About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

59 Md. L. Rev. 183 (2000)
Student versus University: The University's Implied Obligations of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

handle is hein.journals/mllr59 and id is 193 raw text is: STUDENT VERSUS UNIVERSITY: THE UNIVERSITY'S IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING HAZEL GLENN BEH* Consider the higher education product from the consumer per- spective: Despite the time and expense you invest, there are no guar- antees that you will find the experience useful or enjoyable. You may not succeed, and failure may come early or late in your college career. Failure will be attributed to your own intellectual or character defi- ciencies; inferior teaching is not an excuse nor grounds for a refund of your tuition. The measures of success will be developed unilaterally by the institution and kept a closely guarded secret from you. Should you fail, review or appeal is virtually foreclosed, for a professor's award of grades and the institution's conferral of degrees is accorded great deference. The stigma of failure may dog you for the rest of your life; you will probably have to disclose your failure to every potential em- ployer with whom you seek work. Although you will be held to a high standard of ethics, and you must comply strictly with all of the condi- tions that the institution specifies is necessary to earn a degree, the institution, on the other hand, reserves the right to change anything it has promised you without notice. Despite your investment of thousands of dollars and years of your life, the educational product offers a mere chance at success but holds no guarantees. Finally, stu- dents are not invited to bargain with the institution over the terms and the conditions of the educational contract-a contract that is largely implied or finds its terms scattered throughout various unread- able publications that contain fine print disclaimers of institutional liability. Postsecondary institutions serve important societal interests,' and courts accord them extreme deference when judging their relations * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Hawai'i. B.A., University of Arizona; J.D., University of Hawai'i; Ph.D., American Studies, University of Hawai'i. The author is grate- ful to the University of Houston Law Center, Institute for Higher Education Law and Gov- ernance for supporting and gathering scholars interested in higher education law and to those who critiqued an early draft, including Professors Michael A. Olivas, William A. Kaplin, Leland Ware, Nicole Casarez, King Alexander, Benjamin Baez, Roger Mourad, and Doug Toma. Thanks as well to Dave Robb and to The University Research Council at the University of Hawai'i. 1. See generally RUDOLPH H. WEINGARTNER, THE MORAL DIMENSIONS OF ACADEMIC AD- MINISTRATION 1-31 (1999) (discussing the competing tensions between the institution's so- cietal obligations and the institution's obligations to students). See also Daniel Noah Moses,

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most