Richards v. University of Alaska
2016 Alas. LEXIS 32
| Alaska | 2016Background
- Qwynten Richards, a Ph.D. student in Clinical‑Community Psychology at UAF, received a 2007–08 review noting difficulty accepting feedback and later faced a plagiarism allegation concerning an integrated course paper.
- Core faculty unanimously concluded the integration paper contained plagiarized sections, placed Richards not‑in‑good‑standing, assigned a remediation paper, and warned dismissal was possible; Richards did not timely appeal that academic finding.
- The remediation paper was judged inadequate; additional negative evaluations from a research supervisor (who requested her resignation) and a clinical practicum supervisor (who suspended her clinic privileges) documented a broader pattern of failing to accept feedback.
- The Ph.D. faculty recommended dismissal in 2009; Richards declined to resign, the Governance Committee held a two‑day hearing, and it recommended dismissal for academic impairment. The Appeals Committee and superior court affirmed; this appeal followed.
- The superior court also awarded UAF 10% of claimed attorney’s fees; Richards challenged classification (academic vs. disciplinary), procedural compliance, due process, and the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was academic or disciplinary | Richards: classification was disciplinary because plagiarism is in the Student Code of Conduct and Judicial Services was involved | UAF: dismissal was academic because the substantive ground was inability to accept feedback and academic impairment, and UAF proceeded under academic procedures | Court: reasonable to classify as academic under Nickerson; dismissal based on academic impairment, not punishment for dishonesty |
| Whether UAF substantially followed its procedures | Richards: UAF deviated from Handbook/regulatory requirements and mishandled procedures | UAF: followed Handbook, faculty senate rules, and university regulations; any deviations were insubstantial | Court: UAF substantially complied with Handbook and governance procedures; action not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether Richards received adequate due process | Richards: alleged insufficient notice, bias, and need for greater procedural protections given stigmatizing allegations | UAF: provided repeated notice of dissatisfaction, remediation opportunities, hearings, and independent appeals; no evidence of bias prejudicing process | Court: under Nickerson standard, notice of faculty dissatisfaction and careful, deliberate decision were satisfied; no proven bias; due process was adequate |
| Whether superior court abused discretion in awarding attorney’s fees | Richards: as a constitutional claimant and because of limited economic stake, fees award was improper | UAF: Richards had economic interest in her Ph.D.; court may award fees under Appellate Rule; award appropriate | Court: Richards was not a protected constitutional claimant for fee immunity; award of 10% of fees was within discretion and justified to avoid chilling claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Nickerson v. Univ. of Alaska Anchorage, 975 P.2d 46 (Alaska 1999) (academic vs. disciplinary dismissal framework and due‑process standard for academic dismissals)
- Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) (courts defer to academic judgments unless they are a substantial departure from accepted academic norms)
- Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (standard of deference to academic decisions requiring professional judgment)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (principle that biased decisionmakers violate due process)
- Bruner v. Petersen, 944 P.2d 43 (Alaska 1997) (substantial‑evidence review of academic dismissal issues)