The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s decision last summer to revoke, for five years, the degree of a 1998 graduate involved in a hazing incident (The Chronicle, August 13) raises a long-standing question: May a college revoke a degree for a student’s violation of institutional rules, if the violation occurred during the student’s enrollment but was discovered after the student graduated?
Courts and a number of colleges and universities respond Yes, if the violation entails fraud or deceit in obtaining the degree, and the institution offers the student a fair hearing before revoking the degree.
But what if, as in the case at M.I.T., the violation pertains to misbehavior unrelated to academic evaluation? Is rescinding a degree reasonable, and legally permissible, in that circumstance?
The answer is less clear.
M.I.T.'s action has ignited controversy among administrators, faculty members, students, and others. Some observers have expressed concern that M.I.T. unfairly singled out one student for a kind of misconduct that is widespread on campuses. The harshest criticism has focused on whether the decision raises the specter of a perilous new form of “conduct police” on campus. Critics fear that colleges may begin revoking diplomas arbitrarily, for political, social, and ideological reasons.
The controversy points to a fundamental issue: What does a college or university degree represent? The topic is especially timely, because it highlights a recent and growing philosophical shift at many colleges around the United States, a shift that takes higher education back to an old concept. That concept, widely recognized until the past few decades, holds that the affirmation of good conduct and the development of character are part of the informal curriculum -- and, therefore, proper considerations when deciding whether to award a degree.
In 1986, the Ohio Supreme Court considered many of the legal issues involved in whether an institution could revoke a degree -- specifically for fraud or error -- in Waliga v. Board of Trustees of Kent State University. In that case, Kent State University revoked the B.A. degrees of two former students after discovering discrepancies in their transcripts -- including grades for courses they had never taken. The students challenged Kent State’s action but eventually lost. The court wrote in its decision:
“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,” the court continued. “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.”
The Waliga decision did not resolve the issue of whether an institution could rescind a degree for reasons other than fraud or error in obtaining that degree. Still, the Ohio Supreme Court gave college administrators ample discretion when it stated that “courts also have traditionally refused to interfere with fundamental university functions, such as the granting and withdrawing of degrees, except to require that good cause be shown and that a fair hearing procedure be made available.” A federal appeals court reached a similar conclusion in another case a year later.
But the courts have not offered much guidance about the question: What good cause, other than fraud or error, can institutions show for revoking a degree? That is what most troubles people about the M.I.T. case. What criteria will colleges and universities use to make such an important decision? Would they take away the diplomas of students on the grounds of, for instance, simple non-conformity to traditional mores and practices -- say, for publicly denouncing religion at a church-affiliated institution? Would doing so undermine the principles of freedom of expression upon which our system of higher education is based?
One answer is that when a student enters college, he or she and the institution assume reciprocal commitments. The college agrees to provide specified services and instruction, and the student pledges to abide by the institution’s established standards for student conduct. Many colleges already specify the point at which a student’s breach of regulations warrants suspension or expulsion. Why shouldn’t the institution make it clear that a similar breach may also be cause for revoking a student’s degree, if the violation occurred while the student was enrolled, but is discovered after the student graduates?
The public appropriately considers a college degree to be more than a certificate of academic proficiency or technical accomplishment. By awarding a degree, an institution assures potential employers, and others, that the recipient has developed some basic degree of “emotional intelligence” and social responsibility, grounded in the ability to abide by reasonable standards of conduct. At the very least, the student should not have committed such a serious breach of those standards as to justify expulsion.
Of course, some critics of the M.I.T. decision have also questioned why the university revoked a degree for a violation of institutional behavioral standards so belatedly -- after the accused student had graduated and left the campus. My response is: If a serious violation remains undiscovered until after a student graduates, the only way to alert others that the student has not abided by fundamental institutional standards is by revoking -- after a fair hearing -- his or her diploma.
In short, society depends upon some minimal level of integrity in our graduates, not just upon their academic knowledge or skills. If courts and higher-education institutions support the revocation of degrees received through fraud or error, they should also support revoking degrees for serious, proven misconduct in violation of established institutional rules.
The notion that receipt of a degree represents fulfillment of minimal standards of conduct and character isn’t new. The “Report of the Commission on the Proposed University of Virginia,” signed by, among others, Thomas Jefferson, stated in 1818 that a university education, properly understood, “generates habits of application, of order and the love of virtue; and contours, by the force of habit, any innate obliquities in our moral organization.”
