Showing papers on "Supreme court published in 1988"

Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America

Abstract: As the first full-length study of the history of sexuality in America, "Intimate Matters" offered trenchant insights into the sexual behavior of Americans from colonial times to the present. Now, twenty-five years after its first publication, this ground-breaking classic is back in a crucial and updated third edition. With new and extended chapters, John D'Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman give us an even deeper understanding of how sexuality has dramatically influenced politics and culture throughout our history and into the present. Hailed by critics for its comprehensive approach and noted by the US Supreme Court in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas ruling, "Intimate Matters" details the changes in sexuality and the ongoing growth of individual freedoms in the United States through meticulous research and lucid prose.

Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract: Participation as amicus curiae has long been an important tactic of organized interests in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. We analyze amicus curiae briefs filed before the decision on certiorari and assess their impact on the Court's selection of a plenary docket. We hypothesize that one or more briefs advocating or opposing certiorari increase the likelihood of its being granted. We test this hypothesis using data from the United States Reports and Briefs and Records of the United States Supreme Court for the 1982 term. The statistical analysis demonstrates that the presence of amicus curiae briefs filed prior to the decision on certiorari significantly and positively increases the chances of the justices' binding of a case over for full treatment—even after we take into account the full array of variables other scholars have hypothesized or shown to be substantial influences on the decision to grant or deny.

Police use of deadly force: Research and reform

Abstract: Police use of deadly force first became a major public issue in the 1960s, when many urban riots were precipitated immediately by police killings of citizens. Since that time scholars have studied deadly force extensively, police practitioners have made significant reforms in their policies and practices regarding deadly force, and the United States Supreme Court has voided a centuries-old legal principle that authorized police in about one-half the states to use deadly force to apprehend unarmed, nonviolent, fleeing felony suspects. This essay reviews and interprets these developments.

Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative

Abstract: At the height of the McCarthy era, when Congressional committees were exposing "communist infiltration" in many areas of American life, the Supreme Court was upholding loyalty oath requirements, and the executive branch was ferreting out alleged communists in government, the U.S. Attorney General filed a pro-civil rights brief in what would become one of the most celebrated civil rights cases in American history: Brown v. Board of Education. Although seemingly at odds with the restrictive approach to individual rights in other contexts, the U.S. government's participation in the desegregation cases during the McCarthy era was no anomaly. Rather, by the early 1950s, American leaders had come to believe that civil rights reform was crucial to the more central U.S. mission of fighting world communism. Based in part on diplomatic research in State Department archives, this article demonstrates that Cold War motives influenced the U.S. government's involvement in Brown and other cases. Originally published in 1988 in the Stanford Law Review, this article was the first publication to use State Department records to examine the relationship between Cold War foreign relations and civil rights in the United States. Diplomatic records illustrate the growing concern among American diplomats and political leaders after World War II about the impact of race discrimination on the U.S. image around the world, and the global critique that the United States could not be an effective "leader of the free world" as long as the nation blatantly denied rights to its own peoples. This research confirmed the suspicions of Derrick Bell and others who argued before these records were opened that foreign affairs affected U.S. government civil rights policies, and it helped illuminate the world-wide impact of the civil rights movement. This research was expanded upon in Mary L. Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2000), and in books and articles by other scholars. The larger body of work on race and foreign relations is an important aspect of efforts by historians to "internationalize" the study of American history. Thanks to the Stanford Law Review, the article is now available on SSRN so that it will be easily accessible on-line.

Opportunities Found and Lost: Labor, Radicals, and the Early Civil Rights Movement

Abstract: Most historians would agree that the modern civil rights movement did not begin with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board ofEducation. Yet all too often the movement's history has been written as if events before the mid-1950s constituted a kind of prehistory, important only insofar as they laid the legal and political foundation for the spectacular advances that came later. Those were the "forgotten years of the Negro Revolution," wrote one historian; they were the "seed time of racial and legal metamorphosis," according to another. But such a periodization profoundly underestimates the tempo and misjudges the social dynamic of the freedom struggle.1 The civil rights era began, dramatically and decisively, in the early 1940s when the social structure of black America took on an increasingly urban, proletarian character. A predominantly southern rural and small town population was soon transformed into one of the most urban of all major ethnic groups. More than two million blacks migrated to northern and western industrial areas during the 1940s, while another million moved from farm to city within the South. Northern black voters doubled their numbers between 1940 and 1948, and in the eleven states of the Old South black registration more than quadrupled, reaching over one million by 1952. Likewise, membership in the National Association for the Advancement

