In a college setting, academic misconduct charges involve plagiarism, ethical code violations, and academic dishonesty. When adjudicating an academic misconduct allegation, students are guaranteed a certain level of due process during the school’s investigation and hearing process, including any rights defined with the institution’s policies and procedures.[1] While these standards are fairly consistent across the United States, this memorandum will focus on the law governing New York colleges and universities, where the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals,[2] United States District Courts in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont,[3] and administrative appeals in New York State Court[4] have provided guidance on handling academic misconduct claims.
This memorandum provides an overview of how courts review academic misconduct decisions and best practices for ensuring a fair outcome and a meaningful opportunity for the student to be heard. Student Conduct Institute members can also access a detailed appendix summarizing major issues in academic misconduct cases and this case law on our online Casebook, available at: https://scidigital.suny.edu/
This memorandum will focus on due process issues in academic misconduct charges, not academic performance issues. The amount of guaranteed due process protections is significantly less for academic performance dismissals than for academic or conduct discipline.[5] Academic performance dismissals require “far less stringent procedural requirements, than those called for in [a] disciplinary hearing.”[6] The decision to dismiss a student based on academic performance “rest[s] on the academic judgment of school officials” and requires a judgment that is “more subjective and evaluative” of a university’s academic policies.[7] Courts are normally unwilling to interfere in a university’s decision-making for an academic dismissal and will “show great respect for the faculty’s professional judgment.”[8] Owing to the differences in due process afforded to academic misconduct charges and academic performance cases, this memorandum will only focus on due process requirements for academic misconduct charges.[9]
Most courts will defer to a university’s decision-making during an academic misconduct hearing unless the university has substantially deviated from its own rules and regulations.[10] Courts are normally unwilling to interfere in a university’s academic misconduct hearing process if a university has published guidelines regulating academic misconduct proceedings[11] and the university’s sanctioning decision is based on a “rational interpretation of the relevant evidence.”[12]
Judicial review of a university’s decision-making process may occur if a student, student organization, or faculty member expresses concern that a university made decisions in an arbitrary or capricious manner.[13] For example, if a student provides substantial evidence that a university participated in decision-making process that was “arbitrary, irrational, or in bad faith” (i.e., deviating from the university’s published guidelines or purposefully offering the student an unfair hearing process), courts are likely to intervene in the university’s hearing process.[14] Still, in most situations, the courts will defer to the decision-making ability of the university.[15] Even if a university’s decision-making process seems arbitrary and irrational, courts are unlikely to interfere if there is a possibility that the university’s actions or decisions had a rational basis.[16]
For example, in Katz v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, held that a University’s Honor Board did not have to identify the specific source that a student copied words from to determine that he committed plagiarism.[17] The Honor Board could simply use circumstantial evidence to determine if the student plagiarized his term paper.[18] Among other issues, the student believed not providing the specific source of plagiarism constituted an arbitrary and irrational decision.[19] The Court disagreed, noting that having circumstantial evidence provided the University with a rational basis for giving the student a failing grade in the course.[20] In this case, the Court was unwilling to interview in the University’s decision making process because there was a possibility that the sanctioning decision had a rational basis.[21]
To summarize, courts will normally defer to a university’s decision-making process during an academic misconduct hearing.[22] Judicial review of a university’s decision-making will only occur if the university substantially deviates from established procedures and guidelines or there is little rational basis for the university’s actions and decisions.[23]
During an academic misconduct hearing and the sanctioning process, university honor boards and university officials should strictly follow established guidelines, procedures, or policies.[24]
Guidelines governing academic misconduct procedures should ensure a student receives adequate due process protections (or fair process, as may be the case at private institutions).[25]
Examples of typical due process protections include:
Universities should also be aware of any bias a hearing member has against the student and promptly remove the hearing member if their bias interfere with the student’s right to a fair hearing.[27]
