Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
435 U.S. 78 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a formal hearing when a student is dismissed from a public educational institution for academic reasons, as distinct from disciplinary reasons. The procedural requirement is met if the student has been fully informed of the faculty's dissatisfaction and the dismissal decision is careful and deliberate.
Facts:
- Charlotte Horowitz was admitted with advanced standing to the University of Missouri-Kansas City Medical School in 1971.
- During her first year, faculty members expressed dissatisfaction with her clinical performance, erratic attendance, and lack of concern for personal hygiene.
- As a result of these deficiencies, Horowitz was advanced to her final year on a probationary basis.
- Faculty dissatisfaction with her clinical performance continued during her final year, with her adviser rating her skills as 'unsatisfactory.'
- Mid-year, the school's Council on Evaluation recommended that Horowitz not be permitted to graduate and be dropped from the school absent 'radical improvement.'
- As an 'appeal,' Horowitz was evaluated by seven independent practicing physicians; only two recommended she graduate on schedule, while five recommended either probation or immediate dismissal.
- After receiving the physicians' reports and another negative evaluation from her surgery rotation, the Council, Coordinating Committee, and Dean approved her dismissal from the school.
- Horowitz appealed in writing to the University's Provost for Health Sciences, who sustained the school's decision after a review of the record.
Procedural Posture:
- Charlotte Horowitz sued University of Missouri officials in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging a deprivation of procedural due process.
- After a full trial, the District Court found for the university officials, concluding that Horowitz had been afforded all constitutional rights.
- Horowitz, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment, finding the dismissal violated Horowitz's due process rights.
- The university officials' petition for a rehearing en banc before the Eighth Circuit was denied.
- The university officials, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a formal hearing when a public university dismisses a student for academic reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a formal hearing for an academic dismissal. A dismissal for academic reasons, unlike a disciplinary suspension, does not necessitate the same level of procedural safeguards. Citing a long history of judicial deference, the Court reasoned that academic evaluations are inherently more subjective and evaluative than the factual determinations involved in disciplinary cases. A formal, adversarial hearing is not well-suited to judging academic performance and risks damaging the beneficial aspects of the faculty-student relationship. The Court, assuming without deciding that a protected liberty or property interest existed, found that the university afforded Horowitz sufficient process by repeatedly informing her of her deficiencies and making a careful, deliberate decision involving multiple levels of review.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No. The procedures were sufficient because the dismissal was for academic deficiencies, not unsatisfactory personal conduct. Evaluation of a medical student's clinical performance is fundamentally an academic judgment, even if it involves observing her 'conduct' in a clinical setting. This distinction from disciplinary misconduct is critical, as academic judgments are subjective, expert evaluations not easily assessed through traditional due process hearings. The extensive review process, including examinations by outside physicians, provided more than adequate due process for an academic dismissal.
Concurring - Justice White
No. While concurring in the judgment that the procedures afforded to Horowitz were sufficient, this opinion disagrees with the majority's broad holding that no hearing or opportunity to respond is required for an academic dismissal. At a minimum, an expelled student is entitled to be informed of the reasons for dismissal and to an opportunity to personally state her side of the story. Since Horowitz received this and more, the university's actions were constitutional, but the Court should not have created such an expansive rule.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Marshall
Yes, in effect, while agreeing with the outcome. Although Horowitz received sufficient due process, the majority's reasoning is flawed. The distinction between 'academic' and 'disciplinary' dismissals is unworkable and irrelevant; Horowitz's dismissal was based on conduct-related issues like hygiene and timeliness. Given the severe private interest at stake—dismissal from medical school—Horowitz was entitled to significant procedural protection. The special evaluation by seven independent physicians was an excellent and sufficient procedure that met this standard. The dissent is from the majority's decision to rule on the substantive due process claim rather than remanding it to the Court of Appeals.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Blackmun
No, in effect, while agreeing with the outcome. The opinions demonstrate that, assuming a protected interest, Horowitz received all the process she was due. Therefore, it is unnecessary to decide the broader question of what minimum process is required for academic versus disciplinary dismissals. The dissent is from the majority's decision to resolve the substantive due process claim itself, rather than remanding it to the lower courts for initial consideration.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes the principle of judicial deference to academic decision-making by public educational institutions. It creates a crucial distinction between procedural due process rights in academic and disciplinary contexts, significantly limiting the procedural requirements for academic dismissals. By holding that a formal, adversarial hearing is not required, the Court insulated universities' expert evaluations of student performance from extensive judicial scrutiny. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for students to challenge academic dismissals on procedural due process grounds, shifting the focus to whether the institution's process was fundamentally fair, careful, and deliberate.
Unlock the full brief for Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz