University Autonomy And Judicial Review

With the development of society, and increasing awareness of student activists, students seek legal remedies have become a development inevitable. In recent years, cases of Students sue universities are on the rise across the country. Can enter the field of education litigation become the focus of the theoretical circle and social debate. With the legalization of education reform, students seek legal remedies have become an inevitable development of the times.But local courts have been hold different attitude on how to balance review intensity. This is not an individual phenomenon:the courts make different decisions on the same case. Through the analysis of the100colleges and universities disciplinary cases, this article attempts to make some preliminary analysis on above issues.The first part, this article introduces100college disciplinary cases. First, it integrated introduced the criteria for selecting these cases, source, and type. Secondly, this article deals with these cases respectively from the time distribution, the types of lawsuit main body, the specific administrative act of the defendant, the types of disputes, the focus of dispute, the court judge.The second part of this article,"the court said in its judgment of what?" On the basis of the understanding of the current situation of judicial review, this article focuses on the practice of the court to observe from "program" review,"the facts" review,"legal" review these three aspects. In "the program" review, the Department permits classification of cases and two classes (graduation and degree certificates) case two aspects to elaborate. This part of the discussion is centered on the Classification of cases and two class certificate (diploma and degree certificate). In the classification of cases, the court review is focused on due process, the principal forms of meeting and the subsequent formalities. In the two classes (graduation and degree certificates) case, the court examined whether the focus is to fulfill the qualification and degree evaluation committee form is legitimate.In "the facts" review, the court review of "fact itself" and "Identification of the nature of the facts" taken with general administrative litigation cases in different standards and attitudes. In the legal review, Court’s review is focus on reviewing of rules and regulations. In the classification of cases, the court has established three specific standards:"There is authorized by law", does not violate the higher law expressly provides, does not violate the legislative intent of Higher law. In the two classes (graduation and degree certificates) case, under the standard of "does not violate the high-order law", Court extended "meet the academic community known evaluation criteria."The third part is "what we found?" Based on "conduct-Effect" this analytical framework, this article classified all university disciplinary cases into five kinds of correspondence. These five corresponding relationship can be summarized three categories:"Discipline-Office classification","discipline-academic certificate" and "Academic academic certificates." In the "Discipline-Office classification" case, the Court adopted "strict scrutiny" of the model. In the" discipline-academic certificate" case, the Court adopted a "moderately review" model. In the "Academic-academic certificates" case, Court followed the review model of "highly respected". With the case of content closer to the core areas of academic matters, the Court’s judicial review strength diminishing. Exploring the legal basis behind this phenomenon, we think this is a manifestation of the principle measure of interest.The fourth part is " Another way:University Autonomy ". First, from a comparative law and judicial practice in our country, this section describes Jurisdiction of university management intervention and respect. Secondiy, the article puts forward the best path to solve the dispute management in colleges and universities are the growth of university autonomy that is the realization of the rule of law.