Opinion ID: 569324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Environmental Sciences Program

Text: 8 In August 1986, Dean David Dunn of UTD's School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics (NS & M) recommended sua sponte to Vice President Clark that UTD eliminate NS & M's Environmental Sciences program. Dean Dunn stated that both enrollment and research grants had declined dramatically over the past decade, and that there was little prospect for improvement. Because this was so, the program was a serious financial drain on NS & M, and the impending transfer of the lucrative Computer Science program to UTD's Engineering School would exacerbate the problem. Because Environmental Sciences was, in Dean Dunn's words, less central to the mission of NS & M than any other program, its continuation could be justified only so long as it does not deny other programs the opportunity to achieve regional preeminence and national prominence.... In effect, the program is a worthwhile experiment that failed. 9 Vice President Clark agreed with Dean Dunn, and transmitted his recommendation to President Rutford. President Rutford concurred and drafted a letter to the Environmental Sciences faculty, but he was denied approval by the University of Texas system to eliminate the program because doing so might violate the terms of a gift to UTD. 10 In early 1987, Dean Dunn met with the Environmental Sciences faculty to discuss the program's deteriorating condition, but he did not announce that the program was in imminent danger of elimination. Dr. William Cale, head of the Environmental Sciences program, responded to Dean Dunn's concerns by memorandum, indicating that the decline in student enrollment had ceased, but Dr. Cale's analysis was invalid because it assumed that graduate students would be required to enroll for fifteen semester hours per term, rather than the customary twelve. 11 In July, Dean Dunn renewed his recommendation that the program be eliminated, and suggested that a research institute in environmental sciences be created to satisfy the terms of the gift. Again, President Rutford agreed, and he informed the Board of Regents that he wanted to phase out the program. This time his request was approved. 12 On September 19, 1987, Professor Cale telephoned President Rutford and asked that a study committee be appointed to review the Environmental Sciences program before the decision to eliminate it was final. President Rutford informed him that there had been as much review of the decision as was necessary, unless new information that was relevant to [the] decision was brought forth. Two days later, President Rutford notified the Environmental Sciences faculty that the program was to be phased out and their positions terminated as of May 31, 1989. 13 On September 23, Dean Dunn met with the NS & M faculty to answer questions about the phase-out. On September 30, Professor Cale, on behalf of the Environmental Sciences faculty, wrote a letter to President Rutford raising a number of questions about how the phase-out would be implemented. President Rutford responded by letter one week later, answering Dr. Cale's questions and stating that [i]f other questions arise I will be happy to address them. 14 On July 6, 1988, the Natural Sciences faculty sent a letter to President Rutford protesting UTD's failure to afford them pretermination hearings before unbiased members of the faculty, as provided for in section 6(12) of the Board of Regents' Rules and Regulations. President Rutford responded on August 1, saying that section 6(12) was inapplicable because the Environmental Sciences program was not being eliminated for reasons of financial exigency, concluding that [i]f you have anything to present other than your contentions regarding procedural matters related to the decision, please contact Dean Dunn, Dr. Clark, or myself. The Environmental Sciences faculty responded in a one paragraph letter on August 5, making clear that they were in complete and total disagreement with the merits of the decision to eliminate the program. 15 On September 21, 1988, counsel for the appellants wrote to President Rutford demanding that appellants receive a full adversary hearing. The General Counsel for the University of Texas denied the appellants' demand by letter dated October 6, but stated that President Rutford, Vice President Clark, and Dean Dunn were available to meet with any or all of the affected faculty members on an informal basis to discuss the facts that were considered in reaching this decision and allow them to demonstrate that those facts were in error. None of the appellants sought such a meeting. 16 By consent of the parties, this matter was transferred to a Magistrate for all proceedings below, including the entry of final judgment. The Magistrate granted summary judgment against appellants on their procedural due process claim, holding that (1) appellants had no right to be heard on the decision to phase out the academic programs; (2) the October 6 letter from the university's General Counsel offered all the process due appellants under the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the decision to terminate appellants' employment; and (3) because appellants were offered a meaningful opportunity to be heard, their failure to pursue that opportunity waived any right to complain that they were deprived of procedural due process. The Magistrate further held that the individual defendants sued in their individual capacities were entitled to qualified immunity.