Running head: Case Review of Nash v. Auburn University, 812 F.

2d
633, (11th Cir. 1987)

Case Review of Nash v. Auburn University, 812 F. 2d 633, (11th Cir.

1987)
Jamie Taylor
EDLD 8431
Dr. Maura Copeland
Georgia Southern University

Running head: Case Review of Nash v. Auburn University, 812 F. 2d

633, (11th Cir. 1987)

1. Facts
Auburn Universitys David Nash and Donna Perry were
accused violating the Student Code of Professional Ethics via
academic dishonesty on their anatomy exams. Students Nash
and Perry were heard in a university hearing to determine the
severity of charges and punishments. Witnesses testified that
they witnessed Nash and Perry cheating in multiple ways and
at different times during their exams. It is stated in the case
that six out of twenty eight questions were found to be similar.
At the conclusion of the hearing, students Nash and Perry
were suspended from Auburn University. Both students
appealed with the dean of Auburn University, who in turn
handed the case to a committee made up of nine faculty
members, who voted unanimously to uphold the punishment
of suspension. The students then appealed to the president.
The president affirmed the actions of the hearing board, the
committee and the dean. Plaintiffs Nash and Perry then filed
another case arguing that their procedural and substantive
due process rights under the United States Constitution were
violated by Auburn University.
2. Issues

Running head: Case Review of Nash v. Auburn University, 812 F. 2d

633, (11th Cir. 1987)
-

The major issue in this case is whether the students in

question are being allowed procedural due process.

Were the procedures constitutionally inadequate and did

they violate the appellants rights under the due process
clause of the fourteenth amendment?

Was the decision to suspend them made without enough

evidentiary support and did that decision violate their due
process rights under the fourteenth amendment?

Was adequate notice provided for the appellants to have

the opportunity to form a meaningful response to the
charge of academic dishonesty?

3. Answer
-

The hearing board decided unanimously that the

appellants were guilty of the charge of academic
dishonesty.

Nash and Perry were notified of their right under the code
to appeal the boards decision to the dean; the appealed to
the dean. The dean handed the case off to the faculty
Committee on Admissions and Standards for
recommendation. The committee voted unanimously to
recommend that the dean uphold the hearing boards
findings and decisions.

4. Reasoning of the Court

Running head: Case Review of Nash v. Auburn University, 812 F. 2d

633, (11th Cir. 1987)
In this case, the courts reason for the decision to suspend
Nash and Perry came from all of the evidence provided. The
court stated that proper notice of their violation and a
sufficient amount of time to prepare their case was provided,
therefore leaving no room to find a violation to due process.
There was also enough evidence presented to affirm the
decision to suspend students Nash and Perry on the charges
of Academic Dishonesty. At a minimum, public school
students facing suspension and its consequent interference
with a protected property interest must be given some kind of
notice and afforded some kind of a hearing. (Alexander 193)
In this case, both of these things were there. The timing and
content of notice and the nature of the hearing will depend of
the appropriate accommodation of the compelling interests
between the school and the student. (Alexander 193)
5. Conclusions
Students have the right to Due Process. If they do not feel
like they are being treated fairly according to the 14th
Amendment of the Constitution they have the right to appeal
any decision to the dean of students and then to the president
of a university. After a decision is appealed, all evidence will
be looked at again and a determination in the appeal will be

Running head: Case Review of Nash v. Auburn University, 812 F. 2d

633, (11th Cir. 1987)
made via decisions made by; committees, hearing panels and
administrators.

Resources
Alexander, K., & Alexander, K. (2011). Higher education law: Policy and perspectives.
(1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Lee, B., & Kaplin, W. (2007). The law of higher education. (4th ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.