This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Part II

Henry R. Arkin, JD

JAMA. 1985;254(18):2653-2656.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

THE first part of this article discussed the Horowitz case and the procedural due process a school must follow before it can dismiss a student for academic reasons.

Different from "procedural" due process is "substantive" due process, which is generally defined as the right to a decision that is not arbitrary or capricious. While the plurality opinion in Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v Horowitz, 98 SCt 948 (1978), only briefly and ambiguously referred to substantive due process, 98 SCt at 956, lower courts before and after Horowitz have held that under the US Constitution public institutions may not dismiss students for reasons that are arbitrary or capricious. See generally Ewing v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 559 FSupp 791, 797-798 (1983). The reluctance of courts to become involved is especially strong here, however, as academic expertise and discretion will be involved. In practice, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association. For further information and reprints, write to the Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?