Opinion
Index No. 108355/2004
05-04-2005
JACOBS, LISA Petitioner, v. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Respondent.
DECISION & ORDER RICHTER, J. :
Petitioner Lisa Jacobs brought this Article 78 proceeding to annul respondent Columbia University's determination denying her readmission to the Mailman School of Public Health (SPH) arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner seeks reinstatement to a student in good standing and for the Court to strike all references of her termination from her school record. Respondent moves to dismiss the proceeding for petitioner's failure to state a claim or in the alternative, for failure to raise any triable issue of fact.
In July 2001, petitioner applied and was accepted to respondent Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health for the Fall term. Respondent states that this admission was conditioned on the belief that petitioner's transcripts were forthcoming. Over the Fall term, respondent made several verbal requests for the transcripts but did not receive them. In November 2001, the Dean's office sent an email to petitioner requesting that copies of her official transcripts be received by January 11, 2002, which was the beginning of the Spring 2002 term. On January 17, 2002, SPH received transcripts from Bowdoin College and Boston University School of Medicine (BU). Around this time, petitioner requested medical leave which lasted for terms Spring 2002, Summer 2002, Fall 2002, and Spring 2003. Petitioner registered, albeit unauthorized, and completed an on-line class in Summer 2003, did not register for classes in Fall 2003, and then attempted to register for classes in Spring 2004. At this point, respondent required petitioner to apply for re-admission. Respondent then denied petitioner's application because at the time of her admission in 2001, petitioner failed to disclose that she was academically suspended and then ultimately dismissed from BU. Also, on July 18, 2003, the State Board for Professional Misconduct for NYSDH issued an Order that petitioner be stricken from the roster of licensees and precluded her from being registered or ever obtaining a medical license in New York. NYSDH found that petitioner had engaged in professional misconduct as she had intentionally failed to disclose her dismissal from BU to various medical entities. This decision was issued while petitioner was on leave from SPH.
Although private colleges and universities are "accountable in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding...for the proper discharge of their self-imposed as well as statutory obligations," Gertler v. Goodgold, 107 A.D.2d 481, 486 (1st Dept. 1985), "in the absence of demonstrated bad faith, arbitrariness, capriciousness, irrationality or a constitutional or statutory violation, a student's challenge to a particular grade or other academic determination relating to a genuine substantive evaluation of a student's academic capabilities, is beyond the scope of judicial review. " Matter of Susan M. v. New York Law School, 76 N.Y.2d 241, 247 (1990). This rule reflects the policy that the "administrative decisions of educational institutions involve the exercise of highly specialized professional judgment and these institutions are, for the most part, better suited to make relatively final decisions concerning wholly internal matters." Maas v. Cornell, 94 N.Y.2d 87, 92 (1999). Therefore, the courts have a limited role in determining only whether professional educators "abided by their own rules, and whether they have acted in good faith or their action was arbitrary and irrational," Gertler, 107 A.D.2d at 486. See also Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., 49 N.Y.2d 652, 658 (1980).
The Court finds that SPH followed its own guidelines when it required petitioner to apply for readmission and that the denial of this application was within the discretion of SPH. SPH's guidelines that govern re-admission after a lengthly absence are:
"Students not registered for three or more terms lose their active student status. Before being allowed to register again, these students must contact the Office of Student Affairs for reinstatement. Students who have not registered for two or more years must complete an application for readmission before being allowed to continue their studies.... Students who have not registered for more than three terms must file an application for readmission packet in the Office of Student Affairs and must receive permission to register for classes." (italics added)
Columbia University Bulletin 2003-2005 Mailman School of Public Health ("Bulletin"), p. 28.
Petitioner was gone for four terms (Spring 2002-Spring 2003) and properly was required to apply for readmission in the Office of Student Affairs before being allowed to register for the Spring 2004 term. Although petitioner registered without authorization for an on-line class in Summer 2003, this did not waive SPH's right to review her academic record before accepting her in Spring 2004. Respondent discovered the facts concerning petitioner's academic dismissal and professional discipline before she was readmitted and did not have to take her back once they knew she had failed to disclose her record at BU and that false representations such as this were the subject of the NYSDH disciplinary proceedings.
