VanderCook College of Music: Student Discipline, Dismissal & Federal Court

How do student discipline and dismissal cases work at VanderCook?

VanderCook College of Music is a small private college housed in two Mies van der Rohe buildings on the Illinois Institute of Technology campus, three miles south of the Loop in Cook County. It describes itself as “the only college in the nation solely devoted to the preparation of music teachers,” calls its students “candidates,” and is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and the National Association of Schools of Music, with its teacher-certification programs approved by the Illinois State Board of Education. Its 2026–27 College Catalog contains a sentence most colleges never write: in an appeal, “The candidate and VanderCook have the right to representation by an attorney throughout the appeal process” — provided each side tells the other in writing at least 72 hours before the hearing.

VanderCook College of Music 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 VanderCook College of Music 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 a VanderCook 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.

Appeals: fourteen days, a hearing the president may convene, and a lawyer

VanderCook has no stand-alone conduct code with its own hearing board. Its rules sit in the General Policies section of the catalog, and almost every adverse decision — academic, disciplinary or financial — runs through one procedure, “Candidate Grievances & Appeals.” Initial academic or financial-aid appeals go in writing to the appropriate dean or the Director of Financial Aid “within 14 days of the disputed decision” and “shall be responded to within 30 business days of the appeal.” A further appeal goes to the college president “within 14 days of notification of the disputed decision.” The catalog does not say whether those fourteen days are calendar or business days, so count them as calendar days. The appeal “must include a thorough explanation of the reason the decision is unfair or unjust.”

The list of decisions this route covers is broad: dismissal “due to poor scholarship, unacceptable behavior, or violation of academic honesty rules”; termination of federal or state aid eligibility; failure to be admitted to the teacher education program or to student teaching; failure to be entitled for the Illinois Professional Educator License; and failure of an exit requirement. “Based upon the circumstances of the situation, the president may establish a hearing procedure.” If a formal appeal appears warranted, a committee of three faculty or staff members and “two mutually agreed-upon candidates” reviews the decision — and that is the hearing at which both the student and the college may be represented by counsel.

Two cautions. First, the hearing is discretionary: the president “may” establish one, so the written appeal is the only document certain to be read. Second, the old and new texts disagree. The 2018 Harassment Policy that VanderCook’s Consumer Information page still links gives “15 days” for both appeal steps; the 2026–27 catalog gives fourteen. Work to fourteen. A separate grievance — a complaint the parties could not resolve informally — “must be filed by the grievant within 30 business days of the act the grievant is reporting,” and the college says it “will strive” to finish within 30 calendar days of the report.

Probation, termination and the gap between 2.0 and 2.5

For undergraduates, a semester GPA below 2.0 brings “Probation Warning.” Two consecutive semesters below 2.0, or a cumulative GPA below 2.0, may bring academic probation and a cap of 15 credit hours, and candidates who enter 300-level coursework without completing the jury components of the Teacher Candidacy Skills Assessment “are automatically placed on probation.” A candidate who cannot leave probation “after three consecutive semesters” may be terminated from the program. The trap is the graduation line: the BMEd requires a 2.5 GPA to graduate, and “all licensure students must have a 2.5 or higher” to qualify for license entitlement — so a candidate can be in good standing at 2.2 and still unable to finish the degree they came for. A candidate whose musicianship needs remediation can also be placed on “musical probation,” reviewed during the first semester of applied study.

Graduate candidates get less room. “There is no probationary period” for an MMEd, MCert or TCEP candidate below a 3.0 cumulative GPA after 20 or more credit hours (or 37% of required hours), and if the standards are not met by the end of the financial-aid warning period, “involuntary withdrawal from the program will occur.” Appeals of a termination of enrollment eligibility go to the graduate dean, and “Appeals must be submitted within 15 calendar days of the date of notification” — a different clock from the general fourteen-day rule, and one that states its unit. Undergraduate Satisfactory Academic Progress appeals for financial aid also run 15 calendar days, to the Director of Financial Aid.

Attendance rules are blunt. A candidate who misses all registered classes “for a consecutive period in excess of two weeks (14 consecutive calendar days)” without the dean’s permission is involuntarily withdrawn, and the catalog recommends that syllabi warn that anyone attending less than 80% of classes “should not expect to receive a passing grade.” After a dismissal, a candidate “is ineligible to apply for readmission for one calendar year from the date of dismissal,” must interview with the appropriate dean, and becomes permanently ineligible after a second dismissal.

Conduct, dispositions and AI

VanderCook’s conduct machinery is thin. A Standards Committee — an “appointed faculty and staff panel” — reviews student conduct and makes recommendations to the appropriate dean, and a Formal Hearing is defined only as “the platform allowing a grievant and respondent to present evidence to the Standards Committee.” The catalog publishes no standard of proof for conduct or academic honesty, no minimum notice before a hearing, and no deadline for a decision. What it does publish is a professionalism standard with teeth: the BMEd, TCEP and MCert carry “an even higher level of behavioral expectation in the areas of character and professionalism,” including flexibility “in the face of changing circumstances and institutional needs” and behavior, speech and dress fit for a school, and a consistent failure to meet the Candidate Dispositions “may result in sanctions up to and including dismissal from the program.” A disciplinary suspension automatically bans the candidate from college property and events.

