ESTEBAn v. central Missouri State College

1. ESTEBAn v. central Missouri State College Amanda PitcockLegal Case PresentationHEA 9220

2. CMScStudent regulations • “The conduct of the individual student is an important indication of character and future usefulness in life. It is therefore important that each student maintain the highest standards of integrity, honesty and morality. All students are expected to conform to ordinary and accepted social outcomes and to conduct themselves at all times and in all places in a manner befitting a student of Central Missouri State College.” • “All students that enroll at Central Missouri State College assume an obligation to abide by the rules and regulations of the college as well as all local, state and federal laws.” • “When a breach of regulations involves a mixed group, ALL MEMBERS ARE HELD EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE.”

3. CMScStudent regulations • “Conduct unbefitting a student which reflects adversely upon himself or the institution will result in disciplinary action.” • “Mass Gatherings – Participation in mass gatherings which might be considered as unruly or unlawful will subject a student to possible immediate dismissal from the college. Only a few students intentionally get involved in mob misconduct, but many so-called ‘spectators’ get drawn into a fracas, and by their very presence, contribute to the dimensions of the problems. It should be understood that the College considers no student to be immune from due process of law enforcement when he is in violation as an individual or as a member of a crowd.”

4. Important case terms • Due Process: Fair treatment through the normal judicial system, esp. as a citizen's entitlement. • In Loco Parentis: someone who acts in the place of a parent. • 1st Amendment: Freedom of speech, press, and right to assemble • 5th Amendment: in legal procedures it protects against abuse of government authority (due process, double jeopardy, etc.) • 14th Amendment:“Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness” and allows for basic civil rights

5. Overview of Demonstrations • March 29th, 1967 – 350 students present • March 30th, 1967 – 600 students present • Took place on a public street near CMSC that intersected with State Highway 13 • Eventually spilled onto sidewalks and campus • Excess of $600 of damage that included: broken school windows, destroyed shrubbery, and eggs being thrown • Dean of Men – Dr. Chalquist, was hanged in effigy, his ‘dummy’ torn up and set on fire • Traffic was blocked and occupants were forced from their cars • Cars were rocked

6. plaintiffs • Alfredo Esteban • On scholastic probation at the time of the demonstrations. • Had recently been on disciplinary probation over a knifing incident with a fellow student. • Steve Craig Roberds • On disciplinary probation at the time of the demonstrations. • Was aware that any incident resulting in disciplinary action would result in immediate dismissal from the college. • Both were students at CMSC, however, the two were in no way acquainted before the aforementioned incidents in March, 1967.

7. defendants • Central Missouri State College • President of Central Missouri State College • Board of Regents

8. Alfred esteban • Was present at both nights of the demonstrations. • Dr. Meverden, at the direction of the president attempted to disperse the crowd. • Approached Esteban and asked him to return to his dormitory. • Esteban questioned why as he stated he was not breaking any local, state, or federal laws. • After Esteban could not produce his college identification card he questioned the authority of Dr. Meverden. • He finally returned to the dormitory with the encouragement of other students. • Dr. Meverden followed Esteban and asked the RA on duty who Esteban was • Esteban overheard this conversation and proceeded to call the RA a “bastard and a prick.” • Esteban then emptied a trash can on the floor in front of the RA and eventually returned to his room.

9. Steve craigroberds • Had met with Dean Chalquist about his intent to participate in a future demonstration. • Chalquist advised him that there would be repercussions if he did get involved and may be grounds for suspension. • In February Roberds sent a letter to a Missouri legislator in which he expressed his disgust with the institution and stated that the school was suppressing democratic ideals. • At the March demonstrations he stated that he had been there both nights merely as a spectator. • At the demonstrations he stated that he had expressed his disgust with the institution to other people in the crowd who had the same views as he did. • Once college personnel began dispersing the crowd Roberds returned to his dormitory.

10. What happened after the demonstrations • Esteban and Roberds were orally advised as to why the college was considering disciplinary action against them. • Esteban and Roberds were allowed to voice their side of the story to Dean Chalquist. • Dean Chalquist was the only college administrator on the disciplinary who got to actually hear firsthand their side of the story. • Esteban and Roberds were told that if disciplinary action were to be taken against them they would be given the opportunity to express their side of the story to the president. • Esteban and Roberds were suspended from the college for two semesters, after which, they could reapply to the college.

11. Reason for the suit • Esteban and Roberds felt that Central Missouri State College violated their 1st, 5th, and 14th amendment rights. • They wanted declaratory and injunctive relief. • Both stated at the demonstrations they were simply spectators. • Thought that their suspensions were unfair and uncalled for.

12. What the college asserts • The students were given due process. • There is ample evidence to support that the students were involved with the demonstrations. • Central Missouri State College has a code of conduct that stipulates the required behavior of students. • The college did not interfere with their civil liberties but rather stopped conduct that was a deterrent to the educational mission of the institution.

13. WHO DO YOU THINK THE COURT SIDED WITH? FOR? AGAINST?

14. United states district court w.d. missouri • Trial occurred on September 6-7, 1967 • Question before the court: Were the plaintiffs entitled to due process before the suspension and were they afforded due process? • Based off of voluntary statements made by the plaintiffs there was no dispute of the conduct of Esteban and Roberds at the time of the incident. • The college was required to submit a written notice of the charges to the students. • The critical problem was that the students were only able to voice their side of the story to Dean Chalquist. • The college was required to allow the students to re-present their case. • Required to give Esteban and Roberds a new hearing on or before November 3, 1967. • Denied their request to be reinstated during the current term because the current term was already well in progress.

