Fordham Law Review: Are Campus Sexual Assault Tribunals Fair?: The Need for Judicial Review and Additional Due Process Protections

Article .pdf file here. Excerpt:

'Disciplinary proceedings at public colleges must afford students limited procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. As public schools are considered state actors for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, any action by a school that deprives a student of “life,” “liberty,” or “property” without due process of law is a due process violation. The Fifth Circuit first recognized the procedural due process rights of public school students in the landmark case of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education. In Goss v. Lopez, the Supreme Court further recognized that students must be afforded due process before they are deprived of their education, in which they have a property interest. The Court also found that students have a “liberty” interest in their education because expulsion or suspension from school threatens a person’s “good name, reputation, honor, or integrity.” Any deprivation of a student’s “property interest in educational benefits . . . [or] liberty interest in reputation” without due process is therefore unconstitutional. Although the Court in Goss was faced with the disciplinary proceedings of a secondary school, courts have extended the holding in Goss to higher education institutions, including public colleges. Goss recognized that the process owed to the accused depends on the circumstances of each case and involves balancing the parties’ interests. Due process requires, at a minimum, the opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” However, courts have not uniformly recognized what process is owed to public school students in disciplinary proceedings.'