holding that a tenured college professor, who was discharged for stated reasons that adversely reflected upon him, was not entitled to have his counsel examine and cross-examine witnesses during the hearing that resulted in such findings
How later courts described this case
- holding that a tenured college professor, who was discharged for stated reasons that adversely reflected upon him, was not entitled to have his counsel examine and cross-examine witnesses during the hearing that resulted in such findings
- Mathews applied to a university’s removal of a tenured professor for “unsatisfactory performance” and “unprofessional conduct,” among other reasons
- former tenured associate professor at state university who was discharged when federal funding for program was curtailed
- University Hearing Committee issued recommendation to University President
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s reasoning and result in this case. The majority opinion correctly notes that universities have broad discretion in the administration of their internal affairs. I write separately to make clear that such discretion is not without limits. The court should not defer to the judgment of university administrators when plaintiffs allege some form of discrimination. Where discrimination is alleged, the judicial role must necessarily be more active.