As the University of Wisconsin decides how it ought to handle the cases of three faculty members who have recently been convicted of crimes and sentenced to jail, and as those faculty members remain on the payroll because the university wants to be absolutely certain it honors their due process rights, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has turned in an intriguingly relevant ruling.

The case involves a medical student who was expelled after being found guilty of felony drug charges. In October of 2001, third-year med student Sean Michael Flaim was arrested at his apartment and was subsequently charged with four counts of felony drug possession. Police found ecstasy, cocaine, L.S.D., a nine millimeter hangdun, and $9,500 in cash in his apartment. Flaim eventually pled guilty to a lesser felony count of Attempted Possession and was sentenced to two years' unsupervised probation.

Meanwhile, two days after his arrest, the Medical University of Ohio suspended him until such time as all "external investigations/hearings [were] completed." Flaim was informed that regardless of what the legal system determined, he would not be allowed to resume his studies until he agreed to an internal investigation conducted by the school. Flaim requested this internal investigation after pleading guilty to the lesser felony charge. The university held a hearing at which Flaim was allowed to have counsel present, but was not allowed to communicate with his lawyer during the hearing itself. Flaim was also prevented from cross-examining witnesses, which included the arresting officer. At the end of the hearing, Flaim was informed that the investigating committee would prepare a recommendation for the dean. That report was never written, but Flaim nonetheless received a notice of expulsion for "violation of institutional standards of conduct" from the dean shortly afterward. When he met with her, he was told that the school had a "zero-tolerance policy" for drugs. No more particular reason for the expulsion was offered, and Flaim was told he would not be allowed to appeal. When Flaim tried to pursue the matter, he was told he no longer had rights at the university because he was no longer a student there.

Flaim sued the Medical University of Ohio, claiming that the expulsion was conducted in a manner that violated his due process rights. The appellate court ruled that Flaim's rights were not violated, citing a number of thought provoking cases centering on schools' obligations to students in disciplinary situations. But the court also observed that the school did the "bare-minimum" to ensure that due process was observed, and noted that this was "perhaps less-than-desirable for an institution of higher learning."

Via InsideHigherEd.com.

The "Fire Guide" on due process also mentions that the university need only provide barebones due process. Had there not been independant investigations outside the university to much higher standards of proof, I'd be hollerinig on this one, esp regarding how he was hogtied at the hearing(s). (I assume there is no Steve Hinkle/Cal Polyesque detailed transcripts of the whole hearing.) That said, stricter rules for evidence and more gracious levels of due process were given to him in the public sector (much as the previously mentioned cases), and the univiersity, a public one at that, should be able to tap that information for fact finding.

All that would be left to do would be to determine his fitness for the institution in the context of the crime/plea/evidence/etc (and for that due process would be needed, but as I said, speed is also part of due process). He could and should be able to directly crossexamine administrators and other university reps regarding previous cases, the definition, criteria , etc of fitness. However, reopenning the evidence to which he pled guilty would likely be unreasonable and redundant.

It would be interesting to see how Wisconsin would have handled *this* case.

Keep in mind that the guy was in medical school, presumably with the aim of getting a medical license -- which of course would give him extensive access to narcotics. Good call for once, it seems to me.

I'm the main judicial officer for a state school, and while it appears from this item that the school did fulfil the base requirements for due process, they could have saved themselves some trouble by going a bit further. I'm surprised they got away with denying him an appeal. In general, a school is required only to provide basic due process and to follow their own procedures (and as long as basic due process is provided, the courts grand some leeway on how strictly schools must follow their own procedures).

Every hearing officer worth his salt knows that the more serious the sanction can be, the more due process you should provide. If I'm meeting with a student and they face suspension or expulsion, I make sure that they get ample notice, copies of relevant documents, the chance to provide witnesses and the chance to appeal ... and all that is just for a bare-bones administrative meeting. If the student requests a full hearing, it's just a shade less formalized than a trial.

Of course, one certainly wonders whether the result would've been the same had an identical situation occurred with a tenured professor. Oh wait, actually there need be no speculation about that: the university would've provided MORE procedural protections than the courts themseleves, and the resulting sanction, IF ANY, would've probably been no more than a strongly-worded slap on the wrist.