Ryan v. Hofstra University
| Decision Date | 14 October 1971 |
| Citation | 67 Misc.2d 651,324 N.Y.S.2d 964 |
| Parties | Application of Robert P. RYAN, Jr., an infant, by his father and natural guardian, Robert P. Ryan, Sr., Petitioners, v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Hofstra University, though termed a 'private' university, cannot expel, bar and fine a student without following fair and reasonable procedures. It cannot be arbitrary. It must abide by constitutional principles of fair conduct implicit in our society.
Issues surrounding the conduct of college students and their treatment by college officials tend to be emotionally charged. When campus unrest marches apace with an older generation's discontentment with it, difficulties arise in sifting out legal substance and retaining the long view necessary for social continuance. Many changes have come in legal implication as society has grown and institutions altered, producing overlaps and perspecitives unimagined earlier. More narrowly to the point, university character has changed over the years, as have the relationships of people of all ages and kinds to the state and the numerous activities of mixed public and private natue which continually insinuate themselves into our lives.
Here we have Robert Ryan, Jr., accused of throwing rocks through the bookstore window at Hofstra. His is not a civil rights case in the sense contemplated by the Civil Rights Act. And, it does not involve notions of freedom of speech, assembly, or movement. It is the case of a young man accused of vandalism of college property. If he is guilty, he should be punished and the University should have broad discretion to punish him. It would be the University's duty for the protection of its people and facilities to address itself firmly to his discipline. However, the University too is a creature of the law. The University must abide by legal procedures and respect private rights. If the University is to break the law by violating private rights, it has no superior legal or moral position to one whose law breaking consists of breaking windows.
The problem then is to find justice in a thorny thicket, and so we turn to the case of Robert Ryan, Jr., summarily expelled, barred and fined by Hofstra University. Because of the number and complexity of issues involved, we preface the opinion with this topical table of the points treated:
I. The Facts
c. Conduct After Penalty Imposition
II. No Need Here To Exhaust Administrative Remedy
III. Private University Disciplinary Rights Are Not Limitless
IV. Doctine Of Implied Contract For Dicipline Not Helpful
V. Hofstra Acted Arbitrarily And Abused Its Discretion By Proceeding Beyond Its Own Rules
VI. Hofstra's Procedures Are Constitutionally Deficient
1. New York Dormitory Authority
2. Other governmental financial participation
3. A 'private' university?
4. Synthesis
1. Meaning of Due Process
2. Due Process for one purpose and not another
3. Due Process was not afforded Robert Ryan in this case
VII. Rulings
Nineteen year old Robert Ryan, Jr. was a Hofstra freshman last semester, and a mover in student protests against tuition increases. He was suspected by the Administration of previous violent conduct, although no charges were made and no disciplinary proceedings were had.
On june 10, 1971, after the close of his scholastic year, Robert was apprehended on campus by security police and accused of throwing a rock through the plate glass display window of the University bookstore that evening. He was taken to the campus security office where, under disputed circumstances, in the sole presence of the Campus Security Chief and the Dean of Students, he wrote out a confession in which he admitted guilt to three separate rock-throwing incidents.
On June 11, 1971, he was called to face a disciplinary committee of three staff members appointed by the Dean. According to the testimony of a committee member, he repeated there his guilt to the rock-throwing incidents, although later in court he recanted his admissions. The committee later also spoke with a school psychologist, and the Chief Security Officer, and apparently considered the statement of a security policeman who claimed to be an eyewitness. It then reported to the Dean.
On June 22, 1971, the Dean expelled Robert from Hofstra, severing him from the University 'completely and permanently'. He barred Robert from any part of the campus without his express prior permission under pain of arrest as a trespasser. Finally, he fined Robert and his family $1,011.61 for the ostensible cost of replacing the windows.
At no time prior to his expulsion, barring and fining, was Robert given a choice of procedure, was he represented by any counsel, nor did he have an opportunity to confront any witnesses, nor was he interviewed by any school psychologist or medical personnel.
The Dean claims that Robert was guilty of the rock-throwing charges, and that in light of these and the other uncharged incidents he was troublesome and emotionally disturbed. Robert claims he is innocent, that his confession was pressured from him, and that the University is and has been harassing him because of his tuition protest activities.
The Hofstra Disciplinary Regulations For Non-Academic Conduct provide that when the Dean of Students is advised of an incident possibly requiring disciplinary action he may either interview the student himself or refer the matter to a member of his staff. Upon determining that disciplinary hearing is appropriate, the student is given a choice of appearing before either a Student Judiciary Board or members of the Dean of Students' Staff.
The Dean specified in his testimony that Robert was not given a choice of the Student Judiciary Board, based on that portion of the Hofstra Rules which provide that a student 'whose records suggest significant emotional or psychological disturbances which may be relevant' (Procedure of Disciplinary Action, Step 2, p. 18) will be heard only by the Dean's Staff. The Dean did not consult any psychologist or psychiatrist before making the disciplinary reference to his Staff Committee. The testimony was that the Staff Committee concerned itself with emotional disturbance upon talking with a University psychologist.
