Document: 435 U.S. 78 98 S.Ct. 948 55 L.Ed.2d 124 BOARD OF CURATORS the UNIVERSITY MISSOURI et al., Petitioners,v.Charlotte HOROWITZ. No. 76-695. Argued Nov. 7, 1977. Decided March 1, 1978. Syllabus The academic performance of students at University Missouri-Kansas City Medical School is periodically assessed by Council Evaluation, a faculty-student body that can recommend various actions, including probation and dismissal; its recommendations are reviewed faculty Coordinating Committee, with ultimate approval Dean. After several members had expressed dissatisfaction clinical respondent medical student during pediatrics rotation, recommended she be advanced to her final year on probationary basis. Following further respondent's year, in middle again evaluated progress concluded should not considered for graduation June that, absent "radical improvement," dropped as student. As an "appeal" decision, was allowed take examinations under supervision seven practicing physicians, only two whom thereafter res ondent graduate schedule. Two others from school immediately; three scheduled but continued probation. then reaffirmed prior position. At subsequent meeting, having noted recent surgery rotation been rated "low-satisfactory," barring reports radical improvement, re-enroll; when report another turned out negative, dropped. When notified which Committee Dean approved, appealed Provost, who after review sustained decision. Respondent brought this action against petitioner officials 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending, inter alia, accorded due process dismissal. District Court, full trial, afforded all rights guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment. Court Appeals reversed. Held: 1. procedures leading dismissal deficiencies, fully informed consequent threat enrollment, did violate Due Process Clause Dismissals (as opposed disciplinary) cause do necessitate hearing before school's decisionmaking body. Goss v. Lopez, 419 565, 95 729, 725, distinguished. Pp. 84-91. 2. Though contends case remanded consideration claim deprivation substantive process, case, correctly concluded, reveals no showing arbitrariness or capriciousness would warrant such disposition, even if it were deemed appropriate courts standard decision public educational institution. P. 91-92. 538 F.2d 1317, Marvin E. Wright, Columbia, Mo., petitioners. Arthur A. Benson, II, Kansas City, respondent. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondent, School, dismissed study failure meet standards. sued petitioners 1983 United States Western Missouri alleging, among other constitutional violations, procedural conducting Amendment Constitution complaint. Eighth Circuit reversed, 1317 (1976), petition rehearing en banc denied divided court. 542 1335 (1976). We granted certiorari, 430 964, 97 1642, 52 355, consider what must state institution whose may constitute "liberty" "property" within meaning reverse judgment Appeals. 2 * admitted standing fall 1971. During years student's education school, required pursue "rotational units" studies pertaining disciplines obstetrics-gynecology, pediatrics, surgery. Each periodic basis comp sed both students, actions composed solely members, ultimately approved Students typically appear either occasion their performance. 3 In spring first study, rotation. "performance below peers patient-oriented settings," erratic attendance sessions, lacked critical concern personal hygiene. Upon recommendation second 4 Faculty following year. For example, docent, adviser, skills "unsatisfactory." year; furthermore, school. 5 permitted set oral practical permit graduate. Pursuant "appeal," spent substantial portion time physicians area enjoyed good reputation peers. asked whether schedule and, not, immediately remain Only doctors graduated Of five, remaining pending progress. receipt these recommendations, Evaluation 6 met mid-May beyond Noting unanimously "barring any Miss Horowitz has improved radically, [she] re-enroll . Medicine." delayed making official until receiving rotations; emergency also respondent, writing University's Provost Health Sciences. reviewing record compiled earlier proceedings. II 7 To entitled protections Amendment, demonstrate deprived interest. never alleged property Because interests creatures law, Perry Sindermann, 408 593, 599-603, 92 2694, 2698-2700, 33 570 (1972), have show trial seat interest recognized law. Instead, argued substantially impairing opportunities continue return employment medically related field. 