高校基于学术原因对学生惩戒,司法是否介入以及如何介入,国内尚存争议。作一比较法的考察很有必要。传统上,美国司法对此持消极不介入的态度,并因“代替父母理论”的盛行而一度强化。但自20世纪60年代以后,随着对高校基于纪律原因惩戒学生行为司法审查的加强,个别上诉法院也试图改变传统的立场。但是,这一努力最终被联邦最高法院所制止。对学术原因的惩戒,司法仍坚持高度尊重的立场,仅要求高校履行最低程度的正当程序义务,通常只有在其武断、恣意地行使惩戒权时才介入。学术问题具有共通性,美国的经验可资借鉴。 Discipline of colleges and universities based on academic reasons, whether the intervention of the judiciary and how to intervene, the country is still controversial. It is necessary to conduct a comparative study. Traditionally, the U.S. judiciary held a negatively uncoordinated attitude toward this and was once strengthened by the prevalence of “replacing the theory of parents.” However, since the 1960s, with the strengthening of judicial review of disciplinary student behavior based on disciplinary reasons in colleges and universities, individual appeals courts have also tried to change their traditional position. However, this effort was eventually stopped by the Federal Supreme Court. Discipline for academic reasons, the judiciary still insists on a highly respectful position, and only requires colleges and universities to fulfill their due process obligations to the minimum, usually only in the arbitrary and arbitrary exercise of the right to discipline when involved. Academic issues have commonality, the United States can learn from experience.