The Ideological Effects of Actuarial Practices

Abstract: Over the last century there has been significant growth within our society of practices that distribute costs and benefits to individuals based on statistical knowledge about the population. These actuarial practices like insurance premium setting and standardized testing in educational admissions are successful largely because they allow power to be exercised more effectively and at lower political cost. At the same time they generate ideological effects which have the potential to transform the way individuals understand themselves and their groups. In a 1977 case, Los Angeles Water and Power v. Manhart (435 U.S. 702), the United States Supreme Court considered a challenge to the actuarial use of gender in setting employee benefits. The case and the debates it generated illuminate the danger posed by the ideological effects of actuarial practices to our political culture in general, and to traditionally disempowered classes such as women in particular. At the same time it illustrates the limitation of traditional legal rights discourse as a means of resisting these dangers.

On the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms in the United States Supreme Court

Abstract: The early 1940s marked a period in which the consensus norms of the Supreme Court experienced a radical and apparently permanent change. The consistent pattern of relatively high cohesion characteristic of the Court's earlier years gave way to surging rates of concurring and dissenting opinions. The present research is an examination of the factors possibly contributing to the justices' sharply increasing tendency to express their individual views rather than to defer to the opinion of the Court. Using both historical and quantitative methods, the authors evaluate the impact of the Court's discretionary jurisdiction, changing caseload, associate justice characteristics, and judicial leadership. The evidence presented points to the conclusion that in combination with other factors the leadership style introduced by Harlan Fiske Stone in 1941 had a dramatic effect on the consensus norms of the Court.

Making public policy : a hopeful view of American government

Abstract: * Introduction How Does The Policy-Making Process Work? * Politics: A Framework for Analysis * Institutional Settings for Politics: Congress * Institutional Settings for Politics: The Presidency * Institutional Settings for Politics: The Bureaucracy * Institutional Settings for Politics: The Supreme Court * Production: A Framework for Analysis * The Civil Service as an Institutional Setting for Production How Well Does The Policy-Making Process Work? * How Should We Evaluate the Policy-Making Process? * The Wellsprings of Public Behavior: Alternate Views * Evaluating the Political Process * Evaluating the Operating Performance of Government Organizations * Conclusion: The Only Government Weve Got

Measuring Policy Change in the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract: Measuring the U.S. Supreme Court's policy changes is complicated by change in the content of the cases that come before the Court. I adapt from earlier scholarship a method to correct for changes in case content and use this method to measure change in the Court's support for civil liberties in the 1946–85 terms. Analysis based on this method indicates that because of changes in case content, the average difficulty of reaching a pro-civil liberties result varied during that period. With corrections for case difficulty, the Warren Court of the 1950s appears to have been more conservative, and the Burger Court more liberal, than patterns of case outcomes themselves suggest. This method, while imperfect, has utility for the measurement of policy change in the Supreme Court and other institutions and thus can serve as a building block in analyses of the processes and determinants of change.

Amicus Curiae Briefs By the Solicitor General During the Warren and Burger Courts: a Research Note:

Abstract: HE solicitor general is the representative of the executive branch before the Supreme Court of the United States. The office has four major functions: it screens losing cases involving the United States for review to the Supreme Court; it argues for or against review of cases not involving the United States to the Supreme Court; it argues cases for the United States as direct party before the Court; and it files amicus curiae briefs for litigants before the Court when the U.S. is not a direct party. This research note will examine the the solicitor general in its fourth stated role, amicus curiae. It will do so by updating and expanding upon the works by Scigliano (1971), Puro (1971, 1981), O'Connor (1983) and Ulmer and Willison (1985). As O'Connor has noted, "the solicitor general's amicus briefs have had a substantial effect on public policy, through without the scrutiny given other arenas in the political system" (p. 264). Using the population of amicus briefs filed from 1953 until 1982, this paper will describe and explain the ideological direction of such briefs, the factors affecting the solicitors' success rates and the votes of the justices.

