## Facts

- Sulaiman Abalkhail received a Ph.D. in government from the Claremont Graduate School (CGS), which operated as part of the Claremont University Center.
- About one year after the degree was awarded, CGS received a letter from Abdullah Ali, director of the Arab Planning Institute in Kuwait.
- Ali alleged Abalkhail’s dissertation had been copied from a seminar paper written by another institute member and published as a book chapter about a year before Abalkhail’s dissertation was published.
- CGS appointed a faculty subcommittee to investigate the plagiarism allegation.
- The subcommittee compared Abalkhail’s dissertation to the earlier published chapter and concluded the works were mostly identical.
- CGS sent Abalkhail written notice of the plagiarism charge and informed him that a formal hearing would be held at which he could attend and participate.
- CGS also notified Abalkhail that revocation of his Ph.D. was a possible outcome and provided him a copy of Ali’s accusatory letter.
- Abalkhail submitted a written defense asserting that he had worked for the institute, made substantial contributions to the earlier seminar paper, and therefore believed he could draw on that work for his dissertation.
- Abalkhail attended the hearing; Ali did not.
- After the hearing, the subcommittee contacted and interviewed Ali, who contradicted Abalkhail’s claim of substantial contribution to the earlier work.
- The subcommittee concluded the plagiarism charge was substantiated and revoked Abalkhail’s Ph.D.
- Abalkhail sought a writ of mandate in the trial court, claiming the revocation violated due process; the trial court denied relief, and Abalkhail appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a private graduate school has authority to revoke a previously conferred Ph.D. after determining the dissertation was plagiarized.
2. Whether the procedures used to investigate and decide the plagiarism charge—including notice, a hearing, and consideration of information obtained after the hearing—were fair enough to sustain the revocation against a due-process challenge on mandate review.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Abalkhail’s petition for writ of mandate.
- The court left in place CGS’s revocation of Abalkhail’s Ph.D. based on the plagiarism determination.
- The court concluded the school had authority to rescind the degree for serious academic misconduct.
- The court concluded the process CGS provided (written notice of the charge and potential sanction, disclosure of the complaint letter, and an opportunity to participate in a formal hearing and submit a defense) satisfied the level of fairness required for this type of private university decision.

## Legal Principles

- A university’s power to award academic degrees carries an implied power to withdraw a degree that was obtained through fraud or academic dishonesty such as plagiarism.
- In reviewing academic discipline decisions by private educational institutions, courts do not reweigh the academic merits; they examine whether the institution acted for cause and used a non-arbitrary process.
- For private institutions, the required process is measured by fairness rather than the full set of constitutional trial procedures.
- At minimum, fairness generally includes timely notice of the charge, notice of the possible sanction, access to the substance of the accusation, and a meaningful chance to respond before the decision is made.

## Conclusion

Abalkhail v. Claremont University Center affirmed a private graduate school’s decision to revoke a Ph.D. after an investigation found the dissertation largely duplicated an earlier published work, and the court rejected a due-process challenge because the school had authority to rescind the degree for plagiarism and provided fair notice and an opportunity to be heard before revoking it.


Abalkhail v. Claremont University Center, Case No. B014012 (1986)