Against a modern backdrop of lawyer-bashing, there is a worrying trend by Universities of discouraging students from seeking legal advice, particularly in the field of academic appeals and misconduct proceedings.
Most universities do not specify whether students are permitted to have the benefit of legal representation. However, there are still many higher education providers (HEPs) who have enshrined within their Governance Regulations that students cannot have representation by a lawyer for their internal procedures; although they can have family, friends or other forms of representative as long as they are not legally qualified. Other HEPs have taken this a step further by explicitly discouraging students seeking any form of legal advice as part of their academic appeal / complaints / misconduct / fitness to practice processes. This is neither fair nor acceptable from the point of view of the student and, ultimately, justice.
Many students find themselves in difficulty through no fault of their own, be it personal circumstances or health problems. In many cases there may also have been some failure on the part of the university through an inability to properly apply its own Regulations, their compliance with the rules of natural justice or compliance their statutory duties, such as by providing sufficient reasonable adjustments for disabilities.
At first blush, it would be easy to ask why any student would need legal advice for academic appeals or complaints. However, to do so would be to presuppose a number of points: firstly, that these HEP procedures are not important enough to warrant the involvement of lawyers; secondly, that any student embroiled in such procedures has probably found themselves in that situation through their own fault; and finally, that universities will follow the strict and fair letter of the law (be it their own or the law of the land). Yet, such presumptions are not always justified.
Even plagiarism cases are not the simple ‘black and white’ matters you might expect. There are degrees of severity. At the more serious end is cheating by using A.I. and contract cheating (where essays or other forms of written work are purchased by the student to pass off as their own work). At the milder end is poor scholarship, where a student might use a phrase from a source and fail to utilise quotation marks, or quotes part of their own prior work without appropriate referencing to accompany it (‘self-plagiarism’).
For the latter examples, we may view them as mistakes easily made, particularly if the University has failed to properly inform students of these requirements, or has failed to conduct its investigations in a manner that takes account of the particular sensitivities of each student.
Issues can arise after students have already invested years and thousands of pounds into their education. It is vital, therefore, that universities should not actively discourage students seeking legal advice. This is advice to which students are entitled; advice which can play a huge difference in these academic processes and, ultimately, the future of a student’s chosen career path.
Whatever one’s view of the legal profession, access to justice is as important in academic situations as it is in other aspects of life. It is concerning that institutions who have roundly failed to show an ability to effect justice are actively discouraging students from safeguarding their positions, which potentially falls foul of procedural fairness, particularly in light of the imbalance of power in these situations, and the inexperience and disadvantage of the students. However, universities should have more confidence in their procedures, and invest in adequate staff training to warrant it.
The preceding views are not intended to replace legal advice from an instructed lawyer who can deal with any specific queries concerning such issues.