Constitutional Dialogues: Interpretation as Political Process

Abstract: Who makes constitutional law? Is constitutional doctrine the monopoly of the courts? In accessible and persuasive prose Louis Fisher explains that constitutional law is not solely or even primarily the Supreme Court's "final word" but rather a richly political convergence of separate interpretations. With a broad range of examples, he argues that constitutional principles emerge from a dialogue among all three branches of government--executive, legislative, and judicial. Important contributions also come from the states and the general public. Fisher identifies executive and legislative initiatives in many areas of constitutional significance. Where there is litigation, the Court generally upholds these initiatives or may avoid making a constitutional decision by using "threshold devices." On those rare occasions when the Supreme Court exercises judicial review and strikes down a presidential or congressional action, it is usually only a matter of time before the proposal is revived and the dialogue begins again.Originally published in 1988.The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Public support for the death penalty: Retribution as just deserts or retribution as revenge?

Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that capital punishment is not unconstitutional per se, in part because the high degree of public support for the death penalty indicates that the American public does not consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment. According to the Court, the public's desire for retribution is an appropriate basis for determining that the death penalty is an acceptable criminal sanction. This paper examines the degree of public support for the death penalty and the basis for that support. It also explores the differences between retribution as just deserts and retribution as revenge, and concludes by asking whether a public desire for revenge is an appropriate, enlightened basis for our capital punishment policy.

The Supreme Court and Sex Discrimination: the Role of the Solicitor General:

Abstract: HIS article examines the effect of the solicitor general as amicus t curiae in the Supreme Court’s sex discrimination cases within the JL context of a fact model of decision-making. The position of the solicitor general is of particular interest as he is the representative of the incumbent administration before the Court. Thus support by the Court for his position can be seen as a measure of responsiveness to the executive branch. The amicus cases are especially important for understanding the executive branch’s legal positions for here, unlike cases where the U.S. is a party, the solicitor general may file for either side. In assessing the impact of the solicitor, one must recognize that agreement is not effect. The fact that the Court agrees with the solicitor’s position does not tell us that the Court was influenced by his stand. It may be that the solicitor is filling briefs for litigants who, based on the facts of the case, are likely to win anyway. Thus, it become essential to control for the types of cases before the Court prior to determining the independent impact of the solicitor general. Controlling for the types of cases requires a model of Supreme Court decision-making. Unfortunately, as Gibson (1983) notes: &dquo;The most striking deficiency of judicial behavior research is its lack of theoretical decision-making models that (1) comprehensively include the multitude of stimuli affecting decisions and (2) explain or predict a considerable portion of the variation in decision making&dquo; (p. 8). Therefore, to test the independent effect of the solicitor general we first develop a model of Supreme Court decision-making. The model includes external or environmental factors, internal or institutional factors, case factors and dynamic factors. We investigated these factors within the population of the Supreme Court’s sex discrimination cases from 1971 until 1984. Particularly, we tried to predict whether the Court voted for or against the equal treatment claim made in each of these cases. First we provide brief sum-

School Desegregation and Suspension in East Baton Rouge Parish: A Preliminary Report

Abstract: It is more than a quarter century since the Supreme Court handed down the famous Brown v. Board of Education decision. Since that time the issue of school desegregation has remained hotly debated, volatile, and extensively researched. The present study is concerned with a topic of relatively recent origin-school desegregation and suspensions. The quality of the educational environment of our nation's schools has always been of prime importance to many parents. And, of course, many parents feel that a disciplined, safe learning environment is an essential part of quality education. Interest in the safety of our schools was brought to national attention with the publication of the National Institute of Education's (NIE's) "Safe School Study Report,"' which documented the extent, and some of the causes, of school violence. Similarly, our attention became focused on the schools' responses to student misbehavior and perceived misbehavior with such publications as NIE's In-School Alternatives to Suspension2 and the Children's Defense Fund's "School Suspensions: Are They Helping Children?"3 In the last named study, it

Anatomically correct dolls: should they be used as the basis for expert testimony?

