Illinois College of Optometry: Student Discipline, Dismissal & Federal Court

How do student discipline and dismissal cases work at ICO?

The Illinois College of Optometry is a private, single-purpose college in Chicago, in Cook County, whose history runs back to 1872; the Higher Learning Commission accredits the College and the Accreditation Council on Optometric Education accredits its Doctor of Optometry program. Nearly everything that can end an ICO career runs through two committees in the 2026–2027 Student Guide — the Student Promotions Committee for grades and progress, and the Professional Conduct and Ethics Committee for professionalism and cheating — and the rule that matters most is the same on both tracks: you have three business days to appeal, and the appeal can leave you worse off. The Guide warns that a promotions appeal may end “to either a more- or less-favorable outcome,” and that on a professionalism appeal the Dean of Student Affairs may decide something “more or less severe than the original decision.”

The Illinois College of Optometry is a private institution. There is no state action, so there is no constitutional due process claim, and arguing one wastes an appeal. The theory is contract: Illinois holds that a college and its students have a contractual relationship whose terms come from the catalog and the handbook — Raethz v. Aurora University, 346 Ill. App. 3d 728 (2004), restated by the Fourth District in Urso v. Bradley University, 2023 IL App (4th) 230165 — while adding that the relationship “is unique and cannot be strictly categorized or characterized in purely contractual terms.”

The limit is the standard of review, and it decides most of these cases before anyone reaches the facts. A student has a remedy for an adverse academic decision only if it was made arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith. Frederick v. Northwestern University Dental School, 247 Ill. App. 3d 464 (1993), puts it bluntly — courts have been loath to review, much less overturn, academic dismissals — and Bosch v. NorthShore University Health System, 2019 IL App (1st) 190070, holds that a school which departs somewhat from its handbook still wins unless the departure was material. The federal courts in Chicago apply the same test: in Doe v. Columbia College Chicago, 933 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2019), the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a student’s contract claim where the college had investigated and reasoned its way to a decision, and in Gash v. Rosalind Franklin University, 117 F.4th 957 (7th Cir. 2024), it held that calling a process arbitrary or predetermined, without specific facts, is not enough. What survives is specific: in Liu v. Northwestern University, 78 F. Supp. 3d 839 (N.D. Ill. 2015), a former law student’s claim went forward where the school imposed what amounted to an integrity charge while denying her the handbook procedure for contesting one. Federal law does not care that the school is private: Title IX, Title VI and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act apply because it takes federal funds, and the ADA applies to it as a place of public accommodation.

A federal claim arising at the Illinois College of Optometry is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — Cook County sits in its Eastern Division under 28 U.S.C. § 93(a), and the statute fixes the places of holding court for that division at Chicago and Wheaton. I am a member of the general bar of that court, admitted on my Florida license under its Local Rule 83.10, which opens the general bar to an attorney in good standing before the highest court of any state. That means a Title IX, Section 504 or ADA complaint for an ICO student is one I file and litigate under my own name, with no pro hac vice motion. The Northern District abrogated its local-counsel designation rule in July 2023, so a member of its bar with no office in the district no longer has to designate local counsel. One limit, stated plainly: the court keeps a separate trial bar, and under Local Rule 83.12 a general-bar member who is not on it — that is me — appears alone in everything except testimonial proceedings, meaning evidentiary hearings and trial, where a trial-bar member must sit as advisor unless the judge grants the rule’s narrow waiver.

Grades and progress: the Student Promotions Committee

ICO measures standing every quarter, and the bar is 2.30, not 2.0. Good Academic Standing requires a passing grade in every course and a quarterly and cumulative grade point average of at least 2.30. One F or U final grade, or a quarterly average below 2.30, means Academic Probation; a cumulative average below 2.30, probation in two consecutive quarters, or the committee’s view that you are at increased risk means Academic Jeopardy. The operative sentence is short: “Students not in Good Academic Standing may be dismissed from the College.”

The Student Promotions Committee — six associate and assistant deans, two faculty members at large and a student member — may impose stipulations instead of dismissal: more time to raise your average, re-registration in a course, or a retest, under which an F is remediated by passing a comprehensive examination by the end of the second week of the next quarter, for a grade no higher than a D. Failing a stipulation can itself lead to dismissal. Before deciding, “in most instances” the committee asks for an SPC Student Profile Form, a meeting with the Assistant Dean for Student Success and a virtual meeting with the committee, which the Guide calls “an opportunity for the student to advocate why the SPC should intervene.” Treat that as the hearing, because the appeal is not one.

