dissenting:
The majority opinion persuasively states a case for a result exactly opposite the conclusion reached.
The rule of the school district required that for each day of unexcused absence, makeup work be done without credit and the academic grade be lowered one letter grade per class. Either the superintendent or the principal in his discretion would determine whether the absence was excused or unexcused. If the determination was made that the absence was unexcused, the teachers would be notified and the grades were to be lowered. The record shows that this arbitrary policy was enforced at times but not at all times. In this particular case, one teacher at a vocational center did not follow the policy — did not lower the grade; the other three teachers involved applied the policy only half way. Each of them testified that they thought the rule of the school interfered with their prerogative as a teacher and that it was harsh.
The majority opinion seems to argue that courts are not a proper forum for interfering with the internal affairs of school districts, and I agree. It was long ago determined, however, that constitutional rights are not shed upon entrance through a school door. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, 89 S. Ct. 733.) It has also been determined that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States and protects all of us against instrumentalities of the States as well as the State itself. This includes boards of education. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 87 L. Ed. 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178.) It has also been determined that a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity constitutes a protectible interest. I know of no de minimis rule in this area. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548, 92 S. Ct. 2701.
In Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725, 95 S. Ct. 729, we find the basic constitutional guidelines applicable to, and, in my opinion, determinative of, this case. Plaintiff has a constitutional right and that constitutional right was taken away by an arbitrary rule without any semblance of procedural due process. The rule itself was a denial of substantive due process. We are not invited to look at the weight of the interest asserted but only to determine whether the interest sought to be protected is of such a nature as to require protection.
In this case, the plaintiff s quarterly grades were reduced; the record is clear that the reduction of the quarterly grades adversely affect the final grade. The final grade constitutes a record that purports to measure academic attainment. We should take judicial notice of the fact that prospective employers as well as institutions of higher learning concern themselves with true academic achievement.
I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Livingston County and remand this case with directions to enter a judgment declaring the rule invalid.