Whether a rule-like application of federal case law that accords a nearly-insurmountable level of deference to academic administrators in breach-of-contract or other academic disputes, such that other applicable laws are rendered ineffective and courts depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

QUESTION PRESENTED A special “academic deference,” based on the concept of academic freedom, which in turn is based on ; the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, is almost invariably invoked in federal civil rights cases which involve claims of discrimination and thus require subjective judgment for resolution. This “rule” was applied in a judicial review case that was restricted to state agency records and which could be objectively decided, so that rules prescribing degrees of deference were neither necessary nor appropriate. The question is: Whether a rule-like application of federal case law that accords a level of deference to academic administrators in breach-ofcontract or other academic disputes, such that other applicable laws are rendered ineffective and courts depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth . Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. -~ii;