There are no rules as to the procedures of the Dean's Staff Committee except that its members present their recommendations to the Dean. The Dean must then interview the student and give his decision. There are different provisions where the Student Judiciary Board is chosen, but those are moot here because that forum was neither offered nor convened.
Hofstra's Rules do provide an 'appeal' procedure for non-academic disciplinary situations. If the student believes that the Dean's punishment is inappropriate, he may have a hearing by a Review Committee of five University staff and faculty members and two students upon his petition submitted to the Vice President for Student Affairs within ten days after penalty. The Vice President is then supposed to advise the student of his right to call witnesses on his behalf and to confront and cross-examine those who appear against him and of his right to seek counsel, which counsel is limited, however, only to a University staff or faculty member.
The Review Committee is charged with examining the evidence, hearing witnesses as to the facts and the student's character, and weighing extenuating circumstances. The Administration, but not the student, has a further right of appeal to the University Board of Trustees.
During June, Robert orally requested of the Dean and the Hofstra Vice President of Student Affairs a hearing, but was told that he had to petition in writing. A lawyer representing Robert requested an appeal hearing by letter dated July 9, 1971 to the Dean. This letter was returned to the lawyer suggesting that the request be directed to the University Vice President for Student Affairs. Thereupon, the attorney mailed a similar letter to that official on July 23, 1971 requesting that the review be held prior to the fall semester, but the Administration took no action on this.
On August 4, 1971, Robert requested that because of family illness the hearing be delayed until the fall and that he be permitted to attend classes pending the completion of the appeal. This request was turned down by the Vice President for Student Affairs on August 9, 1971, who volunteered that Robert's right to petition for a hearing was extended to September 1, 1971. On August 26, 1971, Robert wrote personally to the Vice President for Student Affairs requesting an appeal. On September 9, 1971, Robert received a letter (dated September 1st) from an Assistant President stating there was no more Vice President for Student Affairs, advising Robert that he would be notified of a hearing date 'as soon as practicable', and directing communication to him.
On September 14, 1971, without any further word from the Administration as to review, Robert commenced this proceeding to compel Hofstra to readmit him to classes. On September 16, 1971, classes reopened at Hofstra for the fall season. Sometime after the hearing of this judicial proceeding on September 23, 1971, a review proceeding was first scheduled for October 5, 1971.
Essentially, Robert's contention is that the University's action was improper and arbitrary and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melanson v. Rantoul
...the defendant university was almost entirely subsidized by annual legislative appropriations. See also Ryan v. Hofstra University, 67 Misc.2d 651, 324 N.Y.S.2d 964 (Sup.Ct.1971) (state action based on state ownership and lease-back of one-half book value of university's assets). In short, u......
-
Starishevsky v. Hofstra University
... ... Canisius Coll. of Buffalo, 76 A.D.2d 30, 430 N.Y.S.2d 163, supra; Matter of Kwiatkowski v. Ithaca Coll. 82 Misc.2d 43, supra, 368 N.Y.S.2d 973; Matter of Bonwitt v. Albany Med. Ctr. Sch. of Nurs., 77 Misc.2d 269, 353 N.Y.S.2d 82 [1973]; Matter of Ryan v. Hofstra Univ., 67 Misc.2d 651, 324 N.Y.S.2d 964 [1971]. As noted previously, the federal regulation implementing Title IX provides that the educational institution must adopt and publish a grievance procedure providing for prompt and equitable resolution of any complaint involving sexual ... ...
-
State Div. of Human Rights on Complaint of Geraci v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 1
... ... Council of the Royal Arcanum, supra ), such powers were vested in the Regents of the University of the State of New York over private as well as public educational institutions, and the duties ... New York Univ., 83 A.D.2d 811, 442 N.Y.S.2d 12; Shields v. School of Law of Hofstra Univ., 77 A.D.2d 867, 431 N.Y.S.2d 60; People ex rel. Goldenkoff v. Albany Law School, 198 ... 349; Matter of Kwiatkowski v. Ithaca Coll., 82 Misc.2d 43, 368 N.Y.S.2d 973; Matter of Ryan v. Hofstra Univ., 67 Misc.2d 651, 324 N.Y.S.2d 964; but, see, Matter of Bonwitt v. Albany Med ... ...
-
Lindemann v. American Horse Shows Ass'n, Inc.
...that "due process comes down to a kind of fundamental fairness, measured by tradition and conscience." Matter of Ryan v. Hofstra Univ., 67 Misc.2d 651, 670, 324 N.Y.S.2d 964. In fact, a determination resulting from a denial of procedural due process has been held to render such decision arb......