Tedeschi v. Wagner College

• Decision Date: 01 April 1980
• Citation: 49 N.Y.2d 652,404 N.E.2d 1302,427 N.Y.S.2d 760
• Parties: , 404 N.E.2d 1302 Nancy J. TEDESCHI, Appellant, v. WAGNER COLLEGE, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 760

427 N.Y.S.2d 760

49 N.Y.2d 652, 404 N.E.2d 1302

Nancy J. TEDESCHI, Appellant, v. WAGNER COLLEGE, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 1, 1980.

Harry Grossman, New York City, for appellant.

Howard Newman, Kew Gardens, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEYER, Judge.

This appeal concerns the effect of guidelines or rules published by a private educational institution upon its right to suspend a student. We hold that such an institution is bound by its own rules and, therefore, reverse the order of the Appellate Division and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for entry of a judgment in accordance with this opinion.

Plaintiff Nancy Jean Tedeschi was admitted to Wagner College, a private institution, in September, 1976. She was a part-time student taking courses in mathematics, Latin and psychology. Her performance during the fall semester presented both academic and social problems, however. Dr. Thompson, her Latin professor, testified that she did not participate in class, did not know the required material and only once of the several times called upon was able to answer correctly even a simple question about Latin grammar. Her conduct during class was also disruptive in that three or four times during each period she would pick up her handbag and leave the room, returning after two to five minutes.

On the evening of December 20, 1976 Ms. Tedeschi sat for her Latin examination, but at the end of it dramatically tore up her blue book and did not hand it in. In response to her question, Dr. Thompson advised her that without an examination score her grade for the course would be an F. Beginning at 4 a. m. the next morning and continuing until late in the evening of December 22, Dr. Thompson was subjected to a barrage of telephone calls in which Ms. Tedeschi repeatedly threatened to commit suicide, or to "fix" Dr. Thompson, and at one point appeared in a distraught condition at the front door of his home. Only when the police were summoned and advised plaintiff of the possible criminal consequences did the calls cease.

On January 10, 1977 through his secretary, Dr. Wendel, the academic dean, contacted plaintiff and her mother by telephone to arrange a meeting with them for the purpose of discussing plaintiff's academic situation, in view of her incomplete grades in two courses. Plaintiff, however, refused to meet stating that there was no problem. There followed, nevertheless, another series of harassing calls by plaintiff to Dr. Thompson. Later that evening in a telephone conversation between Dr. Thompson and Nancy's mother, Mrs. Tedeschi refused to discuss the matter with college officials and insisted that any problem should be presented to her in a formal letter from the college. The next day plaintiff was orally advised by Dr. Wendel that she was suspended by the college because of her bad character and the repeated disruption of her Latin class. Thereafter she met with the academic dean, the dean of students and an assistant to the president, who testified that during the interviews plaintiff's conduct was irrational and discussion fruitless. By letter dated January 13, 1977 plaintiff was advised by the dean of students, Dr. Guttu, that after consultation with Dr. Wendel and other members of the faculty and the administration, she was "withdrawn from classes for the 1977 spring semester" but could, if she wished, reapply in the fall. Shortly thereafter plaintiff's tuition for the spring semester was refunded. Plaintiff's mother testified that she called the school several times to arrange a hearing, but without success.

Plaintiff then began this action alleging that she had not been granted a hearing or afforded an opportunity to defend herself and that she had been arbitrarily frustrated in completing her education. She asked for an order reinstating her and for damages. The trial court found that there was no constitutional violation since Wagner College was not State involved, that it could not review the decision to suspend plaintiff on the basis of her academic record, that the disciplinary aspects of her suspension were not arbitrary, that the college was obligated only to act in good faith, that the informal procedure followed was believed to be in plaintiff's best interests and that she had failed to prove any damage. On appeal from the judgment for defendant entered on that decision, the Appellate Division affirmed by a divided court. The majority took note of the college guideline quoted below but held that plaintiff had rebuffed several attempts by the college to arrange a conference; the dissenters reasoned that the relationship between a college and its students is contractual and that the college was bound to follow its own rules relating to suspension. Though we do not arrive at our conclusion on exactly the same reasoning, we agree with the dissenters below that the college has not conformed to the procedure its guidelines prescribed and that plaintiff is entitled to have it do so. We, therefore, reverse.