8 agreed, citing Court's Board Regents Roth, 564, 2701, 548 (1972).1 we held State teacher liberty dismissing nontenured position, noted: 9 [T]here suggestion State, declining re-employ imposed him stigma disability foreclosed his freedom advantage opportunities. invoke regulations bar universities." Id., 573, S.Ct., 2707. 10 recently opportunity elaborate upon circumstances termination might infringe protected Bishop Wood, 426 341, 96 2074, 48 684 upheld policeman without hearing; rejected theory mere fact dismissal, some publicizing reasons action, could amount infringing one's liberty: 11 "In 548, nonretention untenured college make somewhat less attractive employers, nevertheless stretch concept too far 'to suggest person he simply rehired one position remains free seek another.' 575, 2708. This same conclusion applies discharge employee terminable will employer there disclosure discharge. 12 asserted Manager's communicated orally private stated answer interrogatories litigation commenced. Since former communication made public, cannot properly form petitioner's 'good name, reputation, honor, integrity' thereby impaired." 348, 2079 (footnote omitted). 13 Appeals, decided five weeks issued our Bishop, does discuss university infringes dismisses allegations harmful reputation. Three judges App als dissented denial ground "the Horowitz's released directly officials." Citing "[a]bsent disclosure, interest." F.2d, 1335. Petitioners urge us adopt view hold B 14 need decide, however, pursuing career. Nor decide infringed constitutionally process. Assuming existence interest, awarded least much requires. faculty's danger posed timely enrollment. dismiss careful deliberate. These sufficient agree 15 "was [school]. fact, opinion, so finds, went [constitutionally required] affording [respondent] examined independent order absolutely certain grading correct." App. 47. 16 725 (1975), requires, connection suspension disciplinary reasons, "that given written notice charges denies them, explanation evidence authorities present side story." 581, 740. apparently read requiring type formal defend ability performance.2 All "informal give-and-take" between administrative would, least, give characterize conduct put deems proper context." 584, 741. But frequently emphasized "[t]he very nature negates inflexible universally applicable every imaginable situation." Cafeteria Workers McElroy, 367 886, 895, 81 1743, 1748, 1230 (1961). flexibility well illustrated significant difference standards violation valid rules conduct. calls stringent requirements dismissal.3 17 issue arose 50 ago, lower federal distinct differences decisions suspend purposes similar taken call hearings latter. Thus, Barnard Inhabitants Shelburne, 216 Mass. 19, 102 N.E. 1095 (1913), Supreme Judicial Massachusetts argument, based contexts, grant excluding grounds. According court, cases 18 "no application. Misconduct different matter attain excellence studies. A determination involves investigation quite kind. regarded helpful ascertainment misconduct useless finding truth scholarship." 22-23, N.E., 1097. 19 reached issue. See, e. g., Mustell Rose, 282 Ala. 358, 367, 211 So.2d 489, 498, cert. denied, 393 936, 89 297, 21 272 (1968); cf. Foley Benedict, 122 Tex. 193, S.W.2d 805 (1932). Indeed, instant Circuit, Courts unanimous concluding dismissals See Mahavongsanan Hall, 529 448 (CA5 1976);4 Gaspar Bruton, 513 843 (CA10 1975).5 courts, over period 60 years, holding bodies dismissals, lightly. Cf. Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 118-119, 131-132, 54 330, 336-337, 341-342, L.Ed. 674 (1934); Powell Alabama, 287 45, 69-71, 53 S.C 55, 64-65, 77 158 (1932); Jackman Rosenbaum Co., 260 22, 31, 43 9, 10, 67 107 (1922). 20 Reason, clearly supports perception decisions. institution, courtroom room. Goss, felt suspensions resemblance traditional judicial factfinding "hearing" relevant authority. While recognizing necessary tools maintain discipline, concluded: "[I]t strange system sought disciplinarian effort inform dereliction let tell story sure injustice done. 22 23 "[R]equiring effective informal permitting version events provide meaningful hedge erroneous action. alerted disputes about facts arguments effect." U.S., 580, 583-584, 739, 24 Even context proceeding, stopped short since "further formalizing escalating formality adversary costly regular tool destroy ts effectiveness part teaching process." 583, 25 Academic evaluations student, contrast determinations, bear little fact-finding proceedings traditionally attached full-hearing requirement. rested factual conclusions individual participated demonstrations disrupted classes, attacked police officer, caused physical damage property. requirement hearing, where issue, "provide action." Ibid. comparison, perform adequately doctor insufficient toward goal. Such more subjective evaluative than typical questions presented average Like professor grade course, requires expert evaluation cumulative information readily adapted decisionmaking. 