Kaskaskia College: Student Discipline, Dismissal & Federal Court

How do student discipline and dismissal cases work at Kaskaskia?

Kaskaskia is a public community college of about 3,741 students at Centralia, serving Illinois Community College District No. 501. It publishes the most procedurally detailed conduct code of any community college in the Southern District of Illinois — and, partly because of that detail, it contains two internal contradictions that a student needs to know about before relying on either number. It also has a rule most students never see coming: at Kaskaskia, appealing can make your sanction worse.

Kaskaskia College is a public institution, so two bodies of law apply on top of its own handbook. The first is constitutional due process: the school is a state actor, and Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), requires notice of the charge and a meaningful chance to respond. The second is the deference courts give genuine academic judgment — Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978), and Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985), under which an academic decision stands unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms that no professional judgment was actually exercised.

Illinois law treats a community college differently from a state university, and the difference matters. Review of the board’s disciplinary decision does not run through the Illinois Administrative Review Law, which the Public Community College Act does not adopt for these matters; the vehicle is a common-law writ of certiorari in the circuit court — Maas v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 529, 94 Ill. App. 3d 562 (1981) — on which the court asks whether the board proceeded legally and whether the evidence supports what it did, not whether it was right. A community college district is a local public entity, not the State: it falls under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/1-206, rather than the Court of Claims Act, so a breach-of-contract claim against it is brought in circuit court — Luciano v. Waubonsee Community College, 245 Ill. App. 3d 1077 (1993). And in federal court the district has no Eleventh Amendment immunity — Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, 523 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1975) — so under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), it can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where its own policy or custom caused the constitutional violation.

A federal claim arising at Kaskaskia College is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois — Clinton County sits in that district under 28 U.S.C. § 93(c), and the court holds sessions at East St. Louis, Benton, Alton and Cairo. I was admitted to the bar of that court on 28 August 2026 on my Florida license, under its Local Rule 83.1(a), which opens general admission to any attorney licensed in any state. That means a Title IX, Section 504, ADA or due process suit for a Kaskaskia student is one I file and try under my own name, with no pro hac vice motion and no sponsoring attorney. It also means something most districts do not offer: Local Rule 83.1 states that parties represented by counsel who do not reside in the district are not required to retain local counsel, though the court keeps the power to order it for good cause in a particular case.

The appeal deadline Kaskaskia publishes twice, differently

The Student Code of Conduct Policy is Board Policy #5.52, printed in the 2025–2026 Student Handbook. Section VIII.A states the appeal deadline in two consecutive sentences, and they do not agree:

• “A decision reached or a code of conduct sanction may be appealed by accused students to an appeals committee within ten college business days of receipt of the decision.”
• “Failure to respond within the five college business days after the receipt of the [decision] …”

Both are published. Neither has been withdrawn. The prudent course is not to pick the one you prefer but to work to five college business days — the shorter of the two — because that is the only date that is safe under either reading. If you are already past five and inside ten, the conflict is itself an argument worth making in writing: a college that publishes two deadlines cannot fairly hold a student to the shorter one without notice.

The rest of the conduct clock: charges are presented in writing with a hearing date “not less than three nor more than 10 college business days” later; a decision by an appeal committee may then be appealed to the Vice President of Student Services within five college business days. Kaskaskia uses “college business days” throughout the conduct code and “working days” in its separate complaint procedure (Policy 5.1004), and it defines neither term.

The rule that makes appealing a decision, not a formality

Most colleges’ appeal provisions can only help you. Kaskaskia’s can hurt. The handbook states: “In cases involving appeals by students accused of violating the Code of Conduct, a review of the sanctions by an appeal committee may result in more severe sanctions for the accused students.“

That converts the decision to appeal into a genuine judgment call rather than an automatic next step. It has to be made on the strength of the grounds and the realistic range of outcomes, not on the feeling that the result was unfair. It is also the single best reason at this college to get the appeal drafted properly before it is filed.

Preponderance, and an advisor who may not ask a single question

Kaskaskia publishes its standard and defines it: “The student conduct board’s determination will be made on the basis of preponderance of the evidence (whether it is more likely than not that the accused student violated the Code of Conduct).”

Its advisor rule is the clearest in the district, and among the most restrictive. You may bring anyone: “The complainant and the accused student have the right to be assisted by any advisor they choose at their own expense.” An attorney is therefore not excluded. But the same passage makes the student the advocate — “the accused student is responsible for presenting his/her own case” — and the code then closes the door completely: “Advisors may not, in any circumstances, question the complainant, accused student, or conduct board.“

“In any circumstances” is about as tight as this language gets. In the academic-integrity appeal the advisor’s position is different but no more vocal: one advisor chosen by the student sits on the appeal committee as “a non-voting and non-presenting member.” Either way, the words that decide a Kaskaskia case are the ones written down before the hearing.

Academic integrity: a separate track, and one door that closes

Kaskaskia runs academic integrity as a distinct process with its own incident report form and Conduct Appeal Committee, defining cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation and fabrication. The clock is ten college business days at each stage: ten to request a formal appeal hearing from the Vice President of Student Services after the faculty member’s decision; ten for the Vice President to send written notification of the result; and ten more for a written appeal to the Vice President of Instructional Services, “the decision of [whom] is final.”

One interaction matters more than the deadlines. The grade-appeal route is expressly unavailable here: “Students may not use this appeal process for final grades assigned for academic dishonesty and academic integrity violations.” A failing grade given for cheating cannot be challenged as a grade — it can only be challenged by contesting the finding of dishonesty itself, through the integrity process, on the integrity clock. Students routinely lose that distinction and file in the wrong place, and by the time they discover it the integrity deadline has passed.

