## Facts

- Eugene C. Olsson was a master’s degree candidate at John Jay College of Criminal Justice within the City University of New York system.
- Near completion of the program, Olsson chose to take a comprehensive examination instead of submitting a thesis, as allowed by academic regulations.
- The exam grading rules required (1) an overall average score of 2.8 and (2) a score of at least three points on four of the five questions answered.
- During a review course, a professor misstated the requirement, leading Olsson and others to believe that scoring at least three points on only three questions would suffice.
- Olsson structured his time and answers based on that understanding; he achieved an overall average above 2.8 but earned at least three points on only three questions, and therefore failed under the actual rule.
- Olsson sought review through an academic appeals committee, which declined to change the failing result but offered to expunge the failing grade and permit him to retake the exam.
- Olsson rejected the retake and filed a proceeding seeking an order compelling the institution to award him the master’s degree; lower courts granted that relief before the state’s highest court reversed.

## Issues

1. Under what circumstances may a court intervene in an educational institution’s academic decision to withhold a diploma on academic grounds?
2. May a public educational institution be equitably estopped from enforcing graduation requirements when a student relied on a professor’s misleading statement about grading criteria?

## Decision

- The court reversed the lower courts and dismissed the petition.
- It held that compelling the institution to award a diploma to a student the institution deemed academically unqualified was an extreme remedy not justified on these facts.
- The court declined to adopt a categorical rule barring equitable estoppel in academic matters, but concluded estoppel did not apply here.
- The availability of an internal remedy—expungement of the failing grade and an opportunity to retake the exam—supported the conclusion that judicial compulsion of a degree was unwarranted.

## Legal Principles

- Courts give substantial deference to academic judgments about whether a student has satisfied degree requirements and will not substitute their own assessment absent a clear showing of arbitrary, capricious, or bad-faith action.
- Equitable estoppel against a public educational institution is not categorically unavailable, but using it to force issuance of a degree is reserved for exceptionally compelling circumstances.
- A single instructor’s uncorrected misstatement, where official rules impose different requirements and the institution offers a reasonable corrective measure (such as a retake), ordinarily does not justify judicially compelled conferral of a diploma.
- Remedies in academic disputes should be proportionate and should avoid unnecessary intrusion into academic discretion.

## Conclusion

The court refused to order conferral of a master’s degree based on a professor’s mistaken description of grading criteria, holding that academic determinations are reviewed with strong deference and that equitable estoppel will not be used to compel a diploma absent extraordinary unfairness, particularly where the institution offered a retake as a corrective remedy.


Olsson v. Bd. of Higher Educ. of the City of N.Y., 49 N.Y.2d 408, 402 N.E.2d 1150 (1980)