26 Under circumstances, decline ignore historic educators formalize hearing. adversary; instead centers around continuing relationship "one occupy many roles—educator, friend, times, parent-substitute." 594, 746 (Powell, J., dissenting). especially true advances through varying regimes system, instruction becomes individualized specialized. value outweighs resulting harm environment. Influencing belief proceedings, punish disruptive insubordinate behavior, automatically bring flavor normal student-teacher relationship. follow context. enlarge presence community risk deterioration beneficial aspects recognize, "useless Mass., 23, "Judicial interposition operation Nation raises problems care restraint. By large, committed control local authorities." Epperson Arkansas, 104, 266, 270, 228 (1968). see reason intrude case.6 III 27 reversing grounds, expressly failed "reach Horowitz." 1321 n. 5. urges remand additional claim. regard, number implied dictum institutions enjoined "shown arbitrary capricious." 449. 850, citations therein. assuming case.7 particularly ill-equipped evaluate factors discussed Part respect speak fortiori here warn intrusion into decisionmaking.8 28 therefore 29 Reversed. 30 POWELL, concurring. 31 I join because upholding deficiencies rather unsatisfactory conduct, 32 numerous meetings discussions teachers advisers, MARSHALL, post, 98-99, culminating special examination administered physicians,1 ante, 81, warned improvement question evaluations. primary focus competence physician. MARSHALL states "largely" "her conduct": 34 "It true, implies, 91 6, inadequacies areas hygiene, peer patient relations, timeliness impair 'a doctor.' Whether termed 'purely reasons,' ibid., irrelevant question, placing undue emphasis words functional considerations. point largely just suspended conduct." Post, 104 (emphasis added; footnotes 35 explicitly contrary undisturbed findings fact. sense, term "conduct" used embrace poor understand use undifferentiated sense.2 His likens misbehavior. There viewed eccentric, but—quite unlike behavior. 36 conclusively School. detail, 37 "The totally establish plaintiff expelled quality work." 44.3 38 It mind attending courses prerequisite satisfactory grades courses. deficient work proficient "book-learning" curriculum.4 "academic" observation techniques actual conditions practice, assigning answers essay question.5 39 clear abundantly occurred,6 opinion. 40 WHITE concurring judgment. 41 Parts I, II-A, concur my Brother BLACKMUN unnecessary precisely minimum divest assumed one. Whatever is, satisfied exceeded minimum. assumes proceeds classify expulsion "academic dismissal," concludes kind respond disagree conclusion, feel constrained say 44 it, personally story. this, more. suspect normally talk expellers sort impose burden already being shouldered discharged responsible institutions. 45 dissenting part. 46 "[a]ssuming requires." Ante, 84-85. contains suggesting protection received. differ assumption characterization "disciplinary" resolution Clause. Finally, 47 "due days less, 49 received protections, more.1 stipulation filed "discussion" mid-1972, close dean testified explained twice them.3 letter followed shortly thereafter, advised placed of, "a major deficiency" "relationships others," "kee[p] established schedules" "atten[d] carefully appearance."4 October 1972 "to attention direct supportive way strong."5 51 January 1973, still meeting Dean, accompanied docent chairman Evaluation. Council's unless improvement" "clinical competence, accept criticism."6 meeting; summarized problem they "several times."7 letters plainly gave requires: notices explanations, [her] conclusion. Hence why indicates mandated id., 741, provided here. 85-86, 89-91. provides legitimate "far requirements," ante., 86, those contexts. less" adequate, infra, equally disturbing decides us. Brandeis " 'great gravity delicacy' task 'shrink' 'anticipat[ing] law advance necessity deciding it,' 'formulat[ing] rule broader precise applied.' Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 345-347, 56 466, 483, 80 688 (1936) (concurring opinion). effect compelled comment extent framework ignored derived approach problems. Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, 893, principal relevance determining due: "First, affected action; second, used, probable value, any, substitute safeguards; finally, Government's function involved fiscal burdens entail." 