Responses

Michael Discussion:

This week's hypothetical situation allows for crafting a good defense against the school.  I would argue, probably with a lawyer, the following reasons for my immediate reinstatement. 

1. Seeing as I am in my last year of school, I had maintained the appropriate GPA for the previous three years.  If I were such a bad student, unfit of continuing my studies, why did it take the school three and a half years to realize this?  I should have been weeded out much sooner. 

2. I would look for other possible motives such as malice or bad faith on the part of the school administration. 

3. I would argue that counting an exam 60% is too high and at the arbitrary whim of the professor.  If other sections of the class are taught by other professors I would want to know if they also count the exam 60%.  If not, I would calculate my grade based on their percentages to show that had I taken it with a different professor I would have passed and this particular professor has pulled numbers out of the air arbitrarily on his/her syllabus.  I could also look into who the exam was graded in terms of whether or not there is a rubric or some type of objective standard.  

4. I would look at the student handbook and see the exact wording of the academic policies, I could perhaps argue a breach of contract.  

5. I would also go through the official academic appeal process in addition to legal action.  

6. I would also try to find out if others failed it and if they are also being dismissed.  I may want to try to find out what percentage of students are dismissed from the program annually due to academic performance.  

My arguments above are based in part on court's opinion in the case of Connelly v. University of Vermont which is a similar to the scenario provided in this week's prompt.  A medical student was dismissed based on academic performance. The court puts the burden on the student to prove that it was unjust by proving that the decision was motivated by malice or in bad faith, or that the school is acting arbitrarily or capriciously.  

I am not sure if there is any difference in the legal arguments I listed above for a traditional or non-traditional student.  Perhaps a non-traditional student could have an advantage in trying to argue that they were not supported correctly as a non-traditional student.  

References 

Kaplin, W.A. & Lee, B. A. (2009). A legal guide for student affairs professionals. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Emily Discussion:

Graduation and completion of a degree program are the main objections for many, if not all, students in higher education. Academic dismissal can be devastating for any student, especially for students who are almost done with their program and have worked 3+ years to complete it. Institutional policy can allow for students to be dismissed for not maintaining the policy or program requirements. Because of recent scrutiny of institutional policy and academic decisions by institutions, review of unfair or improper academic decisions have been a topic for many higher education circles.

Unfair dismissal from the described law school would be a difficult fight, but considering the high performance, the amount of time spent and the length until graduation, I as a student would try to provide my case. Firstly, I would find evidence to prove that I have spent adequate amount of time, preparation and effort on my course work, classes and overall success during my time at the institution; I would also inquire as to whether or not the institution proceeded with the dismissal with malicious or bad faith (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 402-403). If the courts could find that the institution did indeed act in this way, then the academic dismissal would be unfair. While academic dismissals and proceedings have been found to be at the discretion of the institution, the courts have found that if the institution makes those decisions in bad faith, then the ruling by the institution is deemed unfair (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 403). In a similar case, Connelly V University of Vermont, the plaintiff argued that the university’s dismissal to be a violation of good faith; the courts found that the student was entitled to a judicial review of the dismissal at the institution (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 403). A judicial review would allow for the student to bring their case to a judicial board and plead their case.

Some other options that could constitute reinstatement or review of the dismissal could be if the plaintiff can provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate that the institution violated its contract to provide an academic service and education to the student resulting in graduation (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 406).While the student has an obligation to adhere to academic standards, policies and financial responsibilities, the institution also has to ensure that all services that were promised are provided. Both of these routes would be accessible to traditional and non-traditional students. These proceedings have to deal with the legal obligations of the faculty and the institution itself; it has nothing to do with status of the student. The only issue that could arise for non-traditional students could be if the institution or courts find that the student was delinquent in their studies, which could be a reality for many students especially if the student is a fulltime employee or has a family or children. For non-traditional students, then, trying to prove a case with that argument can prove futile.

References

Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2009). A legal guide for student affairs professionals (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.