Due Process in Student Discipline: A Primer 

DUE PROCESS IN STUDENT DISCIPLINE: A PRIMER

Nona L. Wood and Robert A. Wood

North Dakota State University

INTRODUCTION

In residence halls there inevitably are occasions when students come into conflict with university rules and regulations.  Frequently, undergraduates assist in the adjudication of rule violations as Resident Assistants or members of student judicial boards.  Graduate students also may assist as Hall Directors or Complex Managers.  Undergraduates, in particular, may have little or no training in student judicial affairs when they assume their duties.

Because state colleges and universities are governmental entities (Williams v. Wheeler, 1913), any residence life employee acting officially is considered an agent of the state.  As a result, it is important that all housing personnel involved in the student judicial function be aware of the procedures by which individuals are afforded due process protections.

In private institutions, rights tend to be contractual rather than Constitutional and are based on the private institutions= own documents (Holert v. University of Chicago, 1990; Melvin v. Union College, 1993).  If those documents do not afford contract protections similar to due process, then the private institutions need not provide them.  Decisions of private institutions, in general, may be subject to review only if they are arbitrary or capricious (­Ahlum v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 1993; MU Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon v. Colgate, 1992).  The courts also may assume jurisdiction when private, as well as public, institutions fail to follow their own policies and procedures (Gruen v. Chase, 1995; Melvin v. Union College, 1993; Smith v. Denton, 1995; Weidemann v. State University of New York College, 1992).  Courts also may intervene if there is a violation of statutorily imposed duty (e.g., Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA], Title IX) on the part of the institution.