The guideline referred to is part of a publication distributed by the office of the dean of students entitled 1976-1977 Guidelines of Wagner College. The portion pertinent to this appeal reads:

"Whenever it shall appear that any student is not making satisfactory progress in his studies, and that his scholastic standing does not meet the requirements specified by the Committee on Academic Standards he shall be discharged from the College. If for any other cause a student is deemed to be an unfit member of the College, the Dean of Students may notify parents or guardians in order that they may have an opportunity to withdraw the student.

"A student may be suspended or expelled from the College by the Dean of Students or the Dean of Academic Affairs. If he is suspended or expelled for any cause other than failure in his academic work, and has not had recourse to a hearing before an established College Court, he shall have the right to be heard by the Student-Faculty Hearing Board which shall present its findings to the president of the college for final determination."

The differentiation between suspension or expulsion for academic unfitness and suspension or expulsion for causes other than academic failure drawn in that guideline reflects the dichotomy in decisional law drawn along similar lines.

As is recognized by our recent decision in Matter of Olsson v. Board of Higher Educ., 49 N.Y.2d 408, 426 N.Y.S.2d 248, 402 N.E.2d 1150, and the cases cited therein, because matters involving academic standards generally rest upon the subjective judgment of professional educators, courts are reluctant to impose the strictures of traditional legal rules. Though such matters are subject to judicial scrutiny, the issue reviewed in such a case is whether the institution has acted in good faith or its action was arbitrary or irrational.

Suspension or expulsion for causes unrelated to academic achievement, however, involve determinations quite closely akin to the day-to-day work of the judiciary. Recognizing the present day importance of higher education to many, if not most, employment opportunities, the courts have, therefore, looked more closely at the actions of educational institutions in such matters.

The legal theory upon which review should be predicated in such cases is, however, not entirely clear. Plaintiff argues, and the dissenters in the Appellate Division agree, that the student-private college relationship is contractual and that it is an implied term of the contract that rules such as the Wagner College Guidelines will be adhered to by the college. There is support for that concept in decisional law (Matter of Carr v. St. John's Univ., N.Y., 17 A.D.2d 632, 231 N.Y.S.2d 410, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 802, 235 N.Y.S.2d 834, 187 N.E.2d 18; People ex rel. Cecil v. Bellevue Hosp. Med. Coll., 60 Hun. 107, 14 N.Y.S. 490, affd. 128 N.Y. 621, 28 N.E. 253; Goldstein v. New York Univ., 76 App.Div. 80, 78 N.Y.S. 739; Drucker v. New York Univ., 59 Misc.2d 789, 300 N.Y.S.2d 749) and in legal commentary as well (Beach, Fundamental Fairness in Search of a Legal Rationale in Private College Expulsions, 2 J.Coll. & Univ.L. 65, at pp. 65-70, 79-81; Center for Law & Education, The Constitutional Rights of Students: Analysis and Litigation Materials For The Student's Lawyer, pp. 371-372 (hereafter "Student's Lawyer"); Note: 48 Ind.L.J. 253; Note: 37 Ohio State L.J. 608; Note: 72 Yale L.J. 1362).

Contract theory is not wholly satisfactory, however, because the essentially fictional nature of the contract results in its generally being assumed rather than proved, because of the difficulty of its application, and because it forecloses inquiry into, and a balancing of, the countervailing interests of the student on the one hand and the institution on the other (see Matter of Ryan v. Hofstra Univ., 67 Misc.2d 651, 659, 324 N.Y.S.2d 964; "Student's Lawyer", at p. 372; Abrams & Hofman, Common Law Rights for Private University Students: Beyond the State Action Principle, 84 Yale L.J. 120, 122, 143-144 (hereafter "Common Law Rights"); Rabban, Judicial Review of the University-Student Relationship: Expulsion and Governance, 26 Stan.L.Rev. 95, 97, 104-106 (hereafter "Judicial Review")). An added problem is that when urged in academic achievement as distinct from nonacademic matters the contract tends to be limited to the implied in law condition of good faith, i. e., not to act arbitrarily (cf. Matter of Olsson v. Board of Higher Educ., supra ) to the ultimate confusion of the rules applicable in the two situations.

An alternate basis for review of nonacademic disputes between students and private colleges, the application of the principles of the law of associations, is supported by case law in some other States (Baltimore Univ. v. Colton, 98 Md. 623, 57 A. 14; Abbariao v. Hamline Univ. School of Law, Minn., 258 N.W.2d 108, 112; Commonwealth ex rel. Hill v....