The dismissal appeal. A written request goes to the Vice President / Dean for Academic Affairs “within three business days of the notification,” arguing that the extenuating circumstances should be re-evaluated or that the committee’s action was not supported by the evidence. “The appeal process must not include new information or details previously withheld from the original SPC meeting”; new material goes to the committee chair. If the appeal is granted a hearing, the Vice President and the Dean of Student Affairs decide it, with the committee chair present but not voting. Meanwhile you are in “neutral academic standing (actively enrolled, attending classes/labs, participating in clinical duties as assigned, etc.),” you owe every charge incurred during the appeal whatever the outcome, and the decision is final. Reinstatement “does not reinstate eligibility for federal student financial aid,” which needs its own financial aid appeal, and the Guide publishes no route back after an academic dismissal. A grade you believe was entered in error must be raised with the instructor within five business days of posting.

Professionalism, cheating and the PCEC

The Professional Conduct and Ethics Committee — at least three faculty members and two students — reviews every professionalism report and, the Guide says, “will act swiftly.” Its list of unprofessional conduct includes HIPAA breaches, cheating and plagiarism, misuse of lecture recordings and course materials, and “Repeated failure to meet assigned obligations in professional and clinical training programs.” The Assessment Integrity Policy widens the net: “access/exposure to ICO assessment items/questions, in whole or in part, for any purpose whatsoever” is academic dishonesty, as are reconstructing questions “whether by memory or otherwise” and “Failure to promptly report” what others did — so receiving old questions in a group chat can be charged, and so can staying quiet about it. A November 2025 policy bars using generative AI for graded work unless authorized. Every integrity charge goes to this committee.

The committee investigates, decides whether a full meeting is needed, meets with the student and recommends; the Assistant Dean for Student Success then “renders the final decision” after reviewing “any previous student disciplinary issues.” Outcomes run from restorative assignments to suspension and, in the most egregious cases, dismissal. The appeal is due within three business days from the date of the sanctioning letter, in a letter to the Dean of Student Affairs, on three grounds: evidence not available at the committee meeting, procedural errors, or a disproportionate sanction. Here new evidence is a ground; on the promotions track it is barred. ICO publishes no standard of proof for either committee and no rule on advisors or attorneys for either. Misconduct outside class and clinic goes to the Dean of Student Affairs, who may refer it to the Behavioral Intervention Team, whose process the Guide says is handled “similar to Title IX complaints.”

Clinic, externships and the NBEO

After the second year ICO reviews each student’s Clinical Methods and Procedures record and clears direct patient care, allows it on probation with remediation, or denies it pending remediation. The appeal sentence is a drafting problem: you appeal “the decision of the Assistant Dean” to “the Academic Dean within three (3) days,” yet the next sentence says “the decision of the SPC is suspended until the appeal is reviewed and finalized by the Associate Dean.” The Guide does not say whether those are calendar or business days, so count calendar days and address both officials.

Attendance is enforced through probation: “The College will immediately place a student on Clinical Probation when a non-excused absence from a clinical activity occurs,” any further one goes automatically to the conduct committee, and you “may be suspended from clinical activities” meanwhile. A student judged clinically incompetent “to the point where patient welfare may be in jeopardy” is removed from patient care, and whether you continue is the Assistant Dean’s call — the Guide publishes no appeal from that clinical removal. On externship, a discharge for professionalism goes to the conduct committee and one for clinical performance to the promotions committee, which decides between a repeated quarter and dismissal.

The licensing examination is tied in. ICO certifies to the National Board of Examiners in Optometry who may sit, and students are eligible “Unless otherwise stipulated as ineligible by a letter from the Academic Program” — so a standing problem can become a Part I or Part II scheduling problem. Releasing your scores to ICO is a graduation requirement; passing is not on the Guide’s list. ICO may also impose a mandatory leave of absence, and three or more missed required-attendance activities in a quarter trigger a review for one.

