## Facts

- A University of Houston student was charged with academic dishonesty for submitting papers prepared by another person.
- The university conducted a departmental hearing that found the student guilty; the department chair recommended permanent expulsion based in part on a prior cheating accusation.
- A subsequent college honesty board hearing was held before a panel of faculty and students and presided over by a faculty hearing officer.
- The student attended with a law student advisor; the advisor could consult but could not speak, argue, or question witnesses.
- The student could testify and give opening and closing statements, but could not directly question witnesses; requested questions were submitted to the hearing officer, who asked some but not all.
- The university was not represented by counsel at the hearing.
- The panel found the student guilty and imposed permanent expulsion; an administrative appeal to the provost was unsuccessful.
- The student sued to set aside the expulsion, claiming a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation because counsel could not actively participate.

## Issues

1. Whether procedural due process requires a state university to allow a student’s counsel to speak, argue, and question witnesses at a permanent expulsion hearing.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the injunction that barred enforcement of the expulsion and ordered reinstatement.
- The court rendered judgment that the student take nothing.
- The court held that due process did not require allowing the student’s counsel to speak or conduct witness questioning in this university disciplinary proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process in student discipline is context-dependent and generally requires notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard, not full trial-type procedures.
- A student facing expulsion does not have a categorical constitutional right to counsel’s active participation (argument and cross-examination) in a university disciplinary hearing, especially where the institution is not represented by counsel.
- Limitations on direct cross-examination may satisfy due process when the student can present testimony and statements and may submit questions through a hearing officer, absent fundamental unfairness or arbitrariness.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the university’s permanent expulsion because the student received constitutionally sufficient process—notice, multiple levels of review, and a meaningful chance to present his version of events—even though his advisor could not speak or cross-examine witnesses at the hearing.


University of Houston v. Sabeti, 676 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984)