Opinion ID: 1679499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard Applicable to Student Dismissal.

Text: At the heart of this appeal is COMS' contention that the district court, while recognizing that Lekutis' dismissal was for academic failure, failed to apply the deferential standard customarily accorded such decisions. Lekutis responds by questioning the nature of the dismissal, quoting the district court's observation that the case has both academic and non-academic overtones. He then suggests that COMS' reliance on academic failure is pretextual and that standards applicable to the trial of ordinary contract disputes should apply. First, we reject Lekutis' characterization of his dismissal as nonacademic. This court recently observed that [p]ractical aspects of professional training and discipline, especially in the health sciences, are a part of the student's academic training. Pflepsen, 519 N.W.2d at 392. The fact that Lekutis' failure stemmed from gross lack of interpersonal skills, rather than any intellectual deficit, in no way alters the nature of the inquiry. It is well settled that in a medical education, evaluation of [the student's] performance in [clinical courses] is no less an academic judgment because it involves observation of ... skills and techniques in actual conditions of practice, rather than assigning a grade to written answers on an essay question. Board of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 95, 98 S.Ct. 948, 957, 55 L.Ed.2d 124, 138 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring); see Lunde v. Iowa Bd. of Regents, 487 N.W.2d 357, 362 (Iowa App.1992). Satisfied that Lekutis' dismissal was based on academic performance, we turn to COMS' complaint that the court failed to apply the correct standard of review. The assignment is not without merit. The court's opinion recited that it will not interfere unless Lekutis proves by a preponderance of the evidence COMS' administration failed to exercise professional judgment in his dismissal. The actual standard, however, more severely circumscribes the court's authority: When judges are asked to review the substance of a genuinely academic decision, such as this one, they should show great respect for the faculty's professional judgment. Plainly, they may not override it unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment. Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225, 106 S.Ct. 507, 513, 88 L.Ed.2d 523, 532 (1985); accord North v. State, 400 N.W.2d 566, 571 (Iowa 1987); Lunde, 487 N.W.2d at 362. To the extent that the court's abbreviated expression of the rule effectively lowered Lekutis' burden of proof, the court was in error.