Discharge and Discipline of Students of Private Schools
By Richard R. Hammar, J.D., LL.M., CPA
© Copyright 1991, 1998 by Church Law & Tax Report. All rights reserved. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Church Law & Tax Report, PO Box 1098, Matthews, NC 28106. Reference Code: m65
Public schools, being state instrumentalities, may not deprive students of “liberty or property” without the procedural safeguards mandated by the fourteenth amendment's due process clause. The discipline, suspension, or discharge of students restricts their “liberty,” and so the public schools may not impose such sanctions without providing a fair and reasonable procedure.
As noted in the preceding section, private religious schools are not instrumentalities of the state and so they are exempted from the requirements imposed upon public schools by the due process clause. This conclusion has been affirmed by many courts. For example, one court upheld the constitutionality of the summary discharge of a student by a nonpublic secondary school over her objection that she had been denied “due process.” The court concluded that the school was a private and not a public institution and hence the protections of due process were simply not available.1 Another court concluded that a Catholic high school was not a state instrumentality, and so the school did not violate the due process clause in the manner in which it expelled two students. The court observed:
[P]rivate schools may discourage criticism and irreverence toward existing institutions or policies while public schools may not. Private schools may emphasize moral development and strict discipline in ways which public schools may not employ. Private schools may impose disciplined conformity of dress, speech and action, such as found in military schools and to a lesser extent in most private schools, which public schools may not.2
A school may be liable to students for monetary damages, or other relief, if it discharges them in violation of the terms of its own contract.3 To illustrate, a Louisiana appeals court, in a clearly erroneous decision, ordered the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary to graduate a student the seminary deemed unfit.4 The student, who was pursuing a Master of Divinity degree in marriage and family counseling, began experiencing marital difficulties. The seminary sent the student a letter, informing him that he could not continue in his degree program, and instructing him to leave the campus, on account of his violation of the seminary's “divorce policy.” This policy specifies that “should separation or divorce occur, the student is required to withdraw from his degree program.” The student filed a lawsuit seeking a court order forbidding the seminary from expelling him. He claimed that the seminary failed to follow its own procedure for “due process” outlined in the student handbook.
A trial court agreed with the student and ordered the seminary not to dismiss him. The student remained in school and completed his studies, thinking that he would graduate with the rest of his class. However, ten days prior to his graduation, the seminary informed him that he would not graduate or obtain a degree. The seminary relied on a provision in its catalog providing that “if, in the opinion of the appropriate faculty committee any student proves unfit for spiritual, moral, mental, or other reasons either to continue his studies or to receive a degree, the seminary reserves the right to dismiss him at any time or to withhold a degree he otherwise has earned.” The seminary argued that even though it could not dismiss the student, it could not be forced to award him a degree since the faculty committee found him unfit for spiritual and moral reasons to graduate. The student sought another court order, this time compelling the seminary to grant him a degree. A trial court granted this request, and the seminary appealed.
A state appeals court upheld the trial court's decision, and ordered the seminary to grant the student a degree. The seminary argued that it was a “church” that had a constitutional right to dismiss or deny graduation to any student based on spiritual or moral considerations. It referred to several court rulings refusing to review dismissals of clergy. The appeals court agreed that the first amendment guaranty of religious freedom prevents the civil courts from interfering “with the relationship between a church and one of its ministers or disputes [involving] a matter purely of ecclesiastical concern.” However, the court concluded that this dispute did not fit within either category since it involved a student rather than a minister, and it was not a matter of purely ecclesiastical concern. It observed:
Quite simply, by outlining its divorce and separation policy and by describing its due process procedures in the handbook, the seminary has taken the issue of a student's dismissal out of the arena of a religious controversy and into the realm of contract dispute. [T]he presence or absence of due process attending the dismissal of [the student] for violation of a school policy has nothing to do with theological law, custom, or policy, and therefore is not an ecclesiastical matter within the exclusive domain of religion.1
The court ruled that the denial of the student's degree based on a faculty finding of “spiritual or religious unfitness” without further elaboration, and without the opportunity for a hearing, was “arbitrary and unjust” and therefore impermissible. It referred to other court rulings finding that the disciplinary decisions of private schools can be reversed if they are arbitrary.2 Far more persuasive was the opinion of a judge who dissented from the court's ruling. The dissenting judge emphasized that the seminary
has an important interest, protected by the Constitution, to determine which ministers meet the spiritual, religious, and moral standards of the Southern Baptist Convention and to award [degrees] only to those students who meet those standards. By awarding the degree the seminary represents to the world that the degree recipient has met all of the spiritual, moral, and religious requirements of the [Southern Baptist] Convention and is fully qualified to minister to the spiritual needs of the church to which he is called. The determination that a ministerial student is qualified to go forth into the public ministry and to carry out the teachings of the Convention is not a judgment call subject to review by the civil authorities.3
Finally, some states have enacted laws banning the use of corporal punishment in private as well as public schools.
For related information on this topic see the following articles:Incorporation and Tax Exemption of Private Religious Schools
Proof of Nondiscrimination in Private Schools
Right to Attend Private Schools
The Distinction Between Public and Private Education
Discharge and Discipline of Teachers
Application of Federal Labor and Discrimination Laws to Private Schools
Government Regulation of Private Schools
Zoning Laws and Private Schools
Safety and Health Regulations for Private Schools
Taxation of Private Religious Schools
Child Abuse Reporting Requirements for Private Schools
Legal Liability for Student Injuries