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

12 J.C. & U.L. 71 (1985-1986)
The Standard of Proof in Student Disciplinary Cases

handle is hein.journals/jcolunly12 and id is 79 raw text is: THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN STUDENT DISCIPLINARY CASES NICHOLAS TROTT LONG* I. INTRODUCTION For most of the twentieth century student affairs administrators per- formed their roles as counselors and disciplinarians free from significant judicial interference. While the tension of the twin roles was acknowledged,1 it was deemed analogous to the tension caused by an er- rant child within a large family. The doctrine of in loco parentis assumed that the institution had the best interests of the student at heart and if the best interests of the student body as a whole required an individual's expulsion, that expulsion was assumed to be in the best interests of all concerned. Just as children had few legal rights distinct from their families, so did students have few rights distinct from the institutional parent. Student activism in the 1960s brought an end to in loco parentis as well as to traditional town/gown social segregation. As school and col- lege students marched and otherwise demonstrated for a variety of civil rights, some college administrators (sometimes under outside pressure) sought to maintain order by punishing students who exercised those rights. Faced with administrative action that was often arbitrary and un- fair, the courts intervened.2 * General Counsel, University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island College, and the Com- munity College of Rhode Island. J.D., Columbia, 1972; B.A., Cornell, 1968. 1 Gometz & Parker, Disciplinary Counseling: A Contradiction, 46 PERSONNEL AND GUIDANCE J., No. 5 Reprinted In COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL (L. Fitzgerald, W. Johnson & W. Noris ed. 1970). 2 Tinker v. DesMoines Indep. Community School Dist. 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (wearing of arm bands to protest war allowed); Brunside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1966) (wear- ing of 1 1/2 inch diameter button with the legend One Man One Vote allowed); Scoggin v. Lincoln Univ., 291 F. Supp. 161 (W.D. Mo. 1968) (a case concerned with a cause long dear to the hearts of students, the quality of cafeteria food); Dickey v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 273 F. Supp. 613 (M.D. Ala. 1967) (injunction against enforcement of rule pro- hibiting criticism of governor or legislature in college newspaper granted); Esteban v. Cen- tral Missouri State College, 277 F. Supp. 649 (W.D. Mo. 1967), off'd, 415 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 965 (1970) (due process required in campus prosecution of student for participation in off campus street demonstration); Hammond v. South Carolina State College, 272 F. Supp. 947 (D.S.C. 1967) (enjoined enforcement of ban against celebra- tions, parades or demonstrations without prior college approval); Knight v. State Bd. of Educ., 200 F. Supp. 174 (M.D. Ten. 1961) (due process required before Freedom Ride conviction in Mississippi could be used as basis for expulsion from Tennessee State College).

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