Neither the procedure that SPH followed or the final decision denying readmission were arbitrary or capricious as petitioner was afforded a hearing, a follow-up meeting, and an appeal. On January 16, 2004, petitioner, the Vice Dean of Students, Ngina Lythcott, and the Director of Student Affairs, Brian Paquette, met to discuss petitioner's readmission. On February 6, 2004, a letter was sent to petitioner denying readmission based on her omissions and questions that were raised as to petitioner's character and integrity. In March, petitioner was granted an extension for her appeal. Another meeting was held on May 21, 2004 with Ms. Lythcott and Mr. Paquette to discuss any questions petitioner may have about the credits she received while at SPH. On May 26, 2004, petitioner then appealed the denial to the Dean, Dr. Allan Rosenfeld. On August 17, 2004, Dean Rosenfeld upheld the decision of Ms. Lythcott and Mr. Paquette. However, SPH is giving petitioner full credit for the classes she completed and, as stated in the meeting on May 21, 2004, is not putting any reference to the denial of readmission on her transcript.
SPH based its decision denying readmission on the fact that petitioner's failed to disclose important academic information at the time of admission and the reasonable belief that petitioner intentionally withheld her transcripts, even though they had been requested at the time of her original admission. SPH logically concluded that there was evidence of petitioner's lack of integrity as the NYSDH hearing revealed a pattern of petitioner's failure to disclose the academic dismissal from BU to various employers. Further supporting respondent's belief that petitioner acted dishonestly, it was revealed in petitioner's application for readmission that while she was on medical leave from SPH, she worked at the Medical College of Pennsylvania Hospital for three months and obtained a simultaneous medical leave from that institution as well.
Petitioner argues that she should not have been subject to the re-admission procedure because she was an active student in good standing because she had registered in Summer 2003 for an on-line course. However, the registration was unauthorized and in violation of the guidelines since petitioner did not contact the Office of Student Affairs or apply for readmission after being inactive for more than three terms. Petitioner argues without merit that since she was admitted without her transcripts, that they have no bearing on her record. The school guidelines provide that a complete application includes all official transcripts of schools previously attended. Respondent did not waive the right to review petitioner's academic record when it accepted her in good faith expecting transcripts to be forthcoming. Thus, no question exists that petitioner did not provide this when she should have early in the Fall 2001, and that respondent could review the transcripts when considering a request for re-admission. Petitioner further argues that her dismissal from BU and the NYSDH hearing are not relevant to her academic standing at SPH. SPH states that it was not her actual dismissal from BU that was the issue, but rather her failure to disclose this fact. It is not arbitrary for SPH to consider the NYSDH hearing as relevant as the hearing revealed a history of similar false representations by petitioner.
Petitioner unpersuasively argues that she was not told that the meeting held on January 16, 2004 was a "hearing." However, petitioner submits an email dated January 13, 2004 from Mr. Paquette stating that he and Ms. Lythcott wanted to meet with her to discuss readmission. Thus, petitioner should have been aware that respondent wanted an explanation of her academic and professional history and cannot now claim she did not have an opportunity to answer respondent's concerns. At this meeting, petitioner was questioned about her BU transcripts, the events at BU, and the NYSDH hearing. Ms. Lythcott and Mr. Paquette found petitioner's explanations not credible and that she continued to mislead them. Petitioner also argues that she only had three days to prepare for the initial "hearing," however, there was another meeting at petitioner's request and petitioner was given extended time to appeal.
The denial of readmission was based on guidelines that petitioner violated and was solely within respondent's discretion. The Court finds that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious and finds no evidence of bad faith. Therefore, respondent's motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed. May 4, 2005
/s/_________
Justice Rosalyn Richter