15. United states district court w.d. missouri • The court required that the college follow these eight procedures (Esteban Standards) in preparing for and conducting the hearing: • A written statement of the charges to be furnished to each plaintiff at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing • The hearing shall be conducted before the President of the college • Plaintiffs shall be permitted to inspect in advance of such hearing any affidavits or exhibits with the college intends to submit at the hearing • Plaintiffs shall be permitted to have counsel present with them at the hearing to advise them • Plaintiffs shall be afforded the right to present their version as to the charges and to make such showing by way of affidavits, exhibits, and witnesses as they desire • Plaintiffs shall be permitted to hear the evidence presented against them, and plaintiffs (not their attorney) may question at the hearing any witness who gives evidence against them • The President shall determine the facts of each case solely on the evidence presented at the hearing therein and shall state in writing his finding as to whether or not the student charged is guilty of the conduct charged and the disposition to be made, if any, by way of disciplinary action • Either side may, at its own expense, make a record of the events at the hearing

16. United states district court w.d. missouri • A new hearing occurred on October 18, 1967. • The plaintiffs were again found in fault of school conduct and their suspensions were upheld.

17. United states district court w.d. missouri • September 25th, 1968 • Plaintiffs then filed this compliant stating that their suspensions are equal to expulsion and invalid because: • The college regulation with regard to mass gatherings violates the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and assembly. • The college regulation with regard to participating in mass demonstrations violates the first and fifth amendments in that its language is vague, uncertain and overbroad, providing plaintiffs with no reasonable standards for observance and no notice of illegal conduct. • The enforcement of the mentioned regulation as to off campus conduct is beyond the powers of the college and is a denial of due process. • The charge as originally made did not contain the words “contributing to” which quoted language is not a part of the regulation and is hence unenforceable. • The hearing before Dr. Lovinger lacked procedural due process as required by the 14th amendment in that there was no evidence to support a charge of participating in an unruly or unlawful mass demonstration.

18. United states district court w.d. missouri • As a result of the aforementioned complaints, Esteban and Roberds asked the court to: • Declare the college regulation to be void • To command its enforcement • To set aside the suspension • To expunge all mention of their suspension from their college records • Allow them to reenter the college in good standing • The college denied all claims and reiterated that the two semester suspension period had already passed and that the students could reapply and that the court should abstain from all action unless all state court remedies were exhausted.

19. United states district court w.d. missouri • The court found: • There is voluntary entrance into a university which means students must assume all obligations and standards of conduct that is relevant to the lawful mission, functions, and processes of an institution. • These obligations are generally higher than those imposed on citizens by the criminal and civil law. • The institution may discipline students to ensure compliance with higher obligations as long as they are provided with due process, no discrimination, and no denial of basic liberties. • A student may not intentionally act to prevent or impair the lawful educational mission of an institution. • A federal court should not intervene or reverse disciplinary actions relevant to the lawful mission of an educational institution unless there is no due process, there is invidious discrimination, a denial of federal rights, or the punishment is clearly unreasonable.

20. United states district court w.d. missouri • The court found: • There was no denial of due process, discrimination, or denial of federal rights and that the punishment was reasonable. • Substantial evidence to support the written charges set forth by the college against Esteban and Roberds. • The written charges were relevant to the lawful educational mission of the institution. • Esteban and Roberds actually engaged in the acts with which they were charged. • As a result, Esteban and Roberds were not entitled to any of their requested relief.

21. United states court of appeals eighth circuit • August 28, 1969 • Esteban and Roberds appealed the previous courts decision and claimed: • The trial courts findings were wrong. • The college’s regulation violated their first amendment rights. • The regulation is vague as to deny substantive due process. • The court initially pointed out that neither plaintiff had reapplied for admission at the time of the oral argument even thought the two semester suspension had ended. • Mass gatherings are normally made up of a large number of spectators which leads to unruly and violent action – if there were no “spectators” then there would be no mass gathering. • College regulations state that even spectators will be seen as contributed to the mass gathering and are thus subject to disciplinary action.

22. United states court of appeals eighth circuit • The court found: • The college regulations are not hard to comprehend and that a college student of minimum intelligence should be able to understand them. • College attendance entails responsibility and the student approaching maturity should know the “basics of decent conduct, of nonviolence, and of respect for the rights of others.” • The defiance of proper college administrative authority is irresponsible and childish. • A college has an inherent power to circulate rules and regulations as well as to discipline while expecting its students to abide by a code of conduct. • There was no denial of constitutional rights. • If the students were serious about their education, they would have already reapplied to the school. • If the students to do submit their applications, the college must view them with respect. • SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: • Denied a rehearing making the decision of the appeals court final.

23. Why this case is important • Reminds us that students must be provided with the due process that they deserve. • An institution can not simply deny civil liberties. • An institution has the right to discipline students within a realm of reasonableness. • Codes of conduct are important because it outlines what students can and cannot do. • An institution has the right to expect maturity from its students as well as require their respect for others. • Attending an institution is voluntary whether or not it is considered a right or a privilege.

24. Thoughts on ruling?

25. Works cited • 277 F. Supp. 649; 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7495. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/01/17. • 290 F. Supp. 622; 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11578. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/01/17. • 398 U.S. 965; 90 S. Ct. 2169; 26 L. Ed. 2d 548; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 1540. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/01/17. • 415 F.2d 1077; 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10967. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/01/17.