New York Law Review

Tag: Academic Dismissal

  • Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d 241 (1990): Judicial Deference to Academic Evaluations

    Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d 241 (1990)

    Courts should generally defer to academic institutions’ evaluations of student performance unless there is evidence of bad faith, arbitrariness, capriciousness, irrationality, or a violation of constitutional or statutory rights.

    Summary

    Susan M., a law student, challenged her dismissal from New York Law School for academic deficiency, arguing that her poor grades were due to irrational testing and grading procedures. The New York Court of Appeals held that courts should not intervene in controversies involving an educational institution’s judgment of a student’s academic performance, such as grades, unless the determination was arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith. Because Susan M.’s claims related to the substantive evaluation of her academic capabilities, the Court found them beyond the scope of judicial review and dismissed her petition.

    Facts

    Susan M. was placed on academic probation after her first year at New York Law School due to a cumulative average below 2.0. Despite improving her average, it subsequently dropped again. She was notified that the Academic Status Committee would consider whether she would be permitted to continue her studies. Susan M. submitted a written statement attributing her poor performance to unfair grading in Constitutional Law II and Corporations. She argued these grades did not reflect her knowledge demonstrated on the exams. She also appeared before the Committee, but was allegedly told they would not consider her complaints about the grades.

    Procedural History

    Susan M. filed an Article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement, alleging arbitrary and capricious dismissal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division reversed in part, remanding the matter for further consideration of the Corporations grade. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the petition in its entirety.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a law school’s decision to dismiss a student for academic deficiency, based on challenged grades, is subject to judicial review absent a showing of bad faith, arbitrariness, capriciousness, irrationality, or a constitutional or statutory violation.

    Holding

    No, because a student’s challenge to a particular grade or other academic determination relating to a genuine substantive evaluation of the student’s academic capabilities is beyond the scope of judicial review in the absence of demonstrated bad faith, arbitrariness, capriciousness, irrationality or a constitutional or statutory violation.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court emphasized strong policy considerations against judicial intervention in academic performance assessments. It noted that such assessments require the special expertise of educators. The court stated, “to preserve the integrity of the credentials conferred by educational institutions, the courts have long been reluctant to intervene in controversies involving purely academic determinations.” Judicial review is limited to whether the determination was arbitrary, capricious, irrational, made in bad faith, or contrary to the Constitution or statute. The Court reasoned that involving courts in grading disputes would undermine the credibility of academic determinations and promote litigation by unsuccessful students. The Court held that Susan M.’s allegations went to the heart of the professor’s substantive evaluation of her academic performance, and therefore were beyond judicial review. The court cited Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 stating the Court would only intervene in academic matters where there was demonstrated bad faith.

  • Sofair v. State University of New York Upstate Medical Center College of Medicine, 44 N.Y.2d 475 (1978): Due Process Requirements for Academic Dismissals

    Sofair v. State University of New York Upstate Medical Center College of Medicine, 44 N.Y.2d 475 (1978)

    When a student is dismissed from a professional school for academic reasons, due process requires only that the student was previously informed of the school’s dissatisfaction with their progress, and the dismissal was for academic (as opposed to disciplinary) cause.

    Summary

    A medical student, Sofair, was dismissed from Upstate Medical Center College of Medicine for failing to demonstrate sufficient clinical aptitude. He brought an Article 78 proceeding, arguing he was denied due process because the hearing offered to him was too soon after notification of his dismissal. The Appellate Division agreed, ordering a new hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Sofair was not denied due process because he had been previously informed of the school’s dissatisfaction and the dismissal was for academic reasons, not disciplinary. The court emphasized that academic dismissals require expert evaluation and are not easily adapted to judicial fact-finding processes.

    Facts

    Sofair was a medical student at Upstate Medical Center College of Medicine. He failed Pathology in his second year and both Medicine and Surgery in his third year. In his fourth year, he failed Nephrology. The Dean of Admissions informed him that he did not meet graduation standards and was not ready for medical practice, citing his cumulative academic record. The Committee on Academic Promotions required him to complete an additional year of clinical electives. Subsequently, the Fourth Year Medical Grades Committee and the Committee on Academic Promotions determined that Sofair should be dismissed for failure to demonstrate sufficient clinical aptitude for the practice of medicine.

    Procedural History

    Sofair initiated an Article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and his medical degree. Special Term dismissed his petition. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a denial of procedural due process due to the timing of the hearing, and ordered the College of Medicine to provide an appropriate hearing. The College of Medicine appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the procedures followed by Upstate Medical Center College of Medicine in dismissing Sofair for academic cause denied him due process of law in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions.

    Holding

    No, because Sofair had previously been informed of the school’s dissatisfaction with his progress, and the dismissal was for academic cause—failure to demonstrate sufficient clinical aptitude.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on Board of Curators, Univ. of Mo. v Horowitz, emphasizing that due process requirements are less stringent in academic dismissal cases than in disciplinary ones. The court stated that academic dismissals are based on expert evaluations of cumulative information and are not easily adaptable to judicial or administrative fact-finding. The court noted that there was no allegation of bad faith or pretext in the assignment of academic cause. The court reasoned that requiring more extensive procedures in academic dismissals might discourage schools from offering students opportunities to improve, fearing later challenges to their evaluations. The court quoted Horowitz, stating that “the determination whether to dismiss a student for academic reasons requires an expert evaluation of cumulative information and is not readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial or administrative decisionmaking.” The court implied that only if the dismissal was made in bad faith or as a pretext would a judicial evidentiary hearing be warranted. The court concluded that the college’s actions did not violate Sofair’s due process rights.