Court Opinion

ID: 9427088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:42.374351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:04.841695
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join Parts I, II-A, and III of the Court’s opinion and concur in the judgment.
I agree with my Brother Blackmun that it is unnecessary to decide whether respondent had a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest or precisely what minimum procedures were required to divest her of that interest if it is assumed she had one. Whatever that minimum is, the procedures accorded her satisfied or exceeded that minimum.
The Court nevertheless assumes the existence of a protected interest, proceeds to classify repondent’s expulsion as an “academic dismissal,” and concludes that no hearing of any kind or any opportunity to respond is required in connection with such an action. Because I disagree with this conclusion, *97I feel constrained to say so and to concur only in the judgment.
As I see it, assuming a protected interest, respondent was at the minimum entitled to be informed of the reasons for her dismissal and to an opportunity personally to state her side of the story. Of course, she had all this, and more. I also suspect that expelled graduate or college students normally have the opportunity to talk with their expellers and that this sort of minimum requirement will impose no burden that is not already being shouldered and discharged by responsible institutions.