Abstract: Background Two decisions hy the California Supreme Court of Appeal in the spring of 1987 have made it difficult to admit evidence based on anatomically correct doll interviews with children. An earlier court ruling ( People v. Shirley ) had implied that the Kelly-Frye rule on the admissibility of evidence ( Frye v. Untied States , 1923: People v. Kelly , 1976) would extend from physical to include psychological evidence. In its reversal of lower court decisions ( In re Amber B. and Teela B and In re Christine C. and Michael C. ) to accept testimony based on children's play with anatomically correct dolls, the California Supreme Court concluded that use of the dolls constitutes a new scientific method of proof and is admissible in court only if it has been accepted as generally reliable in the scientific community. In following the debate, two expert child and adolescent psychiatrists argue this issue of scientific reliability.

Desegregation, Jigsaw, and the Mexican-American Experience

Abstract: In 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed school segregation, hopes ran high that we might be on our way to a better society. At that time, many of us believed that, if only youngsters from various ethnic and racial backgrounds could share the same classroom, negative stereotypes would fade and cross-ethnic friendships would develop under the glow of contact. Ultimately, it was believed, these young people would grow into adults who would be largely free of the racial and ethnic prejudice that had plagued our society since its inception.

Dimension-Based Analysis of Hypotheticals from Supreme Court Oral

Abstract: IN THIS PAPER WE EXAMINE HYPOTHETICALS TAKEN FROM SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENT. WE USE THE IDEA OF A "DIMENSION", WHICH IS EMPLOYED IN THE CASE- BASED REASONING SYSTEM HYPO, TO ANALYZE THE HYPOTHETICALS AND TO SPECULATE ON HOW THE JUSTICES ARRIVED AT THEM. THE CASE WE CONSIDER IS TAKEN FROM THE AREA OF FOURTH AMENDMENT LAW CONCERNING WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

Politics and personal factors in retirement from the United States Supreme Court

Abstract: A vacancy to be filled on the Supreme Court is a relatively rare event; continuity of service is the norm. In this paper I determine the circumstances under which justices decide to retire and, by extension, why they remain on the bench. Using a discrete-time method I find that political considerations do not appear to matter. Justices are more likely to retire when they are physically infirm and have qualified for pension benefits. But the more justices participate in the Court's activity, as evidenced by the number of opinions or dissents they write, the less likely they are to leave voluntarily.

A digest of Supreme Court decisions affecting education

Abstract: t lection of school board members, taxation for school district budgets, collective bargaining and tenure for teachers, vaccination and suspension of pupils, instruction in the Darwinian theory and in foreign language. School prayers, loyalty oaths, flag salutes, pro test armbands, maternity leaves, race discrimination.... The list of topics dealt with in U.S. Supreme Court cases goes on and on, extending to virtually all aspects of school operation. Are school leaders aware of the do's and don'ts of these

Capital Sentencing in Kentucky: An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Decision Making in the Post-Gregg Period

Abstract: The reimposition of capital punishment by the United States Supreme Court in 1976 has resulted in the execution of ninety prisoners, as of September 1, 1987.1 The use of the death penalty continues despite research evidence from several states which has consistently demonstrated that offenders who have white victims in general, and black offenders who kill whites in particular, are more likely to face a "death qualified" jury and receive a death sentence.2 For this reason, the growing use of capital punishment and its sen-

Nonpublication in the United States District Courts: Official Criteria Versus Inferences from Appellate Review