If a student chooses to appeal an honor board’s decision, the university should follow the appropriate appeal guidelines and procedures.[28] An appeals process can include appealing to a different honor board or appealing to administrators in the university.[29] Individuals reviewing an appeal should examine all available evidence provided by the student and the university and, if needed, engage the assistance of an expert, like someone who routinely studies plagiarism cases.[30]
If, during the appeal, irregularities are identified in the academic misconduct hearing, university officials should vacate the initial hearing and provide the student with a second hearing or provide other appropriate relief as defined in their policies.[31] Any violation of the university’s guidelines and procedures could be grounds for vacating an initial hearing.[32] For example, university’s guidelines may prohibit members of the student’s major from overseeing the student’s academic misconduct hearing.[33] If another member of the accused student’s major participates in the academic misconduct hearing, the university should vacate the initial hearing and arrange for a new hearing with members from a different major than the student.[34] Not providing a student with a new hearing after irregularities are identified in the first hearing could warrant judicial review by the courts.[35]
During the sanctioning portion of an academic misconduct hearing, the penalties a student receives should mirror the severity of the charges and findings against the student.[36] If a student engages in blatant plagiarism, admits to cheating on multiple examinations, or continuously lies to a professor to avoid turning in assignments, a university is normally justified in suspending or expelling the student from the university.[37] Not every academic misconduct situation will rise to the level of suspension or expulsion, meaning every case should be evaluated independently to determine the appropriate sanction.[38]
While universities should be aware of the basic due process protections afforded to students under Constitutional law, they also must follow their published guidelines or procedures governing academic misconduct hearings.[39] Even a private institution not governed by Constitutional due process will likely have a student handbook that contains all of the guidelines and procedures for academic misconduct proceedings.[40] Understanding academic misconduct procedures, from the student handbook, provides the student with valuable knowledge about academic misconduct hearings.[41] A student with knowledge about an academic misconduct hearing is also better prepared to notice irregularities or violations of due process.[42]
[1]See Doe v. Columbia Univ., No. 19 Civ. 5357, 2020 WL 1528545, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020); see also Matter of Nawaz v. State Univ. of N.Y. Univ. at Buffalo Sch. of Dental Med., 295 A.D.2d 944, 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2002).
[2]See Wolff v. State University of New York, No. 16-553, slip op. at 5 (2d Cir. 2017) (Summary Order).
[3]See Doe v. Wesleyan Univ., No. 3:19-cv-01519, 2021 WL 664010, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2021); Doe v. Columbia Univ., No. 19 Civ. 5357, 2020 WL 1528545, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020); O’Connor v. The Coll. of Saint Rose, No. 3:04-CV-0318, 2005 WL 2739106, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2005); Bhandari v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 00 Civ. 1735 JGK, 2000 WL 310344, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000); Tully v. Orr, 608 F. Supp. 1222, 1123 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).
[4]See Kickertz v. N.Y. Univ., 99 A.D.3d 502, 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2012); Shah v. Union College, 97 A.D.3d 949, 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2012); Katz v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of the State of N.Y., 85 A.D.3d 1277, 1277 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2011); Dequito v. The New Sch. for Gen. Stud., 68 A.D.3d 559, 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2009); Matter of Nawaz v. State Univ. of N.Y. Univ. at Buffalo Sch. of Dental Med., 295 A.D.2d 944, 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2002); Weidemann v. State Univ. of N.Y. Coll. at Cortland, 188 A.D.2d 974, 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1992); Rauer v. State Univ. of N.Y., Univ. at Albany, 159 A.D.2d 835, 835 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1990); Kalinsky v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Binghamton, 161 A.D.2d 1006, 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1990).
[5]See Sutton v. Stony Brook Univ., No. 18-CV-7434(JS)(ARL), 2020 WL 6532937, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2020) (noting that there are “far less stringent procedure requirements” for academic performance dismissals).
[6]See id. (“[F]inding that academic challenges require less formalized procedures than disciplinary determinations.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
[7]See id.
[8]See id. (noting how courts should not override a university’s decision-making ability unless “it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment”).
[9] For more information on the difference between the due process requirements in misconduct cases and academic performance cases, see Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 86-90 (1978).
