Student Rights in United States Higher Education include substantive and procedural rights.

Institutional regulations

Right to protection from arbitrary or capricious decision making Decision making should not be arbitrary or capricious / random and, thus, interfere with fairness.Bach, 2003Anderson v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 1995Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and Kaplan and Lee (2009) A legal guide for student affairs professionalsSharick v. Southeastern University of the Health Sciences, 2000Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences / Chicago Med. School, 1988) While this case concerned a private school, Healy v. Larsson (1974) found that what applied to private intuitions applied also to public.Bowden, 2007 Right to have institutions follow their own rules Institutions are required, contractually, to always follow their own rules.Tedeschi v. Wagner College, 1978; 1980Schaer v. Braneis U., 2000Mawdsley, 2004Fellheimer v. Middlebury College, 1994 Institutional documents may also be considered binding implied-in-fact contracts. Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin College (2001) ruled that institutional documents are still contractual regardless of whether they have a disclaimer.

Courts have ruled students are protected from deviation from information advertised in bulletins or circulars,RaffertyRoss v. Creighton University regulations, course catalogues,Andre v. Pace University, 1996 student codes,Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher EducationHarwood v. Johns Hopkins, 2000 and handbooks.Fellheimer v. Middleburry College, 1994 Right to a continuous contract Mississippi Medical Center v. Hughes (2000) determined that students have an implied right to a continuous contract during a period of continuous enrollment suggesting that students have the right to graduate so long as they fulfill the requirements as they were originally communicated. Degree requirement changes are unacceptable.Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 1988 Bruner v. Petersen (1997) found also that contractual protections do not apply in the event that a student, who has failed to meet requirements, is readmitted into a program. The student may be required to meet additional requirements which support their success. This may also help avoid issues of discrimination. Right to notice of degree requirement changes Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences Chicago Med. School (1998) determined that students have the right to notice of degree requirement changes. Right to fulfillment of verbal promises Verbal contracts are also binding.Rafferty, 1993Ross v. Creighton University, 1992 The North Carolina Court of Appeals in Long v. University of North Carolina at Wilmington (1995) found, however, that verbal agreements must be made in an official capacity in order to be binding (Bowden, 2007). Dezick v. Umpqua Community College (1979) found a student was compensated because classes offered orally by the dean were not provided.

Healy v. Larsson (1974) found that a student who completed degree requirements prescribed by an academic advisor was entitled to a degree on the basis that this was an implied contract.

Academic advising

Right to fulfillment of promises and verbal promises by advisors Verbal contracts are binding.Long v. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 1995 They must be made in an official capacity, however, to be binding. Dezick v. Umpqua Community College (1979) found a student was compensated because classes offered orally by the dean were not provided. Healy v. Larsson (1974) found that a student who completed degree requirements prescribed by an academic advisor was entitled to a degree on the basis that this was an implied contract. An advisor should, thus, be considered an official source of information. Right to a continuous contract during a period of continuous enrollment Mississippi Medical Center v. Hughes (2000) determined that students have an implied right to a continuous contract during a period of continuous enrollment suggesting that students have the right to graduate so long as they fulfill the requirements as they were originally communicated.Kaplan and Lee (2011) the Law of Higher Education and Kaplan Degree requirement changes are unacceptable.Kaplan and Lee (2011) The Law of Higher Education and Kaplan Bruner v. Petersen (1997) found also that contractual protections do not apply in the event that a student, who has failed to meet requirements, is readmitted into a program. The student may be required to meet additional requirements which support their success. This may also help avoid issues of discrimination. Right to notice of degree requirement changes Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences Chicago Med. School (1998) determined that students have the right to notice of degree requirement changes (Kaplan & Lee, 2011). If a student, for instance, is absent for a semester and is not continuously enrolled they need to know if degree requirements have changed. Right to protection from arbitrary or capricious decision making Decision making should not be arbitrary or capricious / random and, thus, interfere with fairness.Brody v. Finch University of Health Sciences / Chicago Med. School, 1988 This is a form of discrimination. While this case concerned a private school, Healy v. Larsson (1974) found that what applied to private intuitions applied also to public.