Sexual misconduct under ICO’s 2025 Title IX policy

For sexual misconduct, the federal rule is the 2020 Title IX regulation: the 2024 rule was vacated nationwide on January 9, 2025, in Tennessee v. Cardona, and on September 29, 2026 the Department of Education formally repealed it and restored the pre-2024 text (91 Fed. Reg. 61,308). And as ICO’s own policy reflects, the 2020 regulation requires postsecondary institutions to hold a live hearing at which each party’s advisor conducts cross-examination. ICO’s Title IX Policy, effective January 9, 2025, presumes the respondent not responsible and applies the preponderance of the evidence standard. The parties get ten business days to review the evidence, notice of the hearing at least ten business days ahead, and “Each party must have an Advisor present; there are no exceptions.” An appeal is due “within 3 days of the delivery of the Notice of Outcome,” and the policy defines a day as “a normal business day for ICO”; the grounds are procedural irregularity, new evidence and bias, the decision is due within five business days, and sanctions are stayed meanwhile. One trap: ICO’s Campus Conduct page still links a 2024 policy written to the 2024 amendments, so confirm in writing which version is being applied. See Title IX hearings and cross-examination.

What a student defense lawyer can do here

Most of the value is early and quiet. It is reading ICO’s policy against what the College actually did and finding the gap; writing the response or the appeal so it argues the grounds the policy recognizes rather than the ones that feel most unfair; preserving the federal issues — Title IX, Section 504 and the ADA, FERPA — so they are in the record if the case ever leaves campus; and identifying comparators, because a sanction far outside what similar cases drew is one of the few arguments that reliably moves a decision-maker.

At ICO two moves are specific. First, build the promotions record before the committee decides: the Student Profile Form and the virtual meeting are where extenuating circumstances, documentation and a concrete plan must go, because the appeal cannot add them. Second, decide whether to appeal with the downside in view — on both committees the reviewing deans may impose something more severe — and when you do, tie every argument to a ground the Guide lists.

What a lawyer cannot do is turn a campus hearing into a trial. The rules of evidence do not apply, there is no discovery, and the school decides its own case at first instance. That is exactly why the written record built during the campus process is the whole ballgame: by the time a court looks at it, the record is closed.

The one Illinois statute that gives you procedure

Illinois has no general statute setting notice periods, hearing formats, standards of proof or appeal rights for college students. The Illinois School Code, 105 ILCS 5, has a detailed suspension and expulsion scheme, and it applies to elementary and secondary schools, not here. The exception is the Preventing Sexual Violence in Higher Education Act, 110 ILCS 155, and it is a real one. It reaches every higher education institution in the state — public universities, community colleges, and private not-for-profit and for-profit institutions alike — and it requires timely written notice of the allegations to all parties, an investigation that is adequate, reliable and impartial, written notice of the outcome, and appeal rights. It requires the school to make confidential advisors available, trained to a statutory standard and kept separate from the people deciding the case. Both parties are entitled to an advisor of their choice, and that advisor may be an attorney — although the institution may limit how far an attorney-advisor participates in a hearing, which is why ICO’s own rule on that, set out above, still governs what your lawyer may do in the room. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, applied the same way to both sides.

What to do first

1. Count three business days from the notice, not from when you read it. The promotions appeal runs from “the notification,” the professionalism appeal from the date of the sanctioning letter, the Title IX appeal from delivery of the Notice of Outcome. The clinic-entrance appeal says only “three (3) days”; treat those as calendar days.
2. Write the SPC Student Profile Form as if it were your appeal. Every circumstance, document and plan belongs in front of the committee the first time.
3. Save the Student Guide that governs you — the 2026–2027 edition was revised in September 2026 — and ask in writing which Title IX policy applies.
4. File the financial aid appeal separately. Being allowed to continue does not restore federal aid by itself.
5. Raise any disability now. Requests go to the Assistant Dean for Student Success with professional documentation; a condition that affected your performance is a Section 504 and ADA question for the record before the committee meets.
6. Make a complaint count. To enter the Student Complaint Log kept for accreditors, it must be written, signed, addressed to the President, the Vice President and Dean for Academic Affairs or the Dean of Student Affairs, and ask to be logged. The Illinois student defense hub explains how the federal courts fit in.