Abstract: r he past two decades have witnessed an increasing number of empirical analyses of the votes of judges in the lower federal courts (e.g., Richardson and Vines, 1970; Carp and Rowland, 1983; Atkins, 1972; Goldman, 1966; Goldman, 1975; Vines, 1964; Dolbeare, 1969; Johnson, 1979; Kritzer, 1978; Howard, 1981; Songer, 1982; Walker, 1972). Although great variety in the methods employed may be found in these empirical studies, virtually all of them share one approach common to Supreme Court studies: their analysis of judges' decisions and votes is restricted to data obtained from the published opinions of the courts. While the focus of empirical analysis has been on the published opinions of courts, a large number of cases are decided without an accompanying published opinion. The phenomenon is most evident in the district courts where fewer than 10% of cases terminated by court action have published opinions (Vestal, 1970). A vast body of data on the outputs of the federal courts therefore remains largely unexplored by public law scholars. As Carp and Rowland suggest, "We know very little about the contents or impact of these many unreported opinions" (1983, p. 17). The present study attempts to shed some light on the similarities and differences between published and unpublished district judge decisions by analyzing the treatment of each on appeal. The primary outlet for the publication of federal trial court opinions is the Federal Supplement compiled by West Publishing Company. The rates of opinion publication vary widely among judges. A study of opinion writing in 1968 uncovered one district judge who had 36 opinions published during the year, while at the other extreme 30 judges published four or fewer opinions (Vestal, 1970, pp. 676-77). The criterion for publication decisions of federal judges was stated succinctly by the Judicial Conference in 1964: "The judges of the courts of appeals and the district courts authorize the publication of only those opinions which are of general precedential value." It is assumed that district and appeals court judges are called upon to decide many cases that require only the

Majority Opinion Assignments and the Maintenance of the Original Coalition on the Warren Court

Abstract: Conventional wisdom about the U.S. Supreme Court states that assignment of the majority opinion to the marginal member of the minimum winning original coalition might ensure its survival. Insofar as minimum winning original coalitions on the Warren Court are concerned (which original coalitions were identified by reference to the justices' docket books), the conventional wisdom is wrong. Although the marginal justice is substantially advantaged in opinion assignment, coalition maintenance is not thereby enhanced. Indeed, the breakup of such coalitions disproportionately occurs when the marginal justice switches his vote to the other side. Moreover, when he changes sides, he nonetheless retains the majority opinion. Assignment of the majority opinion to original coalition members other than the marginal justice did not foster the original coalition's survival either.

Challenging Capital Punishment: Legal and Social Science Approaches

Abstract: Lingering Doubts About a Popular Punishment - K C Haas and J A Inciardi The Justice of the Death Penalty in an Unjust World - J Reiman The Effect of Executions is Brutalization, Not Deterrence - W J Bowers Fallibility and Finality - M L Radelet and H A Bedau Type II Errors and Capital Punishment Racial Considerations in Capital Punishment - R Paternoster and A Kazyaka The Failure of Evenhanded Justice Death By Jury - V P Hans Unpleasant Facts - P C Ellsworth The Supreme Court's Response to Empirical Research on Capital Punishment A Case Study of the Misuse of Social Science in Capital Punishment Cases - D D Dorin The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Finding of Racial Discrimination in Watson (1980) Imposing the Death Penalty on Children - V L Streib Death Row - Hope for the Future - J L Carroll

The Political Economy of Substantive Due Process

Abstract: 1. In reJacobs, 98 N.Y. 98 (1885), which struck down a statute forbidding cigar manufacturing in tenement houses, is commonly identified as the first case applying substantive due process analysis. 2. The term "substantive due process" refers also to the Court's fifth amendment jurisprudence in the area of federal regulation. Ever since Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908), and Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915), the Supreme Court has held that substantive due process should be applied to federal legislation under the fifth amendment and state legislation under the fourteenth amendment, using the same legal standard. See also Adkins v. Children's Hosp., 261 U.S. 525 (1923) (applying liberty of contract to federal statute under the fifth amendment). 3. E.g., Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936) (state minimum wage law); Murphy v. Sardell, 269 U.S. 530 (1925) (per curiam) (state minimum wage law); Adkins, 261 U.S. 525 (federal minimum wage law); Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) (state maximum hours law). 4. E.g., Weaver v. Palmer Bros., 270 U.S. 402 (1926) (statute regulating quality of materials used to make bedding); Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U.S. 504 (1924) (statute requiring standardized weights for bread). 5. E.g., Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928) (state licensing of pharmacists). See also notes 49-57 infra and accompanying text. 6. E.g., New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) (statute conditioning entry into ice business on demonstration of "necessity" and inadequacy of existing public facilities). 7. E.g., Williams v. Standard Oil Co., 278 U.S. 235 (1929) (statute regulating prices of gasoline); Ribnik v. McBride, 277 U.S. 350, 357 (1928) ("[T]he fixing of prices for food or clothing, of house rental or of wages to be paid, whether minimum or maximum, is beyond the legislative power."); Tyson & Brother-United Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927) (statute regulating prices of admissions to amusements); see also Smyth v. Ames,

