CASE REVIEW

Sarah Schanck
Facts
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education established required notice and hearing for
disciplinary dismissals of students in a higher education setting. Notice and hearing are required
to meet procedural due process as established by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The
incident that led up to the Dixon ruling occurred in February 1960 when the plaintiffs (who were
African-American) entered and sat in a restaurant in the county courthouse. Service was refused
and the plaintiffs did not leave. As a result, these six students were expelled from their
institution, Alabama State College, on the recommendation of the state Governor to the
university President. The plaintiffs received notice of the expulsion but were not given notice of
their charges, a hearing, or right to appeal the disciplinary decision. The misconduct was not
clearly outlined or charges against the plaintiffs stated. The findings seemed to show that the
restaurant incident was the only demonstration where all plaintiffs were present and therefore
must be the incident leading to expulsion. The district courts determined that notice or hearing
was not required, but the United States Court of Appeals did not agree.
Issue
The issue of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education is whether a student has a right
through procedural due process to notice of charges, a hearing, and appeal when facing
disciplinary dismissal. Also at issue is whether disciplinary dismissal could infringe upon
constitutionally protected rights and therefore requires due process of law through the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments.
Answer

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education determined that disciplinary dismissal could
infringe upon constitutionally protected rights and therefore procedural due process of law must
be followed. In addition, Dixon concluded that a student has a right to notice, hearing, and
appeal when facing dismissal from their institution.
Reasoning of the Court
As the expulsion infringed on the plaintiffs fundamental rights, they were entitled to due
process of law in this instance. The court determined that, Whenever a governmental body acts
so as to injure an individual, the Constitution requires that the act be consonant with due process
of law (p.183). In Dixon, the courts determined that the plaintiffs had a right to seek higher
education, and at a public institution in which they were in academic good standing.
Disciplinary dismissal without due process infringed upon that right. Their constitutional right
would be infringed upon because the denial of higher education could impact the course of their
lives from the point forward. The courts stated that the benefit of education in an individuals
life would garner no argument or opposition.
The courts determined that the requirements needed to satisfy the due process procedure
could change based on the circumstances involved in each individual incident. In this instance,
the courts determined that notice and a hearing would be necessary to avoid arbitrary application
of discipline by the administration. It would be necessary with the severity of this consequence
for all parties stories to be heard. The courts determined that precedent would qualify the
students to at least notice of charges and grounds for expulsion and some type of hearing before
they were dismissed from the institution.
In addition, the court created standards for future proceedings of this nature. These standards
are only recommended and include written notice of charges and grounds for potential dismissal.

The standards do not outline specifically how a hearing should be executed but do recommend
that the formality of the hearing be in accordance with the severity of the charges and potential
consequences. The courts also determined that misconduct charges are based on collection of
facts and that a venue must exist for the determining authorities to hear these facts in full detail
to make an appropriate decision. Students should be allowed to speak in their own defense as
well as hear or read the evidence of witnesses against them. The courts determined that due
process of law will have been satisfied if those elements aforementioned are followed.
Conclusion
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education determined that in cases of disciplinary
expulsion from a public institution of higher education, procedural due process of law must be
followed and elements of fair play must be prescribed to. Students should have adequate notice
of the charges leading to potential expulsion as well as some level of hearing in which to defend
his- or herself and hear evidence presented. The achievement of continued learning is protected
through the Constitution and so infringing upon a students right to do as such by expelling him
or her cannot be done without proper due process of law to protect that right.

Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir., 1961).