335, 903. recognizes, "private interest" weighty one: subjected—dismissal school—was severe 10-day high subjected Goss." 86 3. One example loss suffered contained facts: job offer psychiatry department begin September 1973; contingent M.D. degree.8 summary, unrefuted establishes stigmatized unable education, chances returning field severely damaged." (CA8 1976). 57 Judge Friendly context, seeks deprive life [s]he devoted preparation ha[s] come rely," "high level protection."9 58 Neither mentioned justifies moving Goss. error inherent relied respondent; matters hygiene rapport neither "sharply focused" nor "easily documented" was, Mathews, supra, 343, 907. 739 (when decisionmaker "act[s] advice [t]he trivial").10 59 said greater summary Certainly allegedly disobedient there, 569-571, 733-734, immediate orderly administration moreover, "it disserves [the student's] unwarranted." 579, 739.11 circumstances—with stake best stake, leaving possibility dismissal—I believe her. contours defined terms familiar lawyers judges. 909. times (1961); see, 86; 578, 738. words, vary "according specific contexts." Hannah Larche, 363 420, 442, 1502, 1514, 1307 (1960); 334, 902; Morrissey Brewer, 471, 481, 2593, 2600, 484 (1972); Bell Burson, 402 535, 540, 1586, 90 (1971). Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Com ittee McGrath, 341 123, 162-163, 71 624, 643-644, 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, concurring). 61 served as, respects better than, establishing procedure separately previous contact her, appears obtaining fair neutral impartial assessment."12 each approximately half day observing performed duties submitted Dean.13 difficult imagine substance them.14 337-338, 344, 904, 907 (use physician examine applicant decisionmaker). appeal utilized together requires.15 62 analysis illustrates turn characterized reasons. view, apply labels inquiry, indicated case. 63 minutes contain following: 64 "This achievement, performance, people communicate." 218 added). 65 customary measures progress, deficiency apparent graduate; time, according facts, "credit" "satisfactory grades" courses, courses.16 66 doctor." "purely reasons," conduct,17 conduct.18 makes support "dismissals hearing." 87. relies, narrower sense distinguishing ones "misconduct" failing grades, serve purpose.19 consistent statement Eldridge safeguards" factor inquiry. 903, quoted 100; 343-347, 907-909. assistance resolving like one, conduct-related considerations.20 68 talismanic reliance sensitive process.21 disputed susceptible third parties, were, deny suffer serious indeed protection, supra. court's adds nothing find promote elusive goal manner dignity society's limited resources. IV 69 adequate resol tion That taking role cases, refused 5, 91. relating Pet. Cert. Our course petition, issues. 70 Rather own claim, "agree[ing]" 92. allow appellate question. Not benefit thoughts,22 consistency Rule 23(1)(c), "[o]nly forth fairly comprised therein court." bypassing appeals nature, service refuse speculate wide range issues prudential, preferred avoiding decision—particularly decision—until 'absolutely necessary' 347, 483 (Brandeis, 72 BLACKMUN, BRENNAN joins, 73 MR. JUSTICE proce ural That, me, disposes compels reversal 74 unnecessary, therefore, indulge counterarguments opinions graduate-school-dismissal situation. Similarly, choose (or, indeed, distinction relevant). leave instance to, by, courts. 75 Accordingly, too, concedes "invoke[d] bar" seeking finishing Brief 21. accepting dismissed, "as place, readmission testimony employed Veterans' Administration black mark." On side, doctor's "would great difficulty get all." employment, applying "otherwise equal qualifications, roughly, lean heavily school." 1320-1321, elaboration "effected fourteenth amendment." 1321. No express indication be. assume, Greenhill Bailey, 519 1975), principally relied. "accorded contest deficiency]. stop short, trial-type situations. professional all, judge students' master curriculum. attorneys imposition rigid cross-examination useful purpose, notwithstanding permanent duration. 'informal give-and-take' unduly 'the context.' omitted), quoting go require fundamental safeguards representation counsel, confrontation, witnesses." 36. recognize And requisite [was] severity weighed exact owed. conclude considering factors, inquiry historically supported preserving evaluations, district relief confusion power hand, hand. vanguard legal development ever Dixon Alabama Education, Cir. 1961, 294 150, 368 930, 82 368, 193. However, developed line tax arbitrarily disciplined ordinary, principles play', declare '[w]e know holds colleges universities subject uniform application infers contrary.' Wright Texas Southern University, 1968, 392 728, 729. scholarship equated. determine misconduct, concerning scholarship. dichotomy dismissals." 