A divided Texas Supreme Court determined Friday that public universities have degree-revocation power, siding with the University of Texas at Austin and Texas State University in consolidated cases. In both cases, doctoral degree holders who had been accused of academic misconduct argued that the universities had no authority to strip already-conferred degrees.
But a majority of the justices held that so long as the revocation is based on misconduct that occurred while the degree holder was a student, and so long as due process is afforded before the degree is rescinded, the action is within the scope of authority lawmakers have afforded public universities.
The Third Court of Appeals, in separate 2-1 rulings, had determined that the University of Texas had no statutory authority to revoke the degree of S.O. and that Texas State had no authority to revoke the degree of K.E., agreeing with a trial court that the suits should proceed. The case was argued before the Texas Supreme Court in September.
In Friday’s 7-2 ruling, which included a concurrence, the majority of the Texas Supreme Court held that the “broad statutory authority” granted to the Board of Regents of public universities “necessarily encompasses the authority to determine that a student did not meet those conditions, and thus did not in fact earn a degree, because of academic misconduct.”
The only difference between expelling a student for academic misconduct and stripping a graduate of his or her degree for academic misconduct, the court explained, comes down to timing.
“That distinction is immaterial to the issue presented and erroneously hinges the university’s bare authority to address its students’ academic misconduct on when that misconduct is discovered,” Justice Debra Lehrmann wrote for the majority. “Indeed, if timing were as significant as K.E. and S.O. suggest, we struggle to determine when a university passes the point of no return. Is it at the graduation ceremony? When the diploma memorializing the conferral of the degree is printed? When the last box is checked on an administrative form indicating that all requirements have been satisfied? When a doctoral student completes the defense of her dissertation?”
Justice Jimmy Blacklock authored a dissent, joined by Justice John Devine, arguing that under his reading of the law universities do not have power to retroactively revoke a degree, but that courts do.
Justice Blacklock, a University of Texas graduate, began the 22-page dissent by noting the diploma on the wall in his office memorializes the fact that “The University of Texas at Austin has conferred on [me] the degree of Bachelor of Arts … and all the rights and privileges thereto appertaining.”
“By memorializing that the University has ‘conferred’ the degree on me and ‘awarded’ the degree to me, my diploma demonstrates something very simple — and I would have thought unremarkable — about the nature of my degree: It is mine. It belongs to me, not to the University, and like other valuable assets in my possession, it cannot unilaterally be taken from me by those who later decide I never should have had it,” he wrote. “Our Constitution establishes courts, not universities, to adjudicate disputes about ownership and possession of property.”
K.E. received a doctorate degree in biology from Texas State in May 2011 and was later accused by her doctoral advisor, while they were collaborating on a journal article, of falsifying data supporting her dissertation.
An investigation was launched, and eventually the university’s president recommended the Board of Regents revoke K.E.’s degree, which it did.
The University of Texas conferred a doctorate degree in chemistry on S.O. in May 2008, according to court documents, but in 2012 a graduate advisor alleged academic misconduct related to some data used in S.O.’s dissertation.
After an investigation, the university initially revoked S.O.’s degree but later rescinded the revocation after she filed suit alleging violations of due process.
Precedent on this specific issue, the court’s majority wrote, is “nonexistent in Texas and sparse elsewhere.” But the opinion notes that courts in Ohio, Virginia, North Dakota, New Mexico, Maryland, Michigan and Tennessee have reached similar conclusions about the power of universities to revoke degrees.
The Texas Supreme Court remanded K.E.’s claims that Texas State violated her due process rights to the trial court for further consideration. And the majority also held that should the University of Texas ultimately decide to initiate proceedings to revoke S.O.’s degree, she “may seek judicial relief at that time if she believes she was not afforded due process.”
Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment Friday afternoon.
K.E. is represented by David Sergi of David K. Sergi & Associates and Amanda G. Taylor, D. Todd Smith and Marshall A. Bowen of Butler Snow.
S.O. is also represented by Sergi and by Anita Kawaja of the Law Office of Anita Kawaja.
The universities are represented by Bill Davis and Evan S. Greene of the Texas Solicitor General’s office.
The case numbers are 20-0811 and 20-0812.