Summary
holding that university board of trustees has the authority to revoke an erroneously-granted academic degree for good cause such as fraud, deceit or error, but only after affording degree-holder a constitutionally adequate hearing procedure
Summary of this case from Jaber v. Wayne State University Board of GovernorsOpinion
No. 85-133
Decided February 5, 1986.
Universities — Inherent authority to revoke previously granted academic degrees for proper cause, when — Constitutionally adequate procedures required.
O.Jur 2d Universities and Colleges §§ 30, 73.
Boards of trustees of colleges and universities have inherent authority to revoke previously granted academic degrees for proper cause after affording constitutionally adequate procedures.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Portage County.
George A. Waliga and Kent L. Taylor, plaintiffs-appellees, received Bachelor of Arts degrees from the Board of Trustees of Kent State University, defendants-appellants ("university"), in 1966 and 1967, respectively. In 1978 and 1982, the university received information concerning discrepancies in the official academic records ("records") of appellees and, subsequently, after conducting an examination of the records, the university determined that the records were incorrect and that appellees had failed to complete the substantive degree requirements to obtain their respective degrees.
The university notified appellees by letter that as a result of the grade discrepancies, it was contemplating revocation of their degrees; that appellees would have the opportunity to review the documentation and present their evidence at a hearing to be held before the College Advisory Council of the College of Arts and Sciences ("CAC"); but that appellees could not be represented by counsel at said hearing. After conducting a hearing which appellees did not attend, CAC recommended to the university that appellees' degrees be revoked.
Prior to any action being taken on said recommendation by the university, appellees on May 23, 1983 brought an action seeking declaratory relief regarding the authority of the university to revoke degrees previously conferred upon appellees by the university and injunctive relief to prevent the university from revoking their degrees. At a hearing on the merits before the trial court, appellees dismissed their request for injunctive relief and the matter proceeded for declaratory judgment.
The trial court posed the issues involved as follows: (1) "May the present Board of Trustees of Kent State University revoke a degree issued some 15 years prior?" and (2) "[i]f the Board has the authority, what procedure should be followed, who has the burden of proof, and are the plaintiffs entitled to legal representations in all stages of that [ sic] proceedings?"
The trial court answered the first question in the negative, stating that the university "possesses only the authority conferred upon it by the legislature," and that authority "does not include any right to revoke degrees issued in the past." The trial court further stated that, "with this conclusion it is not necessary for this Court to address the other issues presented in the case."
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. While the appellate court opined that the university has the power to revoke a degree once granted, the court nevertheless held that "[t]he trial court was correct in its decision as it refers to the appellees herein * * * [because] [t]heir rights were taken away from them by committees or persons in the university having no right or authority to do so."
The university filed a motion to reconsider, asserting that the court of appeals had relied on an erroneous assumption that appellees' degrees had actually been revoked when in fact they never had been revoked. The court of appeals overruled this motion. Judge Cook dissented, stating that "[u]pon reconsideration, we should find that the Board of Trustees of Kent State University does have the inherent power to revoke degrees for just cause after affording the degree holder due process."
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Donald H. Martell and Stephen Colecchi, for appellees.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, John R. Climaco, Dennis R. Wilcox and O.J. Schneider, for appellants.
Covington Burling, Eugene D. Gulland, J. Peter Byrne and Sheldon E. Steinbach, urging reversal for amicus curiae, American Council on Education.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney general, and Edward J. Elum, urging reversal for amicus curiae, State Universities of Ohio.
The sole issue raised by this case is whether the university has the authority and power to revoke improperly awarded degrees. The procedural issues before the trial court were not addressed, and hence are not before this court.
Except for the issue of their right to appear with counsel at the hearing before the CAC, appellees never challenged the procedure established by the university whereby appellees were: (1) advised in writing of the university's intent to commence degree revocation proceedings; (2) given opportunity to review documents the university intended to introduce at the hearing before the CAC; (3) given advance notice of the hearing before the CAC; and (4) given an opportunity to confront the witnesses and present their own evidence at the hearing.