449-450. sent Liaison Association American Colleges "intellectual ability" insufficiently prepared work. court specifically "there long other" wish "blur distinction." 8. intellectual removed called protections. passing incompetence," conducted. notes needed keeping schedules. record, leaves doubt purely withou discussion Personal important history diagnose illness. Questions timeliness, seem analogous inquiries academically evaluating considers weighs variety which, earlier, adaptable injured required. alleges applied sex, religion, appearance. found "There differently sex religion. With regard [respondent's] appearance, itself students." 45. respecting amounted Service Dulles, 354 363, 1152, 1403 (1957). contentions. shows rules, except new designed protect take. status similarly situated exception lengths assist obtain degree, draws, Accardi ex rel. Shaughnessy, 347 260, 499, 681 (1954), relied, enunciate binding States. safeguard judgment, request, 185, competency panel "seven experienced physicians." Panel requested careful, detailed, thorough assessment abilities time." Dean's 15, "general topic[s] curriculum asking panel] your ." member examining "evaluate mastery concepts, knowledge, skills, physician." 209. conducted separately. although added "she qualify intern hospital worked." 40. negative varied immediately. MARSHALL's objectively determinable "may 102. purport whether, past, engaged argue done things past. point. address themselves apart tasks master. ARSHALL says tested assertions doctor. 102-103 14. tacit recognition improper found: "Considering presented, finds reasonably plaintiff, satisfy 1973." Dr. William Sirridge assigned "chief docent" (faculty adviser). follows: "He [Dr. Sirridge] plaintiff's thought learn reading books, [that] M. D. degree. He basic 35. insists calling exercise futility. 104-105 18. points out, decisive due. 89-90. took place not. accuracy safeguarded sorts An fact—e. examination. subjective, satisfies predetermined competence. standard, turn, "conduct," misconduct. Thus particular academic—that entails evaluations—is likely controlling significance how faculties widest discretion judgments entitlement promotion graduation. Contrary 18, possible available mean recount underlying reply 15. formally months 1972. 100-101 (testimony docent). 146. 15-16. 147. 182-183. 16. "Some Kind Hearing," 123 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1267, 1296-1297 (1975) (revocation licenses). separated stake. consequences individual, smaller acceptable. statements reflect genuine wrongfully dismissed. 147-150, 180-183, 185-187. 150 Dean); 187, 208, 210 (letters physicians). 190-207. religion helped resolve "factual dispute" 30; 51-52. 7. grounds rapport, like, forum underpinnings forum—an "unfair mistaken," 740, (1975). "represent[ed] valued human interaction experience[d] satisfaction participating vitally concern[ed] [T]hese interchange elementary idea person, thing, consulted one." L. Tribe, Constitutional Law 10-7 p. 503 (1978) original). 12. later credit" emergency-room satisfactory. gr de recorded, 31. seen 229 (minutes meeting). voiced arguable nonconduct aspects, reason, competence," perceived relationships colleagues patients. 219. 181, 182-183, 210. futility trying draw workable POWELL's text "is fact," 94, cites indicating exists. work,' 95, "solely grounds," 96, parties." Infra, 106. fairly,' 3, indicates, intimation, lead scholastic subjects. POWELL correct, facing misbehaved present, future doctor," 6. suited aid "observation practice," 95. result labeled "an 'academic' judgment," authorities, efficient chance procedure, did, depriving 100-102. 448, 450 1976); 843, 849-851 1975); 497-498, 19-20, 1095, 1096-1097 (1913). Brookins Bonnell, 362 F.Supp. 379, 383 (E.D.Pa.1973): situation violates regulation actively engaging prohibited activities. Plaintiff act comply admission class passively ignoring regulations. failures procedures. They something. requirements. Most importantly, reference achievement esoteric Scholastic involved, adapt 'due process' labels, administrators reluctant accord excuse doing so. generally Kirp, Proceduralism Bureaucracy: Setting, Stan.L.Rev. 841 useful, assessments "disagree[s] contentions." asserts shows" compliance ways followed, 42-46, contentions "clear." 8, inconsistent face anything indicate addressed Review clarify issues, rarely expenditure time. If goes exist. comments confusing dictum. notes, cited grounded amounts offered hardly previously rules—particularly providing safeguards—is agencies citizen valuable

Category: 3