On academic honesty the catalog names artificial intelligence expressly: unless a syllabus or instructor says otherwise, work “generated via artificial intelligence or other technology and submitted as the student’s own will be considered plagiarism.” Cheating “may result in failure of the class and academic expulsion.” The catalog describes no separate integrity procedure; the route for challenging an AI or plagiarism finding is the appeal route above, which lists dismissal for “violation of academic honesty rules.” And because VanderCook sits on IIT’s campus and its candidates are treated as IIT affiliates, the catalog adds that “VanderCook and IIT policies, procedures and resources will be in effect and used as appropriate to the situation” — so an incident in IIT housing or facilities can bring IIT’s processes into play as well.

Title IX: a flowchart from August 2024

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). VanderCook’s published Title IX procedure is a one-page flowchart whose file is labeled August 2024. It shows an informal-resolution track and two formal tracks: an “Investigator/Adjudicator Model,” in which a separate decisionmaker meets the parties and witnesses and asks questions proposed by the parties, and a live hearing, held in person or by video and recorded or transcribed. The Standards Committee or an assigned hearing officer decides responsibility “using the preponderance of the evidence standard,” and the respondent “is presumed to be not responsible” until the written determination. The catalog’s grievance rights add that neither party may be “cross-examined or questioned directly by the other party,” and that questions may be suggested to whoever is resolving the complaint. Neither document describes questioning by advisors. If you are a party, ask in writing which track the college will use and what your advisor may do — before the hearing, not at it.

What a student defense lawyer can do here

Most of the value is early and quiet. It is reading VanderCook’s rules against what was actually done and finding the gap; writing the response or the appeal so it argues the grounds the rules recognize 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.

Two moves are specific to VanderCook. First, use the catalog’s own words about itself: “The catalog for the year in which a candidate enters VanderCook is the governing document for academic policies and all points of concern for that candidate.” If a rule changed after you enrolled, that sentence is the argument that the old rule governs you. Second, ask the president in writing to convene the hearing the catalog allows, and give the 72-hour written notice of counsel at the same time, so the record shows the request was made — and, if it was refused, when. Where a student-teaching placement or a license entitlement is at stake, the appeal should answer the Candidate Dispositions point by point, because those are the standards the college will cite.

What a lawyer cannot do is turn a campus process 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 everything: 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 VanderCook’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 fourteen days from the decision, and write the date down. The catalog gives 14 days for the first appeal and 14 more for the appeal to the president, without saying calendar or business — treat them as calendar days. Graduate termination and financial-aid appeals run 15 calendar days. If your letter names a different date, work to the earlier one.
2. Save the catalog for your entering year and the 2026–27 catalog. VanderCook says the entering-year catalog governs you. Download both with the dates visible.
3. Write the appeal as an argument, not an apology. It must explain “the reason the decision is unfair or unjust.” Attach what the decision rested on — jury rubrics, TCSA scores, disposition evaluations, emails — and ask in writing for anything you have not seen.
4. Ask for the hearing, and give notice of counsel in writing. If a lawyer will attend an appeal hearing, the other side must be told at least 72 hours before, by email or letter.
5. Raise disability now. If accommodations were requested and not provided, or a condition explains the performance, say so in the first appeal — it is a Section 504 and ADA question that belongs in the record from the start. The Illinois overview page explains how these issues travel if a case leaves campus.

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.

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:

• Wheaton College
• Worsham College of Mortuary Science
• Adler University
• American Islamic College
• Aurora University
• Benedictine University

Common questions about VanderCook student cases

How long do I have to appeal at VanderCook?

Fourteen days from the disputed decision for the first written appeal to the dean or the Director of Financial Aid, and fourteen days from notification for the next appeal to the president. The 2026–27 catalog does not say whether those are calendar or business days, so count calendar days. Graduate candidates appealing a termination of enrollment eligibility have 15 calendar days, to the graduate dean. An older 2018 policy still posted online says 15 days for the general appeals; work to the catalog’s 14.

Can I bring a lawyer to a VanderCook appeal hearing?

Yes. The catalog says “The candidate and VanderCook have the right to representation by an attorney throughout the appeal process.” The condition is notice: each side must tell the other in writing, by email or letter, at least 72 hours before the hearing. A hearing is not automatic — the president “may establish a hearing procedure” — so ask for one in writing when you file the appeal.

What standard of proof does VanderCook use?

For Title IX matters, the college’s flowchart says the Standards Committee or a hearing officer decides responsibility using the preponderance of the evidence standard, with the respondent presumed not responsible until the written determination. For everything else — conduct, academic honesty, academic dismissal — VanderCook publishes no standard of proof. That silence is worth raising in an appeal: a decision should say what it found and on what evidence.

Can VanderCook dismiss me for dispositions rather than grades?

Yes. For BMEd, TCEP and MCert candidates, the catalog says a consistent failure to reflect the Conceptual Framework, the Candidate Dispositions and Outcomes, and the expectations communicated to candidates “may result in sanctions up to and including dismissal from the program.” Failure to be admitted to student teaching and failure to be entitled for the license are both listed as appealable decisions, so the 14-day appeal route applies to them.

If I am dismissed from VanderCook, can I come back?

Not for a year. A dismissed candidate “is ineligible to apply for readmission for one calendar year from the date of dismissal,” readmission depends on what you have done since, and the appropriate dean must interview you. A second dismissal makes a candidate permanently ineligible. Note too that a candidate who returns after a suspension for academic deficiency is governed by the catalog for the year of re-enrollment, not the original one.