李烁:美国公立高校惩戒学生行为的正当程序

选择字号:   本文共阅读 196 次 更新时间:2018-11-06 01:13:51

进入专题: 公立高校   正当程序   司法审查  

李烁  

结语

  

   从美国公立高校惩戒学生行为正当程序审查的发展历程看,其总体趋势是美国法院逐渐摆脱传统理论之束缚,以更加积极的姿态借助司法权威形塑高校行为,根据正当程序原则实现高校管理的法治化。最终的结果是,美国法院已经不仅仅局限于程序性审查,而是基于实质性正当程序原则之运用,逐步介入到对公立高校学术判断的实体内容当中。当然,这并不意味着美国法院对公立高校惩戒学生行为的正当程序审查就毫无节制,司法节制原则依旧是支配美国法院作出判决的重要依据。一方面在审查时区分学术性惩戒与纪律性惩戒,对公立高校的学术性惩戒适用较低要求的正当程序标准,远不如在纪律性惩戒案件中那么严苛;另一方面,即便是对公立高校的学术性惩戒进行“实质性”正当程序审查,法院采取的“明显是武断或恣意的”或者是“实质偏离公认的学术准则”标准也都只是一种较低程度的审查标准。“大学只需要证明自己作出的决定并非没有理由或者非理性”[40]即可免受法院的诘难。通过以上两个方面,美国法院在高校自治与学生权利保护之间找到了合适的平衡点。

  

   注释:

   [①] Marie T. Reilly, “Due Process in Public University Discipline Cases,” Penn State Law Review, Vol.120, No.4, 2016, pp.1001-1026.

   [②] 沈岿:《析论高校惩戒学生行为的司法审查》,载《华东政法学院学报》2005年第6期。

   [③] 参见刘莘:《美国行政程序法概念辨析》,载《行政法学研究》1999年第2期。

   [④] Dennis J. Christensen, “Democracy in the Classroom: Due Process and School Discipline,” Marquette Law Review, Vol.58, 1975, pp.708.

   [⑤] 该案起因于一项纽约州禁止出售非医用烈性酒并禁止在住所之外的任何地方储放非用于销售的酒类的法律。纽约州法院认为,该法的实施,消灭和破坏了这个州的公民拥有烈性酒的财产权,这恐怕与正当程序条款的精神不符。

   [⑥] 谢维雁:《论美国宪政下的正当法律程序》,载《社会科学研究》2003年第5期。

   [⑦] Harris v. Blake, 798 F.2d 419, 424 (10th Cir. 1986).

   [⑧] Carol J. Perkins, “Sylvester V. Texas Southern University: An Exception to the Rule of Judicial Deference to Academic Decisions,” Journal of College and University Law, Vol.25, No.2, 1998-1999, pp.405.

   [⑨] 该案的基本情况是美国国会在1875年制定了民权法案,禁止在火车旅馆、戏院等公共场所有种族歧视的情形。鉴于在实践中受到的种族歧视,五名黑人分别依据该法向法院提起诉讼,寻求救济。

   [⑩] The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 13 (1883).

   [11] 419U. S. 345 (1974).

   [12] William I. Friedman, “The Fourteenth Amendment's Public/Private Distinction among Securities Regulators in the U.S. Marketplace-Revisited,” Annual Review of Banking & Financial Law, Vol.23, 2004, pp.735.

   [13] Daphne Barak-Erez, “A State Action Doctrine for an Age of Privatization,” Syracuse Law Review, Vol.45, 1994, pp.1169-1192..

   [14] Sylvester v. Texas Southern University 957F (S.D. Tex. 1997).

   [15] Carol J. Perkins, “Sylvester V. Texas Southern University: An Exception to the Rule of Judicial Deference to Academic Decisions,” pp.406-407.

   [16] Gott v. Berea College, 156 Ky. 376, 161 S.W. 204 (1913).

   [17] Elizabeth Lidgerwood Pendlay, “Procedure for Pupils: What Constitutes Due Process in a University Disciplinary Hearing?” North Dakota Law Review, Vol. 82, 2006, pp. 973.

   [18] Carol J. Perkins, “Sylvester V. Texas Southern University: An Exception to the Rule of Judicial Deference to Academic Decisions,” pp.406.

   [19] Audrey Wolfson Latourette and Robert D. King, “Judicial Intervention in the Student-University Relationship: Due Process and Contract Theories,” University of Detroit Law Review, Vol. 65, 1988, pp.204.

   [20] Elizabeth Lidgerwood Pendlay, “Procedure for Pupils: What Constitutes Due Process in a University Disciplinary Hearing?” pp. 976.

   [21] Carol J. Perkins, “Sylvester V. Texas Southern University: An Exception to the Rule of Judicial Deference to Academic Decisions,” pp.407.

   [22] Elizabeth Lidgerwood Pendlay, “Procedure for Pupils: What Constitutes Due Process in a University Disciplinary Hearing?” pp. 974.

   [23] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565,95 S. Ct. 729 (1975).

   [24] Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961).

   [25] Elizabeth Lidgerwood Pendlay, “Procedure for Pupils: What Constitutes Due Process in a University Disciplinary Hearing?” pp. 977.

   [26] Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961).

   [27] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565,95 S. Ct. 729 (1975).

   [28] 韩兵:《高校基于学术原因惩戒学生行为的司法审查——以美国判例为中心的分析》,载《环球法律评论》2007年第3期。

   [29] Greenhill v. Bailey, 519 F.2d 5 (8th Cir. 1975).

   [30] Horowitz v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 538 F.2d 1317 (8th Cir. 1976)

   [31] Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978).

   [32] Thomas A. Schweitzer, “Academic Challenge Cases: Should Judicial Review Extend to Academic Evaluations of Students?” The American University Law Review, Vol.41, 1991-1992, pp.274.

   [33] Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335(1976).

   [34] Audrey Wolfson Latourette and Robert D. King, “Judicial Intervention in the Student-University Relationship: Due Process and Contract Theories,” pp.223.

   [35] Thomas A. Schweitzer, “Academic Challenge Cases: Should Judicial Review Extend to Academic Evaluations of Students?” pp.307.

   [36] Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985).

   [37] Lisa L. Swem, “Due Process Rights in Student Disciplinary Matters,” Journal of College & University Law, Vol.14, 1987-1988, pp.359-362.

   [38] Audrey Wolfson Latourette and Robert D. King, “Judicial Intervention in the Student-University Relationship: Due Process and Contract Theories,” pp.227.

   [39] Haberle v. University of Ala. in Birmingham, 803 F.2d 1536, 1539 (11th Cir. 1986).

   [40] 参见刘金晶:《法庭上的“自主高校”——论美国司法中的“学术遵从”原则》,载《环球法律评论》2011年第6期。

   作者简介:北京大学法学院2018级博士研究生。

   译者简介:《行政法学研究》2018年第5期。

   文章来源:中国宪政网

  

  

    进入专题: 公立高校   正当程序   司法审查  

本文责编:陈冬冬
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 法学 > 宪法学与行政法学
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/113243.html

2 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2021 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号-1 京公网安备11010602120014号.
工业和信息化部备案管理系统