![]() | The Cavalier daily Thursday, April 15, 1971 | ![]() |
Expulsion Unjustified
Accordingly, unless there
exists a strong counterbalancing
University "interest", expulsion for
every Honor Offence can not be
justified: that counterbalancing
"interest," moreover, does not lay
in the bald deterrent effect
expulsion is thought to have. As a
study of college campuses
published in August, 1970 proves,
the community-held notion that
"the rougher the penalty likely to
be imposed the less likely there is
to be a violation," is simply
unfounded. Indeed, the authors of
that study conclude that the
deterrence which is effective in
college communities governed by
honor systems lies in the existence
of a group of formal sanctions, as
opposed to the existence of a
singularly severe sanction, coupled
with the peer disapproval serious
violations may incur. Thus, unless
the Honor Committee can point to
and articulate an "interest" which
is not unfounded, the
constitutional mandate would
appear to require application of
something more than expulsion for
every non-academic offence.
Laying aside the rights
apparently secured by the
Constitution in this regard, a court
may reach the same result using an
analysis based upon elementary
common law notions of property or
contract. As discussed above, the
student certainly possesses a
substantial interest in maintaining
his enrollment; as such, the
resultant property interest must be
treated and respected as is the
ownership of any other tangible or
intangible possession. Likewise,
one-sided expulsion would appear
to violate basic principles of
contract law. Although courts will
locate the terms of the contract by
referring to the Catalogue (the
Jeffersonian), which reserves broad
discretionary powers to the
Committee, despite the student's
![]() | The Cavalier daily Thursday, April 15, 1971 | ![]() |