institutions of Higher Education"; Derek Bok on key role of students in devising and administering campus rules], 882.
99.35 Revocation of academic degrees [court decisions; policy considerations; suggested procedures], 893.
99.40 "Due process" at private colleges [decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Schaer v. Brandeis, holding that the University was obligated to "substantially" follow procedures specified in its disciplinary code], 904.
99.48 Limiting public access to college campuses [in Souders v. Lucerno the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that public college campuses are not "public forums" that may be entered at will; review of the 1969 Eighth Circuit decision in Esteban v. Central Missouri State College specifying inherent powers of universities] , 922.
99.50 Responding to student misconduct off-campus, part I [legal authority to discipline students for off-campus misconduct; opinion of the Maryland Attorney General], 925.
99.51 Responding to student misconduct off-campus, part II [defining educational objectives; seeing students as part of an association-on or off-campus; avoiding "country club" judicial systems for upper-middle class youth; giving students a voice in defining policy; interview with Timothy Brooks at the University of Delaware], 927.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 2000
00.6 Student conduct regulations and the authority to withhold a degree [decision in Robert J. Harwood , Jr. v. Johns Hopkins University holding that the award of a college degree represents more than academic achievement, and includes consideration of the nature and quality of student conduct], 944.
00.7 Evaluating clinical—and personal-skills [decision in Sreeram v. Louisiana State Medical Center holding that objective qualifications can not overcome evidence of deficient clinical skills; importance of personal relationships in medicine; Daniel Goleman on assessment of emotional intelligence], 947.
00.8 Delays and due process in student conduct cases [decision in Jonathan Cobb et.al v.The Rector and Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia holding that "raw statistics" are not sufficient to demonstrate racial bias; 9-month adjudication is "not unconstitutionally lengthy per se;" no defamation in mistaken letter by university official], 950.
00.9 Avoiding unnecessary delays in student conduct cases [unnecessary delay can be a due process violation; strategies for reducing delay], 953.
00.10 Protecting student privacy—and the college disciplinary process [decision in The Miami University v. the Chronicle of Higher Education rejected claim that personally identifiable information in student disciplinary records should be available to the public; court also found enforceable federal right under FERPA], 955.
00.11 "Viewpoint neutral" activity fee structures upheld [In Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth the U.S. Supreme Court held that "viewpoint neutral" student activity fees did not violate the First Amendment rights of objecting students. Nonetheless, language in the case indicates that future litigants can assert that student activity fees are consistently (and unlawfully) used to support a narrow range of social and political agendas], 958.
00.12 Hazing and the constitution [In McKenzie v. State of Maryland a state appellate court rejected a variety of claims—including an alleged violation of the right of association—and upheld the constitutionality of Maryland's anti-hazing law], 961.
00.13 Fraternities and "freedom of association" [In Phi Lambda Phi Fraternity v. University of Pittsburgh a federal district court rejected "freedom of association" and "equal protection" claims by a fraternity sanctioned at the University of Pittsburgh], 964.
00.30 Responding to disruptive students: A case study, 1014.
00.31 Distinguishing "hate crime" from "hate speech," [Penalty enhancement for bias-motivated crimes; abstract beliefs may not be punished; hateful expression not necessarily an unlawful threat], 1017.
00.32 Limiting the "qualified immunity" defense for educators at public institutions [Third Circuit decision in Gruenke v. Seip held that the coach of a high school swimming team lost his qualified immunity from damages under a federal civil rights statute because he failed to appreciate the "contours" of Fourth Amendment law], 1019.
00.33 Limiting the "qualified immunity" defense, Part II [U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wood v. Strickland, warning from Justice Powell about defining "unquestioned constitutional rights"; expanding Section 1983 claims to "supervisory liability"; the importance of being educated about the law–and shifts in public policy], 1022.
00.34 Due process in sexual assault cases [In Schaer v. Brandeis University the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts applied a limited "basic fairness" standard in reviewing disciplinary cases at private institutions of higher education; growing press criticism of how campus sexual assault cases are resolved; OCR Title IX policy guidance requires colleges to "respond promptly" to sexual assault allegations], 1025.
00.35 Resolving sexual assault allegations: A case study, 1028.
00.36 The danger of "zero-tolerance" policies [Holding by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Seal v. Morgan suggests that the elimination of discretion in assessing disciplinary sanctions (especially a failure to consider an accused student's intent) may violate substantive due process; danger of eliminating intent requirements in plagiarism and other academic dishonesty cases],1032.
