国外学者“尤因案”教育判例研究的回顾与启示
Review and Enlightenment of Foreign Scholars’ Research on Educational Cases of “Ewing Case”
DOI: 10.12677/AE.2022.121057, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 韩家炳：安徽师范大学历史学院，安徽 芜湖；蔡婷婷：广东省理工职业技术学校，广东 广州
关键词: 美国学者；尤因案；研究；启示；United States Scholar； Ewing Case； Research； Reference
摘要: “密歇根大学董事会诉尤因案”是美国司法审判中关涉教师对学生学业成绩评价的一个教育判例。该案牵涉到大学机构的学术自由问题，引发了学校能否根据学生学业成绩表现而开除学生，法院是否应当介入学术问题以及介入的途径，司法审查应当遵循何种标准，是否会对学术自由造成破坏以及是否需要延请第三方专家对学术问题重新作出评判等诸多争议。国外学者对这一案件所涉及到的关于学术自由尊重的历史背景、案件判决及其相关争议、案件判决的影响进行了细致研究并取得了诸多成果，这也为国内学者对这一问题进行深入研究提供了重要的学术参考。
Abstract: “The University of Michigan Board of Directors v. Ewing Case” is an educational case involving teachers’ evaluation of students’ academic achievements in American judicial trials. The case involves the issue of academic freedom of university institutions, which leads to many disputes, such as whether the school can expel students according to their academic performance, whether the court should intervene in academic issues and the way of intervention, what standards should be followed in judicial review, whether it will damage academic freedom, and whether it is necessary to invite third-party experts to reevaluate academic issues. Foreign scholars have carried out detailed research on the historical background of the respect for academic freedom, the judgment of the case and its related disputes, and the influence of the judgment of the case involved in this case. Many results have been obtained. This has also provided domestic scholars indepth research on this issue.
文章引用：韩家炳, 蔡婷婷. 国外学者“尤因案”教育判例研究的回顾与启示[J]. 教育进展, 2022, 12(1): 341-347. https://doi.org/10.12677/AE.2022.121057

参考文献

[1] Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1985) Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing. Opinion of the Court, 474. U.S. 84-1273, 223-229.
[2] Latourette, A.W. and King, R.D. (1988) Judicial In-tervention in the Student—University Relationship: Due Process and Contract Theories. University of Detroit Law Re-view, 65, 256-258.
[3] Flygare, T.H. (1986) U. S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Role of Education in Making Academic Decision. Phi Delta Kappa International, 67, 538.
[4] 秦梦群. 美国教育法与判例[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2006: 83.
[5] Smith, S.G. (1998) Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College the Scope of Academic Freedom within the Context of In-Class Speech. Journal of College and University Law, 25, 17-47.
[6] Byrne, J.P. (2006) Constitutional Academic Freedom after Grutter: Getting Real about the “Four Freedoms of University”. University of Colorado Law Review, 77, 929-953.
[7] Mersky, R.M. and Percy, K. (2007) Grutter v. Bollinger A Documentary History of Affirmative Action Higher Education. Cahill USSC, 9-21.
[8] Blaskey, M.S. (1988) University Student’s Right to Retain Counsel for Disciplinary Proceedings. California Western Law Review, 24, 65-82.
[9] Picozzi, J.M. (1987) University Disciplinary Process: What’s Fair, What’s Due and What You Don’t Get. The Yale Law Journal, 96, 2132-2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[10] Silets, H.L. (1987-1988) Of Student’s Rights and Honor: The Application of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Strictures to Honor Code Proceedings at Private Colleges and Universities. Denver University Law Review, 64, 47-64.
[11] Beach, J. (1985-1986) The Management and Governance of Academic Institutions. Journal of College and University Law, 12, 301-341.
[12] Yudof, M.G. (1987) Three Faces of Academic Freedom. Loyola Law Review, 32, 831-858.
[13] The College or University Power to Withhold Diplomas (1988-1989) 15 J.C. & U.L. 335, 335-347.
[14] Daughtrey, W.H. (1991) The Legal Nature of Academic Freedom in United States Colleges and University. University of Richmond Law Review, 25, 233-271.
[15] Dutile Fernand, N. (1987) The Law of Higher Education and The Courts: 1986. Journal of College and University Law, 14, 303-357.
[16] Roberts, R.N. (1986) Public University Responses to Academic Dishonesty: Disciplinary or Academic. Journal of Law & Education, 15, 369-384.
[17] Milam, S.D. and Marhall, R.D. (1987) Impact of Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing on Academic Dismissals from Graduate and Professional Schools. Journal of College and Law, 13, 335-352.
[18] Peter W. v. San Francisco Sch. District, 131 Cal. Rptr. 854 (Cal. App. 1976).
[19] Brookhart v. Illinois State Bd. of Education, 534 F. Supp. 725, 728 (C.D. Ill. 1982).
[20] Todd, J. (2007) State University v. State Government: Applying Academic Freedom to Curriculum, Pedagogy & Assessment. Journal of College and University Law, 33. 387-428.
[21] Durchslag, M.R. (1988) Misuse of Separation of Powers Theory in Cases outside the System of Freedom of Expression. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 38, 496-511.
[22] Hoofnagle, C.J. (2001) Matters of Public Concern and the Public University Professor. Journal of College and University Law, 27, 669-708.
[23] Case Comment (1990) Resolving the Conflict between the Academic Freedom of the University and the Academic Freedom of University Professors. Journal of College and University Law, 16, 713-730.
[24] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 729 (1975), 257.
[25] Stevens, C.J. (1981) Preventing Unnecessary Intrusions on University Autonomy: A Proposed Academic Freedom Privilege. California Law Review, 69, 1538-1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 

为你推荐