CASE STUDY THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF THE UNVERSITY OF MISSOURI

Case Study
The Board of Curators of the University of Missouri V. Horowitz

Denise Stewart
Georgia Southern University
EDLD 8431 Higher Education Law
Professor Maura Copeland
Summer 2014

Summary

CASE STUDY THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF THE UNVERSITY OF MISSOURI

Facts
A medical student at the University of Missouri-Kansas Medical School was
dismissed during her final year of school for failure to meet academic standards. The
respondent sued the petitioner (Board of Curators of the University of Missouri) alleging
among other constitutional violations that she was not afforded procedural due process
rights, prior to her dismissal from her lifes dream of becoming a medical doctor.
Issue
Whether respondents dismissal deprived her of a liberty interest of pursuing a
career as a medical physician and encroaches on her constitutional right under the Due
Process Clause.
Answer
The plaintiff did not deprive the respondent of her liberty to pursue a career as a
medical physician. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to the Due
Process Clause was not violated in this particular circumstance/case.
Reasoning of the Court
The plaintiff fully informed the respondent numerous times of the faculty
dissatisfaction with her academic performance. Furthermore affording the respondent the
additional opportunity to be observed by seven independent physicians demonstrates the
plaintiff was careful and deliberate in their decision thus fulfilling the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Board of Curators of The University of Missouri V. Horowitz

CASE STUDY THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF THE UNVERSITY OF MISSOURI

The said case leaned heavily on the interpretation and analysis of the Fourteenth
Amendment as it relates to the Due Process Clause. Due Process inherently is the careful
implementation of rights granted to both sides of a legal proceeding to insure that all
parameters and rights are executed with due diligence as it relates to related laws and
tenets of the given case and/or circumstance. The respondent was dismissed by The
University of Missouri-Kansas Medical School during her final year of school for failure
to meet academic standards. The respondent sued the petitioner alleging among other
constitutional violations that she was not afforded procedural due process rights, prior to
her dismissal from her lifes dream of becoming a medical doctor. However after the
close review and examination of the case the District Court concluded that the respondent
had been afforded all of the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, however
the District court preceded by dismissing her case under the said ruling. The Court of the
Eighteenth Circuit then reversed the ruling and granted a certiorari to make a concrete
determination of what procedures must be put into place by an educational institution
whose procedural determination might have infringed upon the respondents right to
liberty and property within the context and confines of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The respondents was admitted with advanced standing to the universitys
medical school in the fall of 1971. The culminating academic feat was to successfully
pursue and complete a series of rotational units of various medical disciplines such as:
obstetrics-gynecology, pediatrics and surgery to enhance the students capacity in terms
of exposure and specialization within her universitys medical program. The said
performance of each student was to be evaluated by the Council of Evaluation, which
consisted of in-house experts and gurus in each specialty area. The Coordinating Council

CASE STUDY THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF THE UNVERSITY OF MISSOURI

would periodically conduct and review and submit findings as it relates to student
performance to the Academic Dean of Medicine. Within this process, it was formally
noted that her attendance was erratic and that she did not have positive regard for hygiene
which is a critical competency for both respective and practicing practitioners within the
medical field. Never-the-less, she was still advanced to her final year with reservation.
Additionally, she was placed on probationary status. The student still continued with not
much progress being made. At this very pivotal point the school decided to move forward
and recommend that the academic committee review her performance and make an
objective recommendation with regard to her academic performance and efficacy as a
promising medical student. Upon receipt of the majoritys recommendation from the
Council of Evaluation it was formally decided that the student would be dismissed from
candidacy for the completion her medical program. This was the exact place and point in
which it was determined that the student of record had not been deprived of property or
liberty, but had been dismissed for unsatisfactory performance. Additionally, it was
determined that the decision to dismiss the respondent was handled carefully and
deliberately. It was also determined that the school exercised its rights to make an
evaluative decision as to whether or not the student seeking medical candidacy was
competent to be conferred and approved for graduation, although the nature of the
evaluating council could have been perceived as somewhat subjective in nature each step
of the process has handled as deliberately and as carefully as possible.
The court of appeals appears to have been not totally concrete is its
decision to reverse the district courts initial ruling as it is clear that the court failed to
prove or reach the substantive grounds of due process advanced and/or asserted by

CASE STUDY THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF THE UNVERSITY OF MISSOURI

Horowitz. The court of appeals needed to go a step further by increasing its clarity and
position even though it utilized its power to reverse the initial decision in favor of the
institution, given more clear direction in this case other than a simple ruling. The clear
implication of this case in the close review of other similar cases that were cited and
utilized in the rulings with regard to this case is that schools, learning institutions and
learning communities have the right and the full domain to exercise academic judgment
and to utilize its discretionary powers as a said learning institution to make a
determination as to whether or not academic standards and requirements has been met as
set forth by its board of directors, board of regents, accrediting agencies or other
regulatory entities to insure its graduates have met all of the requirements to receive the
proposed degree or credential being sought, without interruption unless it is clear that
their decision and/or action is arbitrary or capricious. Then and only then does such
matter belong in the court room at any judicial level. This case provides clear direction as
to where the jurisdiction of our nations courts and higher education institutions belong
and if we compromise at any level, we also compromise the potency and purpose of each
institution. Hence, the purpose of their very existence may be jeopardized.