Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1974 [PAGE 476]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

466

BOARD O P TRUSTEES

[February

20

following vote: Aye, Mr. Forsyth, Mr, H a h n , M r . Howard, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Neal, Mrs. Rader, Mr. Swain; no, none; absent, Dr. Bakalis, Mr. Steger, Governor Walker.

LITIGATION INITIATED BY S T U D E N T S OF COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, MEDICAL CENTER

(28) The University has been named as one of the defendants in three separate actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case Nos. 74 C 306, 74 C 307, and 74 C 308). Each action is brought by an individual who was found by the Committee on Student Discipline of the Medical Center Senate to have cheated on the June 1973 Freshman Comprehensive Examination in the College of Medicine. The initial finding was made by the College of Medicine Subcommittee and was upheld on January 28, 1974, by the Senate Committee. The members of the Senate Committee and the College of Medicine Subcommittee have also been named as defendants, individually and as members of said committees. The sanction imposed upon each student was (1) expulsion from the University of Illinois College of Medicine; (2) suspension of that expulsion until after the Freshman Comprehensive Examination in June of 1974; (3) ineligibility to attend classes at the University of Illinois in the interim; (4) permission to take the June 1974 Freshman Comprehensive Examination; and (5) change of sanction from expulsion to suspension with readmission as a beginning sophomore if the individual passes the 1974 examination. The Complaint alleges that the Committee finding that the plaintiffs cheated on the June 1973 Freshman Comprehensive Examination violates the plaintiffs' constitutional rights in that such finding is not supported by any substantial evidence, the plaintiffs did not receive a fair hearing before an impartial and unbiased tribunal, and the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious and deprived the plaintiffs of due process. Each Complaint seeks a determination that the finding that the plaintiff had cheated is illegal and unconstitutional; that the operation of the expulsion order he restrained, preliminarily and permanently; that the defendants be restrained from communicating to anyone that plaintiff was involved in disciplinary proceedings in connection with the examination; that the University expunge all records of recommendations or actions taken in connection with the alleged cheating; and that each plaintiff "be awarded damages to be assessed against the individual defendants in the amount of $1,000,000" plus the costs of the suit and attorney's fees. On February 1, 1974, the U.S. District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, the effect of which was to return the plaintiffs to the classroom, and set February 11, 1974, as the date upon which a final determination would be made as to whether or not preliminary and permanent injunctions should issue. On February 11, 1974, the U.S. District Court heard arguments on the injunction issue, took the matter under advisement, and extended the Temporary Restraining Order to February 21, 1974, or until such earlier time that the Court might rule upon the injunction question. None of the individual defendants has yet been served in the proceedings but each of them has indicated that all the actions taken in the matter were taken in the performance of University duties, and each has requested the University to provide representation in the litigation when and if service is accomplished. The University Counsel states that, in his view, the Complaints are not well founded and that, pursuant to authorization by the Comptroller, the Chicago firm of Jenner and Block is currently acting as special counsel for the University in the three cases. The University Counsel recommends that he be authorized to take such steps as are necessary and appropriate, including the employment of special counsel, to protect the interests of the University in the matter and to provide representation of individual defendants as requested. He further recommends that actions taken to provide for the interim engagement of Jenner and Block as special counsel be ratified, approved, and confirmed. I concur.

On motion of Mr. Swain, these recommendations were approved and