00.39 Defining the "associational rights" of fraternities [In Pi Lambda Phi v. University of Pittsburgh the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld disciplinary sanctions imposed by the University of Pittsburgh against a local chapter of the Pi Lambda Phi fraternity; danger of allowing local chapters to ignore the ideals stated in fraternity charters--becoming little more than drinking clubs], 1040.
00.40 Defining the "associational rights" of fraternities, part II [Analysis of the June 28, 2000 Supreme Court opinion in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale; comparison with the holding in Pi Lambda Phi v. University of Pittsburgh], 1044.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 2001
01.5 The disconnection between professors and judges.[In Wozniak v. Conry the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the complaint of a tenured University of Illinois professor, who claimed he was improperly reassigned to non-teaching duties, without appropriate due process, and later retaliated against for his opposition to university grading policies],1069.
01.7 Defending freedom of expression. [Interview with Yale University historian C. Vann Woodward on campus freedom of expression], 1075.
01.8 Narrowly defined stalking law upheld. ["An instructive case on the legality of stalking laws": Stanley v. Jones, decided on February 5, 2001 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit], 1077.
01.10 Balancing privacy interests and law enforcement objectives.[In Illinois v. McArthur, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a pertinent overview of search and seizure law, in the context of addressing a perennial legal question: When is it reasonable to limit a person's access to his home or room while a search warrant is sought?],1080.
01.24 Defamation, invasion of privacy, and fundamental fairness in sexual misconduct cases. [Review of the Washington State Supreme Court decision in John Doe v. Gonzaga University; subsequently reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court], 2017.
01.26 Questions and answers on classroom disruption, 2024.
01.27 Applying the Fourth and First Amendments to student computer use. [Two recent federal court decisions indicate that judges resolving student computer use cases may be less protective of Fourth Amendment privacy rights than they are of First Amendment free expression rights; United States of America v. Frederick W. Butler (D. Maine June, 2001) and Killion v. Franklin Regional School (W. D. Pennsylvania, March 2001)], 2026.
01.30 Searches by law enforcement officials and college employees. [Introductory overview of campus search and seizure law by Jan Alan Neiger], 2031.
01.34 The philosophy of civil disobedience. [The June 3, 2001 New York Times contains an article on trends in civil disobedience. The Times reports that judges seem more willing to levy jail sentences for unlawful protests, reflected in a recent 90-day sentence imposed on the Rev. Al Sharpton; Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"], 2033.
01.37 Drawing a balance between liberty and safety. [Ninth Circuit's decision in LaVine v. Blaine School District; the court said it would "review . . . with deference, schools' decisions in connection with the safety of their students even when freedom of expression is involved"], 2036.
01.41 Civil liberties in wartime [Key civil liberties cases: Tinker v. Des Moines School District; Papish v. University of Missouri Curators; United States v. Eichman; West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette], 2045.
01.46 Ten guiding principles of campus judicial officers, 2055.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 2002
02.5 Plagiarism and the intent to deceive [The imposition of a moral stigma should be reserved for deliberateacts. Otherwise, colleges risk trivializing even the most serious acts of fraud by equating them with simple negligence], 2079.
02.15 Removing residents for the misconduct of theirguests [May leases or contracts hold individual tenants accountable for misbehavior by their guests? Theanswer, at least where serious misconduct is involved,appears to be a qualified "yes" according to the United States Supreme Court in Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker (March 26, 2002)], 3000.
02.16 Post game riots [No challenging rite of passage has been created for students, although many seem to crave one], 3002.
02.19 Model Code of Student Conduct Online [Excerpts from the Model Code, available at www.collegepubs.com; defining a set of communityvalues; private institutions and freedom of expression; punishing "hate crimes;" due process and legal representation; due process and the right of appeal], 3007.
02.20 Racial discrimination and student discipline [Federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination in the "performance, modification and termination ofcontracts," including an express or implied contract ofenrollment between students and institutions of higher education, public or private], 3010.
02.27 When is cooperation coerced? [If a campus policeofficer is in a location where she has a right to be, and has no basis for suspecting a particular student, she may ask a student questions, request identification, and seek consent to search the student or his belongings, provided she does not induce cooperation by coercion; June 17 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Drayton ], 3031
02.29 FERPA and student disciplinary records, part I [In U.S. v. Miami University (6th Cir, 00-3518, June 27,2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuitheld that institutions of higher education are barred from releasing student disciplinary records to the public, except as expressly permitted under FERPA], 3036.
