BECAUSE THE COLLEGE-STUDENT RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED ALMOST UNIVERSALLY AS CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE, THE COURTS MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO APPLY ACCEPTED CONTRACT LAW PRINCIPLES TO SCHOLASTIC DISPUTES. HOWEVER, THE COURTS HAVE TENDED TO IGNORE CONTRACT ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF A POSITION THAT GIVES BROAD ACADEMIC DISCRETION TO PROFESSORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF BASING A LAWSUIT ON CONTRACT THEORY, MANY AGGRIEVED STUDENTS HAVE LOOKED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES FOR PROTECTION. HERE THEY HAVE MET WITH TWO OBSTACLES: THE COURTS CONSISTENTLY HAVE LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS TO DISCIPLINARY ISSUES AND DISPUTES AND GENERALLY HAVE REFUSED TO EXTEND CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS TO STUDENTS ATTENDING PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS. THE REAL ISSUE UNDERLYING THIS ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF THE COURTS APPEARS TO BE NOT SO MUCH WHETHER A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR A CONTRACT HAS OCCURED BUT WHETHER THE JUDICIARY SHOULD INVOLVE ITSELF IN ACADEMIC MATTERS. IN VIEW OF THE INCREASING SCOPE AND POWER OF THE MODERN UNIVERSITY, POLICY ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING ABSOLUTE INSTITUTIONAL DISCRETION ARE DISSIPATED. IN THE STUDENT-SCHOOL RELATIONSHIP, THE SCHOOL SETS THE FEES, MAKES THE RULES, DRAWS UP THE CONTRACT, AND GENERALLY CONTROLS THE RELATIONSHIP. WITHOUT INTRUDING INTO TECHNICAL AREAS BEYOND ITS COMPETENCE, THE COURT AT LEAST COULD SEE THAT STUDENTS WHO ARE DISMISSED ON ACADEMIC GROUNDS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE FOR IMPARTIAL REVIEW. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)