Kaskaskia’s general grade-appeal procedure is numbered 6.061 and lives on its policy portal. The portal is a single-page application whose direct links do not resolve, and the text of 6.061 is not publicly retrievable — so its day counts should be treated as unpublished rather than assumed. If a grade appeal is in prospect, request procedure 6.061 in writing and note the date you asked.

Academic standing, and losing the right to appeal by repeating

The published academic-standing appeal is two sentences long, and it sets no deadline: students placed on Academic Suspension “may appeal in writing to the Registrar or a designee.” No number of days is published, so the date in your own suspension notice is the operative one.

What Kaskaskia does publish, and what students should read carefully, is an escalating loss of rights: “Any student who is placed on suspension for a second time will not be allowed to appeal. The suspended student will not be allowed to attend for one semester following suspension.” The first suspension is therefore the one where an appeal exists at all. Treating it as a formality forfeits the only appeal the policy provides.

Financial aid, again, is a separate system with its own conflict. Kaskaskia publishes two different SAP appeal deadlines in two official places:

• The Student Handbook: “Financial Aid Suspension Appeals must be submitted within 14 calendar days.”
• The Financial Aid SAP page: “In order for the appeal to be considered it must be submitted by midterm of the semester in which you are requesting financial aid,” with the committee deciding within thirty calendar days.

As with the conduct code, do not silently pick one. Work to whichever expires first and put the discrepancy in writing. A student may enroll while an appeal is pending, but “no financial aid will be released unless the appeal is approved” — which means signing up for classes on the assumption of aid is a financial risk until the committee has actually decided.

Kaskaskia runs health programs in Nursing (LPN and ADN), Dental Assisting, Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Physical Therapist Assistant, Radiologic Technology, Respiratory Therapy and Paramedicine, under a Dean of Nursing and Health, each with program-level requirements in addition to the college’s.

What a student defense lawyer can do here

Most of the value is early and quiet. It is reading Kaskaskia’s policy against what the school 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 Kaskaskia the first hour of work is arithmetic. Identify which of the two published conduct deadlines — five or ten college business days — expires first and calendar it; do the same with the two SAP deadlines. Then make the appeal decision deliberately, because the code permits an appeal committee to increase the sanction. And if a failing grade was assigned for academic dishonesty, file in the integrity track: the grade-appeal route is expressly closed to it, and using the wrong one usually costs the right one.

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 Kaskaskia’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. Find the deadline and write it down. Every deadline on this page came from Kaskaskia’s own published document, and the unit matters as much as the number — business days, school days and calendar days produce very different dates from the same starting point. If the notice you were sent gives a different date from the policy, work to whichever is shorter.
2. Download the version of the policy that governed your cohort, not the one on the website today. Schools revise handbooks between catalog years, and the operative document is the one in force when the conduct happened. Save a PDF with the date visible.
3. Ask, in writing, for the evidence. Request the investigation file, the report, the exhibits and the names of anyone who decided. Put the request in email so the date exists.
4. Write nothing to the school about the merits until you know the process. A statement made to be helpful in a meeting becomes the record a court reviews later.
5. Say if you have a disability or requested an accommodation. If accommodations were requested and not provided, or a condition explains the performance, that is a Section 504 and ADA question that belongs in the record now, not on appeal.

One honest caveat about geography. Illinois has three federal districts. I am admitted to two of them: the Northern District, which takes Chicago and the northern counties, and the Southern District. 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. 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 Illinois colleges

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

• Lincoln Trail College
• Olney Central College
• Principia College
• Rend Lake College
• SIU Carbondale
• SIU Edwardsville

Common questions about Kaskaskia student cases

Is my Kaskaskia appeal deadline five days or ten?

The handbook publishes both, in consecutive sentences of the same section — ten college business days to appeal, then a reference to failing to respond within five. Work to five, because it is the only date safe under either reading. If you are past five but inside ten, the conflict itself is worth raising in writing: a college that publishes two deadlines is in a weak position to enforce the shorter one without notice.

Can appealing make things worse at Kaskaskia?

Yes, and the handbook says so: “a review of the sanctions by an appeal committee may result in more severe sanctions for the accused students.” That is unusual and it makes the decision to appeal a real judgment call rather than an automatic step. It should be taken on the strength of the grounds and the likely range of outcomes, with the appeal drafted before it is filed.

Can my advisor speak or ask questions at the hearing?

No. Kaskaskia lets you bring any advisor you choose at your own expense, including an attorney, but “advisors may not, in any circumstances, question the complainant, accused student, or conduct board,” and you remain responsible for presenting your own case. In the academic-integrity appeal your advisor sits on the committee as a non-voting, non-presenting member. The written submission is where the argument has to be made.

I got an F for plagiarism. Can I use the grade appeal process?

No — and this catches people out. Kaskaskia states that “students may not use this appeal process for final grades assigned for academic dishonesty and academic integrity violations.” The only route is to contest the finding of dishonesty itself, through the academic-integrity process, on its ten-college-business-day clock. Filing a grade appeal instead usually means the integrity deadline passes while you wait for an answer.

I have been suspended academically for the second time. What are my options?

Not an appeal, under the published policy: “Any student who is placed on suspension for a second time will not be allowed to appeal,” and the student may not attend for the following semester. That makes readmission after the suspension period, the accuracy of the underlying grades, and any accommodation that was requested and not provided the places where work can still make a difference. It is also why a first suspension is worth appealing properly.