Menu
University presidents, provosts, deans, and other senior administrators make difficult decisions every day. They deal with student misconduct, faculty disputes, controversial speech, discrimination complaints, protests, academic integrity, personnel matters, and crises that can explode on social media almost overnight.
Some lawsuits are unavoidable. Others are practically invitations. Too often, a university takes a manageable problem and transforms it into expensive litigation because administrators react emotionally, prioritize appearances, refuse to reconsider an initial decision, or surround themselves with people who will not challenge them.
Avoiding litigation does not mean administrators should become timid or allow fear of lawsuits to dictate university policy. It means making decisions deliberately, fairly, and consistently—and recognizing when institutional power is creating unnecessary legal exposure.
In the video below, I discuss some of the most common mistakes university leaders make—and the practical steps presidents and senior administrators can take to avoid turning manageable campus disputes into costly litigation.
https://youtu.be/0a_vv1Ceels
One of the easiest ways to make a bad decision is to ask, “How will this look?” instead of “What is the right thing to do?”
Universities understandably care about reputation. Presidents answer to trustees, and administrators face pressure from students, faculty, alumni, donors, politicians, and the public. But an image-conscious decision can become a legally disastrous one.
When controversy erupts, administrators may feel pressure to punish someone immediately, issue a public statement, demonstrate that the institution is “taking action,” or satisfy the loudest constituency. That is precisely when caution matters most.
Before acting, determine what actually happened. Review the applicable policies, consider the individual's rights, and consult people willing to challenge the proposed response. The controversy that seems catastrophic on Monday may disappear by Friday, while a lawsuit can last for years.
The higher an administrator rises within an institution, the more dangerous this problem can become. University presidents and senior administrators wield substantial authority, and subordinates may understandably be reluctant to tell them that they are wrong.
That creates an institutional blind spot. If everyone in the room immediately agrees with the president, provost, or dean, that should sometimes create more concern, not less.
Good decision-makers deliberately seek dissenting opinions. Before imposing serious discipline or taking action in a controversial case, ask someone to make the strongest argument against the proposed decision. What facts are being overlooked? What would opposing counsel say? Is the university applying its policy consistently? Would it make the same decision if the person's political views were reversed? Could the decision be defended under oath in a deposition?
Those questions are much cheaper to answer before litigation begins.
Power can distort judgment. A senior administrator who has successfully handled hundreds of institutional problems may begin to believe that the university's authority is virtually unlimited. It isn't.
Public universities in particular operate within constitutional constraints. The Supreme Court has long recognized that public employees do not automatically surrender their First Amendment rights simply because they work for the government, although the scope of protection depends heavily on the circumstances. Pickering v. Board of Education, for example, established a balancing framework for certain public-employee speech, while Garcetti v. Ceballos later addressed speech made pursuant to an employee's official duties.
Universities also operate under their own policies, contracts, faculty handbooks, disciplinary procedures, state laws, and federal statutes. Institutional authority should therefore never be confused with immunity from legal scrutiny.
A controversial allegation can create enormous pressure for immediate action, but an accusation is not a finding. Before imposing serious consequences, administrators should understand exactly what conduct is alleged, what evidence supports the allegation, what evidence contradicts it, what procedures apply, and whether the institution is treating comparable cases consistently.
This is especially important in disciplinary matters involving students and faculty. Basic procedural fairness is not a bureaucratic inconvenience; it is also sound risk management.
An institution that gives someone a meaningful opportunity to respond, considers contrary evidence, documents its reasoning, and follows its own procedures is in a much stronger position than one that begins with a desired outcome and constructs a process around it.
Speech cases can become legal minefields because administrators are often reacting not simply to conduct, but to the reaction that speech produces. Those are not necessarily the same thing.
A statement may be offensive, insensitive, provocative, unpopular, or embarrassing to the university without automatically becoming punishable. At public institutions, the First Amendment can impose significant limits on the university's authority.
The Supreme Court's public-employee cases illustrate why context matters. Courts may consider whether an employee spoke as a citizen, whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern, whether it was made pursuant to the employee's official duties, and the government's legitimate interests as an employer.
That is why “people are furious” should rarely be the end of the legal analysis. Before disciplining someone because of controversial expression, determine precisely what was said, in what capacity it was said, what rule was allegedly violated, and whether the proposed response respects applicable constitutional and contractual protections.
Sometimes the smartest institutional decision is to reconsider. New evidence may emerge, an investigation may reveal procedural problems, counsel may identify a legal vulnerability, or an administrator may simply realize that the original decision was too harsh. Reconsidering under those circumstances is not weakness; it is responsible leadership.
The dangerous response is to conclude that because the institution has already made a decision, it cannot back down. Once protecting institutional authority becomes more important than reaching the correct result, a relatively minor dispute can escalate rapidly.
Strong leaders correct mistakes. Institutions create unnecessary legal exposure when they defend questionable decisions simply because admitting error feels embarrassing.
This may be the most important principle of all. Imagine that the social-media posts disappear, there are no angry emails, the newspaper never calls, and the trustees never hear about the controversy. What would the right decision be then?
That question can clarify a surprising number of difficult situations. A university's long-term reputation is usually better protected by fairness, consistency, restraint, and respect for individual rights than by whatever response generates the most favorable headline that afternoon.
Universities occupy an unusually important place in American society precisely because they are supposed to foster inquiry, disagreement, debate, and intellectual independence. University leaders should make decisions consistent with those principles even when doing so is unpopular.
University administrators cannot eliminate litigation, but they can eliminate many of the decisions that unnecessarily create it. Listen to dissenting voices, get the facts before acting, follow the institution's procedures, understand the legal rights at stake, and do not mistake criticism for insubordination or controversy for misconduct.
Most importantly, do not allow ego, institutional pride, or public pressure to prevent reconsideration when the facts warrant it. When the institution makes a mistake, fix it.
The objective should not merely be to win the lawsuit after it is filed. The better objective is to make fair, principled decisions that prevent an unnecessary lawsuit from existing in the first place.
Adam Lamparello is an attorney whose practice focuses on education law, including university disciplinary proceedings, academic disputes, faculty matters, constitutional claims, and higher-education litigation.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
© 2026 Adam Lamparello, Esq.
| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm