NOTICE TO CLASS PARTICIPANTS:
For current information regarding the distribution of the funds recovered in Kashmiri v. Regents, go to www.ucfeesclassaction.com..
|
|
|
STUDENT VICTORY A LANDMARK DECISION
By Sarah Winter
DAILY BRUIN
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."
|
