Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2366 comp.admin.policy:1261 misc.legal:11416 alt.society.civil-liberty:1361
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Path: eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Re; Brack Expulsion. What Happened?
Message-ID: <1991Nov23.190239.14673@eff.org>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
References: <1991Nov13.215045.3194@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 19:02:39 GMT
Lines: 60

Here is some information from

_The Redefinition of the Exclusionary Rule as to Student Procedural
Due Process in High Education_. A monograph from the Office of the
General Counsel [of Southern Illinois University] by Dr. Larry L.
French, General Counsel, 1977.

------------begin-----

Introduction

The debate whether education is a right or privilege, is no long a
subject of controversy, because the student's right to the benefit of
a state educational system is an interest protected by the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution{1}.

[...]

The "exclusionary rule", as defined herein, pertains to any policy
from which a violation of, could result in exclusion from school
either on a temporary or permanent basis.

[...]

The landmark decision of _Dixon v. Alabama State Board of
Education_{4} remains as the basic authority providing students in
higher education the right to appropriate due process protection in
disciplinary proceedings which involve long term suspension or
expulsion (dismissal). Such due process means any accused student must
be given adequate notice and an opportunity for hearing _prior to_ the
initial disposition of his case.

[...]

Although the facts of [_Goss v. Lopez_{5}] were directed at the
secondary level of public education, they are as well applicable to
proceedings in high education, both as to academic and non-academic
matters.

[...]

As to what constitutes proper notice of charges, it may be said that a
student must be given, at a time reasonably prior to the commencement
of the proceedings, a written statement in which the charges are
explicitly set forth as well as the the specific ground or grounds,
which if proven, would justify the penalty commensurate with the
violation.

[...]

[References]
{1} _Board of Regents v. Roth_, 92 Supreme Court 2701 (1972).

{4} 294 F2d 150 (5th Circuit, 1961) cert. den.

{5} 419 U.S. 565 (1975)
---- end quote----
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.4352@hri.com
I do not represent EFF; this is just me.