Kent State University, by virtue of R.C. Chapter 3341, and specifically R.C. 3341.05, "may confer such * * * academic degrees as are customarily conferred by colleges and universities in the United States." R.C. 3341.04 provides, in part, that the universities "shall do all things necessary for the proper maintenance and successful and continuous operation of such universities."
We consider it self-evident that a college or university acting through its board of trustees does have the inherent authority to revoke an improperly awarded degree where (1) good cause such as fraud, deceit, or error is shown, and (2) the degree-holder is afforded a fair hearing at which he can present evidence and protect his interest. Academic degrees are a university's certification to the world at large of the recipient's educational achievement and fulfillment of the institution's standards. To hold that a university may never withdraw a degree, effectively requires the university to continue making a false certification to the public at large of the accomplishment of persons who in fact lack the very qualifications that are certified. Such a holding would undermine public confidence in the integrity of degrees, call academic standards into question, and harm those who rely on the certification which the degree represents.
Any action which is necessary for the proper maintenance and successful operation of a state university is authorized, unless it is prohibited by statute. State, ex rel. Sigall, v. Aetna Cleaning Contractors (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 308 [74 O.O.2d 471]. In the event that a degree is procured through fraud, or a degree is awarded erroneously, it is certainly within the implied authority of the university to revoke it. A power of a state agency may be fairly implied from an express power where it is reasonably related to the duties of the agency. State, ex rel. Corrigan, v. Seminatore (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 459 [20 O.O.3d 388]. The power to confer degrees necessarily implies the power to revoke degrees erroneously granted.
More than two hundred fifty years ago, these same issues were addressed in The King v. University of Cambridge (Bentley's Case) (K.B. 1723), 8 Modern Rep. (Select Cases) 148, 92 E.R. 818, 2 Ld. Raym. 1334, a degree-holder's mandamus action to compel restoration of a degree that the university had revoked. Chief Justice Pratt of the Court of King's Bench stated:
"This is a case of great consequence, both as to the property, the honour, and the learning, of this university, and concerns every graduate there, though at present it is the case only of one learned man, and the head of a college. The question is, Whether the University can suspend and degrade, and by what rules they may proceed in either or both of these cases?" (Emphasis added.) 8 Modern Rep. at 161.
He went on to say that the University of Cambridge could revoke a degree for "a reasonable cause * * * specially set forth, (id.)," but "that a man shall not be deprived of his property without being heard, ( id. at 161-162)"; therefore, the degree-holder must be afforded the right to attend and participate in the proceedings before the vice-chancellor's court. The English common law provides precedential rules of decision in Ohio and other states. Modern courts have also traditionally refused to interfere with fundamental university functions, such as the granting and withdrawing of academic degrees, except to require that good cause be shown and that a fair hearing procedure be made available. Goss v. Lopez (1975), 419 U.S. 565; Mahavongsanan v. Hall (C.A. 5, 1976), 529 F.2d 448; Bd. of Curators v. Horowitz (1978), 435 U.S. 78; Olsson v. Bd. of Higher Edn. (1980), 49 N.Y.2d 408, 426 N.Y. Supp. 2d 248, 402 N.E.2d 1150.
See Thomas v. United States (C.A. 6, 1951), 189 F.2d 494, 501, certiorari denied (1951), 342 U.S. 850 ("In determining what the common law is, decisions of the English courts are looked to, and if rendered before the Revolution, are usually considered conclusive evidence of what it is.").
A degree-holder possesses a property right in and to his degree and that substantial right cannot be taken away "except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures." Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill (1985), ___ U.S. ___, 84 L. Ed. 2d 494, 503.
We hold that the university board of trustees does have the authority to revoke previously granted academic degrees for proper cause after affording the degree-holder constitutionally adequate procedures.
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
WISE, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for LOCHER, J.