Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education
Citation | 294 F.2d 150 |
Decision Date | 04 August 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 18641.,18641. |
Parties | St. John DIXON et al., Appellants, v. ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Jack Greenberg, Thurgood Marshall, New York City, Fred D. Gray, Montgomery, Ala., Derrick A. Bell, Jr., New York City, for appellants, James M. Nabrit, III, New York City, of counsel.
Gordon Madison, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Ala., MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen. of Ala., Robt. P. Bradley, Governor's Office, Montgomery, Ala., for appellees.
Before RIVES, CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
The question presented by the pleadings and evidence,1 and decisive of this appeal, is whether due process requires notice and some opportunity for hearing before students at a tax-supported college are expelled for misconduct. We answer that question in the affirmative.
The misconduct for which the students were expelled has never been definitely specified. Defendant Trenholm, the President of the College, testified that he did not know why the plaintiffs and three additional students were expelled and twenty other students were placed on probation. The notice of expulsion2 which Dr. Trenholm mailed to each of the plaintiffs assigned no specific ground for expulsion, but referred in general terms to "this problem of Alabama State College."
The acts of the students considered by the State Board of Education before it ordered their expulsion are described in the opinion of the district court reported in 186 F.Supp. 945, 947, from which we quote in the margin.3
As shown by the findings of the district court, just quoted in footnote 3, the only demonstration which the evidence showed that all of the expelled students took part in was that in the lunch grill located in the basement of the Montgomery County Courthouse. The other demonstrations were found to be attended "by several if not all of the plaintiffs." We have carefully read and studied the record, and agree with the district court that the evidence does not affirmatively show that all of the plaintiffs were present at any but the one demonstration.
Only one member of the State Board of Education assigned the demonstration attended by all of the plaintiffs as the sole basis for his vote to expel them. Mr. Harry Ayers testified:
The most elaborate grounds for expulsion were assigned in the testimony of Governor Patterson:
Superintendent of Education Stewart testified that he voted for expulsion because the students had broken rules and regulations pertaining to all of the State institutions, and, when required to be more specific, testified:
The testimony of other members of the Board assigned somewhat varying and differing grounds and reasons for their votes to expell the plaintiffs.
The district court found the general nature of the proceedings before the State Board of Education, the action of the Board, and the official notice of expulsion given to the students as follows:
"4 Same as footnote 2, supra, of this opinion."
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, D.C.M.D.Ala.1960, 186 F.Supp. 945, 948, 949.
The evidence clearly shows that the question for decision does not concern the sufficiency of the notice or the adequacy of the hearing, but is whether the students had a right to any notice or hearing whatever before being expelled.4 The district court wrote at some length on that question, as appears from its opinion. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, supra, 186 F.Supp. at pages 950-952. After careful study and consideration, we find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusion of the district court that no notice or opportunity for any kind of hearing was required before these students were expelled.
It is true, as the district court said, that "* * * there is no statute or rule that requires formal charges and/or a hearing * * *," but the evidence is without dispute that the usual practice at Alabama State College had been to give a hearing and opportunity to offer defenses before expelling a student. Defendant Trenholm, the College President, testified:
Whenever a governmental body acts so as to injure an individual, the Constitution requires that the act be consonant with due process of law. The minimum procedural requirements necessary to satisfy due process depend upon the circumstances and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gomes v. University of Maine System, No. CIV. 03-123-B-W.
...the students are allowed to attend the hearing itself. Nash v. Auburn Univ., 812 F.2d 655, 662-63 (11th Cir.1987) ("[W]e did not require in Dixon that students facing a hearing on charges of misconduct be given the names of witnesses against them and a summary of their expected testimony, w......
-
Rumler v. BOARD OF SCH. TR. FOR LEXINGTON CTY. DIST. NO. 1 SCHOOLS
...there enunciated, but can find guidance therein. Such application in no way lessens the rule propounded in Dixon v. Alabama State Board (CCA 5 1961), 294 F.2d 150, 155, cert. den. 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct. 368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193, Whenever a governmental body acts so as to injure an individual, the......
-
Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
...witnesses against him and an oral or written report on the facts to which each witness testifies" ( Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (5th Cir. 1961) 294 F.2d 150, 159 (Dixon )) and "the student is entitled to ... names of the witnesses and a statement of the gist of their proposed ......
-
Austin v. Univ. of Or., Case No. 6:15-cv-02257-MC (Lead Case)
...Student Conduct Code and the Oregon Administrative Rules. ECF No. 20-3 at 1.3 I recognize that Goss mentions Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir.1961), and a collection of cases from lower federal courts excluding the District of Oregon and the Ninth Circuit, in......
-
Enforcement of Law Schools' Non-academic Honor Codes: a Necessary Step Towards Professionalism?
...had not been given a right to a hearing before expulsion as provided for in the student handbook); Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150, 157-58 (5th Cir.1961) (stating that because there is no government interest, the relationship between a student and a private university is cont......
-
Schoolhouse Property.
...universities were entitled to notice and hearing prior to expulsion for misconduct. See id. at 576 n.8; Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. (151.) Goss, 419 U.S. at 573-74. (152.) Id. at 573-75. (153.) All state constitutions guarantee resident children a free public pri......
-
Due Process Roulette: Why Public University Students Are Not Guaranteed Procedural Due Process When Facing Suspension or Dismissal
...documents constitute State law establishing an entitlement to continued education at the university); Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150, 157 (5th Cir. 1961) (elaborating on the importance of education to society when deriving the students' protected property [125] 781 F.2d 46 (......
-
For Whom the Bell Tolls: Bell v. Itawamba Targets Rap Music and Students' Free Speech Rights
...501 (2018) (citing Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358 (2003); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Dixon v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150, 157 (5th Cir. 1961)).129. Begovic, supra note 128, at 501-02 (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969......