Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

Jackson=3Ds judicial=20 admission argument falls flat. First, the admission stating = that=20 Jackson=3Ds=20 dismissal was academic rather than disciplinary states a = conclusion of=20 law, not subject to judicial admission. See Jaksa v. = Regents of=20 the Univ. of Mich., 597 F. Supp. 1245, 1248 n.2 (E.D. Mich. = 1984)=20 (resolving question of whether suspension for cheating was = disciplinary or=20 academic as a matter of law on summary judgment); H.E. Butt = Grocery Co.=20 v. Pais, 955 S.W.2d 384, 389 (Tex. App.CSan=20 Antonio 1997, no pet.) (holding that a party may not judicially = admit a=20 question of law). Second, the alleged judicial admission = stating=20 that Jackson was never accused of cheating is taken out of = context. =20 The sentence he cites in the motion for summary judgment clearly = means to=20 say only that the administration never formally charged him with = cheating,=20 since the following sentence in the motion discusses the fact that = Professor Jackson gave him a zero for not working independently on = a paper=20 requiring independent work. Finally, any admissions that = formal=20 charges were not filed, or that the school itself never took any = actions=20 against Jackson, do not preclude the fact that the zero was given = by the=20 professor as a disciplinary measure. Therefore, we do not = accept=20 Jackson=3Ds judicial=20 admission argument, nor the proposition that the zero was a = reflection of=20 the academic merit of his paper rather than a disciplinary=20 measure.

Since the=20 zero was given as a disciplinary measure, the substantive due = process=20 question is simply whether the government action was arbitrary and = capricious to the point of irrationality. Harrington v.=20 Harris, 118 F.3d 359, 368 (5th Cir. 1997). Giving a = student a=20 zero for cheating on course work is not irrational. It is a = logical=20 punishment, often handed down by teachers, for turning in work = that is not=20 one=3Ds own, or=20 for helping another person turn in work that is not their own. It = is=20 rational in that it gives no credit to a student who may not have = done any=20 work himself, and it is rational in that it serves as a deterrent = to keep=20 students from engaging in or repeating academic dishonesty. = Jackson=20 was not denied substantive due process in his receipt of a zero = for=20 cheating.

Conclusion

Having=20 found that Jackson failed to assert a cognizable procedural due = process=20 claim and that his substantive due process claim has no merit, we = affirm=20 the judgment of the trial court.

/s/ =20 Wanda McKee Fowler

Justice

Judgment=20 rendered and Opinion filed June 12, 2007.

Panel=20 consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and=20 Edelman.