The "Good Faith" Trap: Why University Policies Are Rigged Against You

One of the most misunderstood phrases in university disciplinary policies is "good faith."

Students and faculty often assume that if administrators make a mistake, misunderstand the facts, or fail to follow their own procedures, the decision can easily be overturned.

Unfortunately, that is rarely how these cases work.

Many university policies—and the courts that review them—give schools tremendous discretion by presuming that administrators acted in good faith. Unless you can overcome that presumption with compelling evidence, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to challenge an adverse decision.

As I discuss in the video below, understanding how the "good faith" standard operates can help you avoid mistakes that weaken your case before it even begins.

https://youtu.be/tY9cj4i_4E0

What Does "Good Faith" Really Mean?

Generally speaking, acting in good faith means acting honestly, without improper motive, and in a manner the decision-maker believes is appropriate under the circumstances.

Notice what that definition does not require.

It does not require the decision to be correct.

It does not require the investigation to be perfect.

It does not require every witness to be interviewed or every piece of evidence to be considered.

A university official can make a poor decision, misunderstand the facts, or even reach the wrong conclusion while still being found to have acted in good faith.

That distinction surprises many students and faculty members.

Why This Matters

When individuals first contact me, they often tell me:

"The investigator got it wrong."

Or:

"The committee ignored important evidence."

Or:

"The dean believed the other student."

Those facts, standing alone, usually do not establish bad faith.

Universities are generally permitted to make judgment calls—even incorrect ones.

The question often becomes whether the decision was reached honestly and through a fundamentally fair process.

Courts Give Universities Significant Deference

One of the biggest misconceptions is that courts routinely second-guess academic decisions.

They generally do not.

Judges recognize that universities possess expertise in matters involving academic performance, professional standards, student conduct, and institutional governance.

As a result, courts frequently defer to university decision-makers unless there is evidence of legal error, procedural unfairness, discrimination, retaliation, or arbitrary action.

Simply proving that the committee reached the wrong conclusion is often insufficient.

Why Arguing "They Were Wrong" Usually Fails

Many appeals devote page after page to proving why the investigator misunderstood the evidence.

Sometimes that matters.

Often it does not.

If the committee reviewed the evidence, considered competing accounts, and reached a conclusion within its discretion, an appellate reviewer may uphold the decision even if another reasonable person might have reached a different result.

The better question is:

Did the university follow its own rules?

Look for Process, Not Just Outcome

Strong appeals usually focus less on disagreement and more on procedural fairness.

For example:

• Were you given adequate notice of the allegations?
• Were you allowed to respond?
• Were important policies ignored?
• Were conflicts of interest disclosed?
• Was material evidence withheld?
• Did the university change the rules during the investigation?
• Were similarly situated students treated differently?

These issues often carry far more weight than simply arguing the committee believed the wrong witness.

Good Faith Has Limits

The presumption of good faith is not absolute.

Evidence suggesting that a decision-maker acted with bias, retaliation, discrimination, personal animus, or a predetermined outcome can undermine that presumption.

Likewise, repeated departures from established procedures or deliberate disregard of critical evidence may support an argument that the process was not conducted fairly.

The key is that these arguments should be supported by objective evidence—not speculation.

Avoid the Biggest Mistake

Many people become so focused on proving their innocence that they overlook weaknesses in the investigation itself.

Ironically, the strongest appeal is often not:

"I didn't do it."

Instead, it is:

"The university failed to provide the fair process its own policies and applicable law require."

Those are two very different arguments.

The first asks the reviewer to reconsider the facts.

The second asks the reviewer to determine whether the decision was reached through a fundamentally fair process.

Protect Yourself Early

If you become the subject of a university investigation:

• Read every applicable policy carefully.
• Save every email, text message, and document.
• Keep a written timeline of important events.
• Avoid emotional responses.
• Focus on facts rather than accusations.
• Identify procedural errors as they occur—not months later.
• Seek experienced legal advice before making strategic decisions that could affect your rights.

Final Thoughts

Universities are generally afforded considerable discretion when making disciplinary and academic decisions, and many policies presume that administrators act in good faith. That reality does not mean students or faculty members are without recourse. It does mean that successful appeals usually require more than showing the university reached the wrong conclusion.

The strongest challenges are often grounded in careful analysis of the governing policies, the fairness of the process, and whether the institution followed the procedures it promised to provide.

Watch my video below: "The 'Good Faith' Trap: Why University Policies Are Rigged Against You" to learn how universities invoke "good faith," why simply proving the decision was wrong often isn't enough, and how to identify the procedural issues that can make the strongest difference in an appeal.

https://youtu.be/tY9cj4i_4E0