Legal Considerations of Development Impact Fees

Abstract: Although development fees are relative newcomers to the legal scene, precedents for them exist in subdivision dedication requirements and utility charges. Courts— especially state courts—require that such fees meet a “rational nexus” test. This article describes the basis for that test, its more sophisticated forms, and some applications to particular types of fees. The 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission adds a federal constitutional requirement for a close fit between the fee and the purpose it serves. The implication of that decision for planning practice is that planners need to conduct more complete background studies than they have done in the past to support a legally defensible development fee program.

Against Ad Hocery: A Comment on Michelman

Abstract: Frank Michelman believes that the Supreme Court is "moving noticeably towards a reformalization of regulatory-takings doctrine."' He criticizes this development, believing that the Court should instead engage in balancing. To him "balancing-or, better, the judicial practice of situated judgment or practical reason-is not law's antithesis but a part of law's essence."2 I argue in this Article that Michelman is wrong on both counts. Part I demonstrates that the Court does not appear to be articulating consistent formal principles in the takings area. Part II argues that it should try to do just that. Whatever the merits of ad hoc balancing in other areas of law, it has special difficulties in the takings area because of the important role of investment-backed expectations. Nonetheless, Michelman is correct in saying that the formal pattern he discerns is an undesirable one.3 Thus, Part III suggests a way to think about the takings question that unifies physical and regulatory takings and provides a way to distinguish between government actions that require compensation and those that do not. Nevertheless, even a very imperfect, but clearly articulated, formal takings doctrine is likely to be superior to open-ended balancing.

Social Science in Court: Mobilizing Experts in the School Desegregation Cases

Abstract: The 1954 landmark school desegregation decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, "Brown v. Board of Education," was part of one of the most extensive and tumultuous social/legal movements in the nation s history. The authors of this study employ the school desegregation movement to examine the role of social scientists, and social science, in the litigation process. Covering seventeen desegregation cases in litigation after 1970, they bring together the perspectives of judges, lawyers, and social scientists in a work sure to be of interest to all concerned with the court process, public policy, applied social science, conflict resolution, and the continuing process of school integration.The authors focus not only on the legal issues but also on the broader issues of conflict resolution, managed social change, and the public role of social science. They first provide a chronicle of the events leading up to the Brown case, and then a thorough and detailed analysis of the social science expert witnesses called upon to testify in the desegregation cases that followed. In the course of their research, they interviewed 90 scientists who appeared as witnesses, 70 lawyers who tried these cases for both plaintiff and defense groups, and 10 trial judges who presided in the cases. No other study has been so broadly encompassing, both in the number of cases and in the span of time involved."

Responding to Scientific Misconduct Due Process and Prevention

Abstract: THERE is a truism in the law that "due process" consists of whatever process is due in a given situation. The greater the potential effect on an individual's reputation, freedom, or livelihood, the greater must be the due process afforded. In the realm of scientific research, more vigorous enforcement of standards by academic institutions and research facilities will require a corresponding increase in the potency of due process protection. Academic institutions have always enjoyed considerable discretion in matters of governance. The procedures for administrative disciplinary actions are generally spelled out in faculty and student handbooks and typically do not reach the level of due process required in the courts (where criminal and civil penalties may be imposed). In fact, the US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that if adequate posttermination proceedings are available, "something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient" before terminating the employment of a faculty member at