Hammond v. South Carolina State College

• Decision Date: 31 August 1967
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 67-165.
• Citation: 272 F. Supp. 947
• Parties: Joseph HAMMOND, John W. Stroman and Benjamin F. Bryant, Jr., a minor, by Benjamin F. Bryant, Sr., his Father and Next Friend, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE, a public body corporate, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

272 F. Supp. 947

Joseph HAMMOND, John W. Stroman and Benjamin F. Bryant, Jr., a minor, by Benjamin F. Bryant, Sr., his Father and Next Friend, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE, a public body corporate, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 67-165.

United States District Court D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division.

Heard June 22, 1967.

Decided August 31, 1967.

Matthew J. Perry, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., and Hemphill P. Pride, II, Columbia, S. C.; Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Sumter, S. C. and Robert L. Carter, Maria L. Marcus, and Lewis M. Steel, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., South Carolina, and Ben T. DeBerry, Asst. Atty. Gen., South Carolina, for defendant.

HEMPHILL, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Hammond, Stroman and Bryant, Jr., seek protection of their individual and collective constitutional rights. On February 23, 1967, while enrolled as students in South Carolina State College in Orangeburg they "assembled¹ themselves with numerous other students * * * upon the campus of said college * * * and expressed themselves * * concerning certain practices then in existence at said college." On February 24, 1967 each received a communication from the Dean of Students which read:

You are directed to meet the Faculty Discipline Committee in my office, Room 207, Mechanical Building, at 2:15 p. m. today, February 24, 1967, to answer charges that you were in violation of College regulations, specifically #1, under 4, page 49 of the Student Handbook which reads * * * The student body or any part of the student body is not to celebrate, parade, or demonstrate on the campus at any time without the approval of the Office of the President. The Board of Trustees meeting in March of 1960 went on record as disapproving of demonstrations which involve violation of laws or of College regulations, or which disrupt the normal College routine.

Thereafter, as directed, they severally met with the Faculty Discipline Committee. After the meetings each plaintiff was advised:

Reference is made to the Discipline Committee hearing held in my office this afternoon on a report brought through the Office of the Dean of Students that you violated Rule 1, under 4, page 49 of the College Handbook by participating in a demonstration on campus without approval.

The Committee feels that it gave you ample opportunity to refute the charge, but your refusal to do so left it no alternative but to take action.

The Committee has instructed me to inform you that its decision is that you be indefinitely suspended from the College effective February 24, 1967 until Augest 1, 1970. On or after that date (August 1, 1970) you may reapply for admission, but readmission shall depend upon unanimous approval of the Discipline Committee in full session assembled.

In accordance with the suspension you are to remain away from the campus until the end of the suspension period.

A requested rehearing with the Faculty Discipline Committee was had on March 2, 1967 and they were advised that the suspension was to remain in effect but that each could apply for readmittance in August, 1967. Suit was commenced March 10, 1967. On March 15, 1967, plaintiffs filed Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order, and the same day this court ordered their readmittance pendente lite and ruled defendant to show cause why the suspensions should not be enjoined. Counsel requested various postponements and the matter was heard June 22, 1967 and leave was given for the filing of supporting briefs and memoranda.

Defendant initially challenges the jurisdiction of this court. The issue is not seriously pressed. Plaintiffs complain that defendant has deprived them of their rights under the First Amendment² to the Constitution of the United States, and have done so by virtue of the authority or color of office enjoyed by the administrators and faculty of defendant. Defendant is a state institution and its administrative personnel are vested with state authority. Procedure under 28 U.S.C. section 1343(3) and pursuit of rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 are proper here. This forum is proper; this court has jurisdiction. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed 2d 492; McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668, 83 S.Ct. 1433, 10 L.Ed.2d 622.

The facts which are not in dispute are essentially as follows.

On February 23, 1967 these three plaintiffs in the company of approximately three hundred others gathered together on the campus of the school to express their feelings regarding some of the school's practices.

This, they claim, they did in an orderly and peaceful fashion. The school, however, maintains that the plaintiffs were leaders of the demonstration and that it was noisy and disorderly.

The plaintiffs were unquestionably aware of the rule against unauthorized demonstrations. However, on February 21, 1967 the President of the institution had delivered a written report publicly assuring the students that no rule deprived them of the constitutional rights of free speech and of peaceable assembly.

According to their testimony to the Faculty Discipline Committee on that day, they received the notice only a matter of several hours prior to the meeting.

At the Discipline Committee hearing each of them objected to the notice given and refused to answer questions on the grounds that they desired the assistance of counsel. One felt that he might incriminate himself. They demanded to be confronted with their accusers and to be allowed to cross examine them.

The Faculty Discipline Committee was not disposed to postpone the hearing to allow time for counsel nor was it disposed to allow confrontation and cross examination of the witnesses. The plaintiffs however did establish that they were participants in an assembly and that in exercising the right to do so they would deny having violated Rule 1.

The same date each of the plaintiffs were notified as to their suspension as set forth above.

The school's Board of Trustees had in March of 1960 passed the following resolution in the avowed interest of protecting the "students of this institution from violence and to preserve public peace and order."

Be It Resolved that hereafter any student at South Carolina State College who shall engage in any public demonstrations without prior approval of the College administration shall be summarily expelled.

The controversy here revolves around the school rules of deportment and discipline. Their obvious purpose is to protect the authority and administrative responsibility which is imposed on the officers of the institution. Unless the officials have authority to keep order, they have no power to guarantee education. If they cannot preserve order by rule and regulation, and insist on obedience to those rules, they will be helpless in the face of the mob, powerless to command or rebuke the fanatic, the irritant, the malingerer, the rabble rouser. To be sure, this is a tax supported institution, but this does not give license to chaos, or the hope to create chaos. The majority of the taxpayers who established, through representative government, the institution, and all the taxpayers who support this institution, have a vested interest in a peaceful campus, an academic climate of order and culture. The power of the president to oversee, to rule, is an integral part of the mechanism for...