02.30 FERPA and student disciplinary records, part II [Law and policy quiz on latest FERPA decisions], 3039.
02.35 Referring students to alcoholics anonymous [AA][July 17, 2002 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Cox v. Miller held that the Establish Clause may bar mandated referrals to AA;also, if a student is referred to AA, he or she should be advised that statements made in AA sessions may not be confidential, or otherwise protected by a legal privilege], 3051.
02.37 Ten principles for members of student conduct hearing boards, 3053.
02.41 Defining "True Threats" [In J. S. v. Bethlehem AreaSchool District the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania heldthat a student could be expelled for creating a profane and offensive web site on his home computer that was"aimed . . . at the specific audience" of his teachers and fellow students, and "caused actual and substantial disruption of the work of the school"], 3064.
02.42 Defining "True Threats" Part II [In John Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Eight Circuit (sitting en banc) held thata student was lawfully expelled for writing a letter thatconstituted a "true threat" to kill his former girlfriend], 3067.
02.44 Reflections on the University of Arizona shootings[rates of workplace violence; questions to raise in the aftermath of campus violence; American Psychiatric Association statement on prediction of dangerousness; responding to classroom disruption; school violenceand suicide; Erich Fromm: "The impotent man, if he hasa pistol, a knife, or a strong arm, can transcend life by destroying it in others or in himself. . ."], 3074.
02.48 When are campus security officers agents of the state? [Decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in State of New Hampshire v. Adam Nemser; (law and policy quiz)], 3083.
02.49 Legal standards for modification of academic requirements [Students at private colleges may challenge academic decisions under an "arbitrary andcapricious" standard; holding of West Virginia's highestcourt in Bender v. Alderson-Broaddus College; (law and policy quiz)], 3085.
02.52 Post-riot discipline [Michigan federal court in Hill v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State upholds immediate suspension for off-campus misconduct], 3094.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 2003
03.3 How is entrapment defined? [1992 Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. United States; "entrapment"defense and University of Maryland cell-phone cheating cases], 3102.
03.10 Managing dissent and disruption [Synthesis interview with former Wesleyan University dean Edgar Beckham], 3117-3118.
03.12 Due process in academic dismissals [decision by the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Ku v. State of Tennessee, holding that a dismissed medical student was given adequate advance notice of the faculty's dissatisfaction with his academic progress and areceived a careful and deliberate dismissal decision], 3122.
03.25 Defamation in campus disciplinary proceedings and on the Internet [May 6, 2003 North Dakota Supreme Court decision in Wagner v. Mishkin (2003 ND 69) affirming a $3,000,000 judgment against a collegestudent for "libel, slander, and intentional interferencewith a business relationship" in a lawsuit initiated by one of her professors], 3153.
03.30 Due process, academic freedom, and immigration status [In Omosegbon v. Wells, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case decided that colleges and universities are not required to give heightened due process protections to students and faculty members if contemplated disciplinary or employment action might jeopardize their immigration status], 3169.
03.43 Applying the Fifth Amendment "right to remain silent" on campus, part I [cases and analysis], 3200.
03.44 Applying the Fifth Amendment "right to remainsilent" on campus, part II [cases and analysis], 3202.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
Due Process / 2004
04.14 Due process and private colleges [Jarzynka v. St. Thomas University School of Law; student at a private university expelled without a hearing contrary to procedures specified in the university handbook has a claim for breach of contract; questionable prediction of future violence and APA standards], 3240.
04.21 Who should resolve academic dishonesty cases? [Courts have consistently regarded academic dishonesty as being a "disciplinary" rather than an "academic" offense], 3254.
04.35 Defining "fundamental fairness" in student discipline [Ebert v. Yeshiva University: Private institutions are accountable in contract law for adhering to their published regulations], 3291.
04.51 Designing campus "hate crime" regulations [Botts v. State: October 25, 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, striking down Georgia=s hate crime penalty enhancement statute. The Botts case provides insight into the common design flaws college lawyers should avoid when drafting campus "hate crime" regulations], 3330.
04.43 Understanding due process: Advice to resident life staff members, 3311.
04.52 Questioning the "Single Sanction" at the University of Virginia [The danger of mandatory "one size fits all" penalties], 3331.
Return to Top / Return to Topical Index
