ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court in University of Pennsylvania applies the traditional prudential norm of academic abstention broadly to all legitimate academic decision making. The statement of the conditions under which academic abstention doctrine is applicable is clearer than the reasons behind the doctrine. Many courts give very substantial deference to academic decisions at the university level without a clear, coherent rationale. The rationale for academic abstention was that courts encounter difficulty in enforcing the terms of academic employment contracts because of uncertainties about the precise meaning of the terms the court on judicial review should give great respect or deference to the decision. The scope of review just articulated assumes that the decision under review finds the faculty, administration, and governing board in agreement, but occasionally there is disagreement among these constituencies. The Supreme Court held in that case that lower courts should determine first if judicial review involves the substance of an academic decision.
