Court Curbs Second-Guessing of Faculty Rulings

The Supreme Court on Thursday strictly limited the ability of judges to second-guess academic decision makers, upholding the expulsion of a University of Michigan medical student who claimed a right to retake the exam he failed that led to his dismissal.

The justices unanimously reversed a federal appeals court decision that ordered the university to give the student another try after he received what school officials said was the lowest score ever recorded on the test.

The court, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, said judges, in reviewing academic decisions, must show “great respect” for faculty judgments. Courts can overturn such decisions only when they represent “a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment,” he said.

‘Essential Freedoms’ Cited

“Academic freedom thrives not only on the independent and uninhibited exchanges of ideas among teachers and students, but also . . . on autonomous decision-making by the academy itself,” Stevens noted. The power to decide on academic grounds who is admitted to study is one of the “essential freedoms” of a university, he added.

Suits challenging expulsions and other academic actions have become more common in recent years--particularly at medical, dental and other professional schools where degrees are vital to careers. Courts have been generally hesitant to overturn faculty rulings on academic performance, and many, if not most, such suits have been dismissed or otherwise resolved before trial.

The justices’ decision leaves the way clear for students to challenge academic rulings on such grounds as race or sex discrimination--or procedural irregularities. But it seems likely to greatly reduce their chances of winning a suit challenging purely academic reasons for faculty action.

The case involved Scott E. Ewing, who enrolled in 1975 in a special six-year program at the university leading to an undergraduate and medical degree. By 1981, he had finally completed the courses required in the first four years of study. But then he failed a mandatory two-day written test administered by the National Board of Medical Examiners, flunking five of seven subjects.

Board Vote Unanimous

A nine-member medical school board voted unanimously to drop him from the program. Ewing then sought to take the test again, citing his mother’s heart attack, a broken romance and other reasons for his failure. But the board reaffirmed its decision and was upheld by another medical school committee.

Ewing, noting that all other students who failed the test in the last six years had been given a second chance, brought suit in federal District Court. He contended that he had a “property interest” in continuing in the program and that his dismissal was arbitrary and capricious, violating his constitutional right to due process.

The university argued that the faculty should have wide discretion in evaluating a student’s record. It pointed out that, in addition to failing the test at issue, Ewing had been plagued by low grades and uncompleted courses and had been placed on academic probation three times. The test, it said, was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

Ewing, 29, is now a student at the Chicago College of Osteopathy.