[10]See Doe v. Columbia Univ., No. 19 Civ. 5357, 2020 WL 1528545, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (“[C]ourts must defer to the university’s effort to substantially observe the rules, regulations, and procedures it has announced in advance, and will disturb their decisions only if their actions are arbitrary, irrational, or in bad faith”); Kickertz v. N.Y. Univ., 99 A.D.3d 502, 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2012) (“Judicial review of an academic institution’s disciplinary determinations is limited to whether it “substantially adhered to its own published rules and guidelines” and whether the determinations are based on “a rational interpretation of the relevant evidence.””); see also
Wolff v. State University of New York, No. 16-553, slip op. at 5-6 (2d Cir. 2017) (Summary Order).
[11]See Doe, 2020 WL 1528545 at *3; see also Katz v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of the State of N.Y., 85 A.D.3d 1277, 1279 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2011).
[12]See Kickertz, 99 A.D.3d at 507; see also Shah v. Union College, 97 A.D.3d 949, 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2012).
[13]See Matter of Nawaz v. State Univ. of N.Y. Univ. at Buffalo Sch. of Dental Med., 295 A.D.2d 944, 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2002) (highlighting how judicial review of a university’s decision is limited to determining if a university’s actions “were arbitrary or capricious.”).
[14]See Doe, 2020 WL 1528545, at *3 (noting that a court will only disturb a university’s decision if their actions are arbitrary, irrational, or in bad faith).
[15]See Katz, 85 A.D.3d at 1279; see also Bhandari v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 00 Civ. 1735 JGK, 2000 WL 310344, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000).
[16]See Doe v. Wesleyan Univ., No. 3:19-cv-01519, 2021 WL 664010, at *6 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2021) (noting that for a student to prevail against a university, the student must show that the educational institution’s decision had “no discernible rational basis.”); see also Wolff, slip. op. at 5-6 (“[E]ducational institutions have the right to receive summary judgment unless there is evidence…that there was no rational basis for the decision or that it was motivated by bad faith or ill will unrelated to academic performance.”).
[17]See Katz, 85 A.D.3d at 1279.
[18]See id. at 1280.
[19]See id. at 1279.
[20]See id.
[21]See id.
[22]See Bhandari, 2000 WL 310344, at *5.
[23]See Kickertz, 99 A.D.3d at 507; see also Shah, 97 A.D.3d at 951.
[24]See Doe v. Columbia Univ., No. 19 Civ. 5357, 2020 WL 1528545, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020 (noting that Columbia University clearly followed their own guidelines when making the decision to expel Doe from the University); see also Weidemann v. State Univ. of N.Y. Coll. at Cortland, 188 A.D.2d 974, 975 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1992).
[25]See Katz v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of the State of N.Y., 85 A.D.3d 1277, 1279 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2011). Courts will rely on the U.S. Constitution, state law, and other precedential court cases to determine due process guidelines.
[26]See id. at 1278.
[27]See Shah v. Union College, 97 A.D.3d 949, 951 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2012).
[28]See Katz, 85 A.D.3d at 1278.
[29]See id.
[30]See id. at 1278-79.
[31]See Matter of Nawaz v. State Univ. of N.Y. Univ. at Buffalo Sch. of Dental Med., 295 A.D.2d 944, 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2002) (discussing how Nawaz’s first hearing was vacated due to violations of the student handbook governing academic misconduct hearings).
[32]See id.
[33]See id.
[34]See id.
[35]See id. at 944.
[36]See Shah, 97 A.D.3d at 952.
[37]See id. at 950; O’Connor v. The Coll. of Saint Rose, No. 3:04-CV-0318, 2005 WL 2739106, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2005); Bhandari v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 00 Civ. 1735 JGK, 2000 WL 310344, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000).
[38]See Shah, 97 A.D.3d at 952.
[39]See Doe v. Wesleyan Univ., No. 3:19-cv-01519, 2021 WL 664010, at *8 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2021) (finding that Doe’s interpretation of certain parts of the Wesleyan University handbook were grounds for court interference).
[40]See Rauer v. State Univ. of N.Y., Univ. at Albany, 159 A.D.2d 835, 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1990).
[41]See id.; Doe, 2021 WL 664010, at *8.
[42]See Doe, 2021 WL 664010, at *8.