Dehaan v. Brandeis University, Civ. A. No. 56-1112.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 56-1112. |
| Citation | 150 F. Supp. 626 |
| Parties | Richard DEHAAN, Plaintiff, v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
William P. Homans, Jr., Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
David A. Rose, Hersehal Zonderman, Holtz & Rose, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
I have before me now the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b) (6), 28 U.S.C.A. The plaintiff instituted this action praying that the defendant, Brandeis University, be enjoined from withholding a scholarship award and from refusal to permit the plaintiff to renew his registration at the school, or in the alternative, for money damages. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332. The plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied at the hearing on the ground that its allowance at this time would be a futile gesture, for the school year was more than half completed.
The plaintiff, a student at the defendant's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, applied for and was awarded a fellowship in the amount of $700 and a scholarship to cover tuition for the academic year 1956/57. The plaintiff's reply to the offer of award was a lengthy protest at its inadequacy, and he accused the defendant of bad faith with respect to promises allegedly made at the time of admission to the school. By a subsequent letter, dated April 21, 1956, the plaintiff accepted the award offered "under protest and pending reply to my petition * * *" and included a proviso that he reserved "the right to accept employment elsewhere." The defendant on April 23 withdrew the award previously offered and by a letter dated June 22, 1956, the plaintiff was informed that there
The issue to be decided now is whether the university had a right to dismiss the plaintiff summarily or whether it must grant him a hearing before any decision on his status is made.
As a preliminary matter I reject the plaintiff's suggestion that the court refuse to consider the incriminating letter of April 14, 1956, which is the apparent cause of the plaintiff's difficulties with the University. This letter was conspicuously missing from the appendix to the complaint and was properly introduced by the defendant as a part of its motion at the hearing. Rule 10(c), 28 U.S.C.A., Peoples Natural Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 235, 127 F.2d 153, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 700, 62 S.Ct. 1298, 86 L.Ed. 1769.
Brandeis University, a privately endowed institution, by regulation which is set forth in its General Catalog, "reserves the right to sever the connection of any student with the university for appropriate reason." The problem of what constitutes an appropriate reason must clearly be left to those authorities charged with the duty of maintaining the standards and discipline of the school. Curry v. Lasell Seminary Company, 168 Mass. 7, 46...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boehm v. University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine
...where student was not provided with contractual right to hearing as provided in student handbook). Compare: DeHaan v. Brandeis University, 150 F.Supp. 626 (D.Mass.1957). In recent years the courts have become more willing to grant judicial review of rules promulgated by private colleges and......
-
Wong v. Regents of University of California
...adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding.' An authority closely comparable to the case at bench is Dehaan v. Brandeis University, D.C., 150 F.Supp. 626, where the court had under consideration a regulation reserving 'the right to sever the connection of any student with the......
-
Coveney v. President & Trustees of College of Holy Cross
...punishment imposed on a particular student is arbitrary or capricious. See Frank v. Marquette Univ., supra; Dehaan v. Brandeis Univ., 150 F.Supp. 626, 627 (D.Mass.1957). "In dealing with students who have violated rules or who have been guilty of conduct requiring discipline, differences ma......
-
Parsons College v. NORTH CENTRAL ASS'N OF COL. & SEC. SCH.
...for misconduct, where a hearing may be required if the school is public, and expulsion for academic failure. See Dehaan v. Brandeis University, 150 F.Supp. 626 (D. Mass.1957). "Where the real ground of exclusion is not misconduct there is no obligation on the part of the school committee to......