One doesn’t have to agree with every aspect of Jefferson’s optimistic view to share the educational objectives that he endorsed. Those objectives are again becoming explicit, perhaps because personal qualities like honesty and civility assume greater importance as new management styles give individuals and teams in the work force greater autonomy. Freed from layers of management, employees need -- and the larger society depends upon -- habits of character that inspire trust.
In 1997, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges published a report, “Returning to Our Roots: The Student Experience,” promulgating what is fast becoming a national expectation in this regard: “Character, conscience, citizenship, tolerance, civility, and individual and social responsibility ... should be part of the standard equipment of our graduates, not options.” The report’s executive summary emphasizes: “State and land-grant universities were established to put students first. In responding to change, we begin by returning to our roots, because too many of us have lost touch with much that was best in the past.”
I grant that those who oppose degree revocation for violations of campus-conduct rules have reason to worry about potential abuses by college officials. A recent history of social and political intolerance on campuses -- using speech codes, for instance, to ban “offensive skits” or to punish “insensitive expression” -- is sobering. I can understand why some people are concerned that degree revocation might become a new form of political correctness on our campuses.
Still, it’s possible to take a minimalist approach to degree revocation, reserving the process for those who have clearly violated long-established behavioral standards -- such as prohibition of acts of serious violence.
I recommend the following guidelines, influenced by the Waliga decision and comparable court opinions:
* Institutions should develop and publish, after review by legal counsel, a concise statement affirming the institution’s authority to revoke a degree, the reasons for exercising that authority, and the pertinent procedures to be followed. The statement should clearly specify the possible grounds -- both academic and non-academic -- for the revocation. Besides fraud or error in obtaining the degree, those grounds should include any violation of student-conduct regulations while the student was enrolled that would have been sufficient to justify a student’s suspension or expulsion.
* When misconduct other than academic fraud is involved, administrators should be very careful in invoking the authority that they affirm. Therefore, college officials should also establish internal guidelines that spell out in advance when it is appropriate to begin proceedings to revoke a degree -- and then apply those guidelines consistently. They should not undertake degree-revocation proceedings unless the alleged violation is a fundamental breach of institutional standards -- such as serious threats or acts of violence, or sabotaging the work of others -- usually indicating that the student poses a continuing danger to the larger community.
* Each institution should place a reasonable time limit on its power to revoke a student’s degree. A degree should not be some sort of overall, lifetime certification of good character, justifying intrusive control by institutional officials. Administrators should consult with legal counsel in setting such a time limit, perhaps consistent with their states’ statutes of limitation on breach of contract.
* In any case of possible revocation, a designated person or committee -- perhaps appointed by the top academic or student-affairs administrator -- should conduct a preliminary review of the allegations, in accordance with internal guidelines. The person or committee should have the authority to decline to proceed if the allegations don’t fall within the institution’s guidelines, or if too much time has elapsed since the alleged violation of institutional rules occurred. In any case, the person or committee should provide written reasons for whatever decisions are made.
* College administrators should offer the person subject to degree-revocation proceedings a hearing, with the procedures clearly spelled out. Administrators should give the accused graduate adequate advance notice of the specific charges, the name of the person or persons making the charges, and full access to the case file before and during a hearing. The graduate also should have the right to a legal adviser, and a chance to submit relevant written evidence to the case file. In addition, administrators should allow the graduate to present evidence, and to hear, confront, and call witnesses.
At the same time, traditional adversarial proceedings, with active participation by legal counsel for either side, are neither required nor desirable. In a college setting, courts have consistently ruled that traditional, courtroom-style, adversarial representation before a panel of laypersons is likelier to produce confusion than justice.
* Finally, institutional officials should insure a clear and convincing standard of proof -- with the burden of proof on the complainant -- and give the graduate a written statement of the reasons supporting the final decision.
In general, if the authority to award degrees is vested in a governing body, such as a board of trustees, only that body should make the final decision to revoke a degree. Although it may not be necessary for the governing body to read the transcript of a hearing, it should consider written findings and any objections to those findings. The body might agree to hear oral statements by the individual or group making the preliminary investigation, and by the accused graduate.
Adopting a minimalist perspective on degree revocation would deal with the concerns of those who fear inappropriate incursions into campus life by the so-called conduct police. At the same time, it would insure that the receipt and retention of a degree continues to mean that a student graduated in good standing, and has not been found to have violated the institution’s fundamental standards of conduct. Anyone placing continuing reliance upon the accuracy and integrity of college transcripts would be surprised if colleges and universities wanted anything less.
Gary Pavela is director of judicial programs and student ethical development at the University of Maryland at College Park.
http://chronicle.com Section: Opinion & Arts Page: B6