One honest caveat about geography. Illinois has three federal districts. I am admitted to two of them, the Northern and the Southern. A federal claim arising at a school in Springfield, Peoria, Champaign-Urbana or the Quad Cities falls in the Central District; I am not a member of that bar, and those matters I handle with local counsel in that district or by pro hac vice admission. Appeals from the Northern District go to the Seventh Circuit, which keeps its own bar; my appellate admission is in the Eleventh. I say so before a retainer rather than after.

Where I am licensed. I am licensed to practice law in Florida. I am admitted to the bars of the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of Florida, the District of Colorado, the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, the District of Nebraska, the District of New Mexico, and the Western District of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Federal court admission is not a license to practice the law of the state in which the court sits. I am not licensed in Illinois and do not advise on Illinois state law or appear in Illinois state court.

The federal money on the line at ICO

Illinois College of Optometry students took on $24.4 million in federal Direct Loans in the 2025–26 award year — with 304 graduate and professional students also borrowing through Grad PLUS.

Every dollar of it rides on academic standing. A dismissal, a failed Satisfactory Academic Progress evaluation, or a mid-term withdrawal sets off federal rules that decide whether aid continues, whether money already disbursed has to go back, and — under the borrowing caps in effect since July 1, 2026 — whether a student who leaves can still finance a return. The academic fight and the financial aid fight are the same fight, and the windows are short. How those rules work: SAP appeals and academic dismissal.

On the Department’s financial responsibility test, Illinois College of Optometry’s most recent published composite score is 2.8 (fiscal year 2022–23) — a passing score on the –1.0-to-3.0 scale, where 1.5 and above passes. How to read that number: the federal warning signs guide.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Data Center, Direct Loan volume by school, award year 2025–26 (cumulative through June 30, 2026). Institution-wide federal Direct Loan totals.

Other schools in the Northern District of Illinois

Every school writes its own dismissal, appeal and conduct rules, and the deadlines are rarely the same from one campus to the next. These pages set out the procedure at other schools in the Northern District of Illinois:

• Illinois Institute of Technology
• Institute for Clinical Social Work
• Judson University
• Lake Forest College
• Lewis University
• Lincoln College of Technology, Melrose Park

Common questions about ICO student cases

How long do I have to appeal an academic dismissal at ICO?

Three business days from the notification of the Student Promotions Committee decision, in writing to the Vice President / Dean for Academic Affairs. The appeal must show why your extenuating circumstances deserve re-evaluation or why the committee’s action was not supported by the evidence, and it may not add new information — that goes to the committee chair. You stay enrolled in “neutral academic standing” while it is pending, and the decision is final.

Can an appeal make my ICO sanction worse?

Yes, on both tracks. The Student Guide says a promotions appeal may end “to either a more- or less-favorable outcome,” and that on a professionalism appeal the Dean of Student Affairs “has the authority to render a disciplinary decision that is more or less severe than the original decision.” That does not make appealing wrong. It makes it a decision to take with the record in front of you rather than a reflex.

Can I bring a lawyer to an ICO hearing?

In a Title IX case, yes: each party must have an advisor of their choosing at the live hearing, and the advisor conducts the cross-examination. For the Student Promotions Committee and the Professional Conduct and Ethics Committee, the Student Guide publishes no rule on advisors or attorneys. Ask the committee chair in writing before the meeting, and expect a lawyer’s main contribution there to be the written submission.

What GPA do I need to stay in good standing at ICO?

A 2.30, both for the quarter and cumulatively, plus a passing grade in every course and no unmet committee stipulations. One F or U, or a quarterly average below 2.30, means Academic Probation; a cumulative average below 2.30 or two consecutive probation quarters means Academic Jeopardy. Students not in Good Academic Standing may be dismissed, and graduation also requires a cumulative 2.30.

Can ICO keep me from taking the NBEO?

It can affect your timing. ICO certifies to the National Board who may sit for each administration, and students of all academic statuses are eligible “unless otherwise stipulated as ineligible by a letter from the Academic Program.” If you receive such a letter, treat it like any adverse academic decision and respond in writing. The Guide requires you to release your NBEO scores to ICO before graduating; passing is not on its list of graduation requirements.

What standard of proof does ICO use?

For Title IX, the preponderance of the evidence, with a presumption that the respondent is not responsible. For the Student Promotions Committee and the Professional Conduct and Ethics Committee, the Student Guide publishes no standard at all. That gap is worth raising early: ask the committee in writing what standard it will apply, and hold it to the answer.