Recruitment

Right to basic institutional facts and figures before admission The 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act (HOEA, 2008)HOEA, 2008 requires that institutions disclose institutional statistics on the Department of Education (DOE) website to allow students to make more informed educational decisions. Information required on the DOE website includes: tuition, fees, net price of attendance, tuition plans, and statistics including sex, ability, ethnic and transfer student ratios as well as ACT/SAT scores, degrees offered, enrolled, and awarded. Institutions are also required to disclose transfer credit policies and articulation agreements. Right to protection from ability discrimination in academic recruitment The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act prohibits ability discrimination in academic recruitment. This includes ability discrimination in recruitment. Individuals designated with a disability by a medical professional, legally recognized with a disabilityPushkin v. Regents of the University of Colorado and deemed otherwise qualified are entitled to equal treatment and reasonable accommodations.ADA, 1973Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1990 The Supreme Court defined Otherwise qualified as an individual who can perform the required tasks in spite of rather than except for their disability.Hendrickson, 1986Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 1979

Admissions

Right to protection from sex discrimination in admissions Title IX of the 1972 Higher Education Act AmendmentsHEAA, 1972 protect all sexes from pre-admission inquiries with regard to pregnancy, parental status, family or marital status. It can be seen that this act also protects against such inquiry regarding inter-sexed, transsexual, transgender or androgynous individuals. Right to protection from ability discrimination in admissions The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)ADA, 1990 and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.Rehabilitation Act, 1973 This includes ability discrimination in admissions. Individuals designated with a disability by a medical professional, legally recognized with a disability and deemed otherwise qualified are entitled to equal treatment and reasonable accommodations in both educational and employment related activities. The Supreme Court defined Otherwise qualified as an individual who can perform the required tasks in spite of rather than except for their disability. Right to protection from racial discrimination in admissions Individuals may not be discriminated against on the basis of their color in either undergraduate or graduate school admissions.Kaplan & Lee, 2011Florida ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control, 1956 Right to testing in admissions accommodations Protection from discrimination in admissionsSoutheastern Community College v. Davis entails that students receive accommodations required to prove they are otherwise qualified, protection from unfair testing practices, testing accommodations for speech, manual and hearing disabilities and access to alternative testing offered in accessible facilities. Alternative testing must also be offered as frequently as are standard tests.Section 504 Rehabilitation Act, 1973 Where no alternative testing exists, institutions, however, are not responsible for accommodations.Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 1991 Right to protection from sex discrimination in admissions testing Educational tests which are biased in favor of one gender, may not be relied upon as the sole source of information decision making.Sharif by Salahuddin v. New York State Education Department, 1989 Right to protection from racially segregating testing policies Students' equality entails that individuals not be treated differently by individuals or systematically by an institution. Thus, testing policies which systematically discriminate, are unlawful according to the constitution. United States v. Fordice (1992) prohibited the use of ACT scores in Mississippi admissions, for instance, because the gap between ACT scores of white and black student was greater than the GPA gap which was not considered at all. Right to race conscious affirmative action in admissions to correct for discrimination When a school has engaged in racial discrimination in the past they are required by law to take race conscious affirmative action to correct it.Bakke v. Regents of the University of California, 1978Podberesky v. Kirwan, 1994 Right to protection from reverse discrimination White students are protected from racial discrimination at historic minority institutions.McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 1976Doe v. Kamehameha Schools, 2005 Racial equality calls for the equal treatment of all individuals; it does not permit, however, lower admissions test requirementsUnited States v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 1986 or subjective judgments for racial minorities when there are objective standards in place for all applicants.Woods v. The Wright Institute, 1998 Right to protection from subjective interviews There may be no segregation in the admissions process including subjective interviewsHopwood v. Texas, 1996Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003McDonald v. Hogness, 1979 when there are objective standards in place for all applicants. Right to protection from differential testing requirements Students are protected from the use of lower admissions test scores. Right to protection from admissions quotas based on demographics Students are protected from the use of quotas which set aside seats for certain demographics.Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003 Right to adherence to registration materials Students are protected from deviation from information advertised in registration materials.Mangala v. Brown University This may be a binding implied-in-fact contract. Goodman v. President and Trustees of Bowdoin College (2001) ruled that institutional documents are still contractual regardless if they have a disclaimer.

Readmissions

Right to equality in readmissions