Source: Detroit Free Press | David Jesse

Students walk down South State Street on the University of Michigan central campus in Ann Arbor on Wednesday, June 13, 2018.

A state judge has denied the University of Michigan’s request to toss out a lawsuit filed by a student over the switch to online classes last spring.

None of U-M’s arguments for why the case should be tossed swayed the judge, including arguments that U-M’s decisions were exempt from being reviewed by a court.

Judge Michael Kelly of the Michigan Court of Claims said existing case law does not “stand for the notion that any decision regarding academics is beyond review for a court. That is, while (case law) describes a number of areas into which a court should be hesitant to intrude, principles of contract and quasi-contract are not among those areas.”

Kelly also attached a footnote adding to his thoughts on that matter.

“… the court notes troubling aspects of defendants’ position. For instance, adopting defendants’ position could lead to the conclusion that the university could simply cancel all classes and then retain tuition and fees, having made the academic judgment that instruction was unnecessary or unwarranted.”

U-M said it was looking at the ruling.

“We’re studying the opinion, but want to reiterate that University of Michigan students received a high-quality Michigan education last semester as the U-M adjusted to a global pandemic and complied with important public-health-based executive orders from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer,” spokesman Rick Fitzgerald told the Free Press.

The case is one of several filed against universities across the state and the nation by students seeking some sort of refund of tuition money because universities switched from face-to-face instruction to online.

More:University of Michigan: We don’t owe students refund for switching to online instruction

U-M switched to remote instruction for the final 27 days of the winter semester after Whitmer issued various stay-at-home orders. The university paid refunds of $1,200 for students who had been living in campus housing and moved out.

But no refund was paid for tuition. Classes continued online, with students allowed to drop classes.

Students suing the universities have argued their instruction was lessened by being online. U-M doesn’t debate that in its response, but says the decision on how to deliver instruction rests solely on the shoulders of the university and courts need to stay out of it.

In their argument to get the case tossed, U-M’s lawyers wrote, “Academic freedom for universities is ‘a special concern of the First Amendment.’  Academic freedom has been defined to include ‘four essential freedoms’ of a university to determine for itself on academic grounds ‘who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.’ “

The lawyer for those suing rebutted U-M’s claims.

“We agree that the university is entitled to academic freedom, but the university is not above the law,” David Fink said in a statement at the time of the filing. “The students paid the university to provide services that the university could not deliver — housing, meals and classroom education. We understand that the pandemic made it impossible to deliver some of these services, but the students and their families should not have to pay for services they did not receive.”

Contact David Jesse: 313-222-8851 or djesse@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter: @reporterdavid