In an effort UCLA education Professor Mitchell Chang likened to
a struggle between David and Goliath, professional students at the
University of California have successfully sued the UC for more
than $33.8 million.
If the UC’s appeal is rejected and the recent decision is
upheld in appellate court, the university will be required to pay
about 50,000 students a total of more than $33.8 million that the
students say they paid in fee increases that breached a contract
they had with the UC.
The students’ success marks what some believe to be an
unusual ruling ““ a court decision in favor of students
““ and may indicate to some that more students will pursue
similar action in the future. But those involved with the case
point to its unique circumstances and do not necessarily see this
as the start of a new trend.
“I am surprised that they actually won because it takes
quite a bit for students to organize at this level. …
You’re always surprised when David is able to beat
Goliath,” Chang said.
Scott Friedman, vice president of Academic Affairs for the UCLA
Graduate Student Association, said to the best of his knowledge,
the court’s decision to rule in favor of students marks a
rare occurrence in the legal relations between public entities and
students.
In his study of law, he has seen that “courts tend to
defer to the administrative determinations of public
institutions,” and he “wouldn’t have expected a
court to rule against a state university.”
The university maintains they did not violate a contract by
raising fees because “students were repeatedly notified that
fee levels were subject to change without notice,” said UC
spokesman Ricardo Vazquez.
The university plans to appeal the court’s decision, he
said, which will delay the final decision and prevent the funds
from being distributed to students.
GSA officers expressed satisfaction with the ruling and the
implications it could have for future contracts between the
university and students.
“This is a great victory for students,” Friedman
said, because it sends a message to the university that the
“way to make up a budget shortfall cannot be to just
haphazardly charge students fees.”
Jared Fox, president of GSA, said the ruling is likely to make
“the university much more aware of what it promises to
students.”
Students’ success in this case may lead to more lawsuits
brought against universities in the future, Friedman said.
“If this survives the appeal process, it will probably
lead to more students going after (universities) when they feel
aggrieved,” he said.
Mo Kashmiri, the lead plaintiff in the case, said he was angry
when his fees were increased from about $10,000 to over $20,000
during his time at UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law.
The key factor in the lawsuit’s success was students
organizing, he said.
“My case shows we can fight them and win. We need more
students to be involved in the fight against fee increases,”
Kashmiri said.
But this case is a unique one involving a contractual agreement
between students and the university. The agreement in question is
university publications that indicated professional student fees
would remain constant during their study at the university.
Jonathan Weisglass, a counsel for the plaintiffs, said the
students won the case because it involves the basic issue of a
contract between students and the university.
“Once (the university) makes an agreement, (they) have to
follow through. This is one of the most basic, bedrock principles
of the law, and the court did what the law requires,” he
said.
Because this suit was a dispute over contract law, the case and
the ruling are not necessarily an indication of how courts will
rule on most cases between students and universities, as many
complaints against colleges are not of this nature.
Universities are often sued for disciplinary policies and courts
tend to rule in favor of the university in those cases, said Andrew
Freeman, a counsel for the plaintiffs. In a contractual case such
as this, he said, the law “applies to universities like (it
does) to any other business.”
Though students consistently protest rising tuition, the law
only protects students if a contract is broken.
Rapidly rising fees are a “public policy crisis and
tragedy but … not violation of the law,” Freeman said.
“There’s no law that requires affordable public
education, it’s just good policy.”