English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Historically, attorney representation in higher education student conduct hearings have not been prevalent. Given the greater implications of disciplinary hearings on students in contemporary society, many have argued for attorney representation to be the norm. As a result, legislatures have passed laws requiring public institutions to permit attorney representation. However, colleges and universities assert that the disciplinary process is educational and collaborative and attorney representation would create an adversarial system. This article examines the required due process afforded by the U.S. Constitution, the arguments for both change to have attorney representation and to preserve the educational system, and implications for higher education leadership and attorneys, alike.

Attorney Representation in Student Conduct Matters in Colleges: Arguments for Change and Implications for Leadership