Caleb Wesen, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0249

Caleb Wesen,
Relator,

vs.

University of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed November 13, 2017
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

University of Minnesota
Office of Executive Vice President and Provost

David R. Lundgren, Adam T. Johnson, Lundgren & Johnson, P.S.C., St. Paul, Minnesota
(for relator)

Douglas R. Peterson, General Counsel, Brian J. Slovut, Deputy General Counsel, Carrie
Ryan Gallia, Assistant General Counsel, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
(for respondent)

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; R odenberg, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator Caleb Wesen challenges the student-disciplinary
decision of respondent University of Minnesota (university), arguing that procedural errors

2
in the decision-making process and due-proce ss violations require that the university’s
decision be reversed, or in the alternative, remanded for a new hearing. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator and J.G. were undergraduate stude nts at the University of Minnesota and
worked as gallery guards at the Weisman Art Museum. In August 2016, relator began
sending Facebook messages to J.G. On August 29, 2016, relator wrote to J.G. that she was
“cute” and “beautiful.” J.G. replied, in part, “thank you!” J.G. testified that the messages
made her feel uncomfortable but that she tried to be polite at first. Over the next four days,
relator sent 14 additional Facebook messages to J.G. and received three replies. On
September 2, relator wrote to J.G. that he had engaged in stalking behavior “years ago,”
and asked if she was interested in talking more about it by text message. J.G. replied that
they were both working an upcoming event and she would prefer not to text. J.G. testified
that this message made her feel very uncomf ortable. Over the next week, relator sent
several more Facebook messages to J.G. She did not reply.
On September 7, 2016, relator came into the museum unexpectedly while J.G. was
working. J.G. believed relator knew that sh e was scheduled to work and had stalked her.
After relator left, J.G. notified her supervisor that relator might be sexually harassing her.
J.G. reported that relator made her uncomfo rtable by frequently following her around the
museum on their work shifts, by speaking to her about his sexual activity, including his
“poly-relationship,” sexual desires, and “kinky sex stuff,” and on one occasion, by touching
the breast pocket of the shirt sh e was wearing, explaining that he admired the stitching.
According to J.G., rela tor told J.G. he wanted her to join his polyamorous relationship,

3
which relator later denied. The supervisor spoke to two other female guards, who
corroborated J.G’s account of relator’s behavi or. On September 8, 2016, the supervisor
terminated relator’s employment and notified the university’s Office of Equal Opportunity
and Affirmative Action (EOAA) of the alleged harassment.
Relator returned to the muse um on the day following his termination. He sent a
Facebook message to J.G. to warn her that he would be at th e museum. Relator said that
he intended to return his work shirt and visit an exhibit. After security personnel observed
relator pacing and acting erratically in an exhi bit, university police escorted relator from
the museum and issued him a no trespassing order, prohibiting him from returning to the
museum. Relator sent another Facebook message to J.G.: “. . . and I got kicked out for
trespassing. Good bye [J.G.].” On Septem ber 10, 2016, relator sent a final Facebook
message to J.G. asking whether she had filed a restraining order against him, if there were
locations he should avoid, inquiring about what he said that made her uncomfortable, and
explaining that he di d not intend to make her uncomfor table and would be seeking help.
J.G. did not reply.
On October 11, 2016, the EO AA completed an investigation into relator’s alleged
harassment of J.G. The EOAA concluded that relator sexually harassed and stalked J.G.
in violation of the university’s Student Conduc t Code, section 4, subdivisions 6 (Harm to
Person) and 19 (Sexual Harassment). Specific ally, the EOAA determin ed that relator’s
conduct was sexual in nature, referenced sexual activity, intimate relationships, and J.G.’s
physical appearance, and that it was unwe lcome and interfered with J.G.’s working
environment, in violation of the university ’s sexual harassment policy. The EOAA also

4
determined that relator had engaged in a course of conduct toward J.G. that was
unwelcome, unreciprocated, a nd reasonably caused her to feel fear, which constituted
stalking under university policy.
The EOAA forwarded its investigation and findings to the unive rsity’s Office for
Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI). On Oc tober 13, 2016, the OSCAI
notified relator of its finding that he was re sponsible for the alleged violations of the
Student Conduct Code and offered to info rmally resolve the matter by imposing an
immediate academic suspension until summer term 2017, disc iplinary probation for the
remainder of his academic program, and a ban from campus fo r the length of his
suspension. Relator declined the proposed resolution and requested a formal hearing
before the Student Sexual Misconduct S ubcommittee (SSMS). Relator engaged a
university law student to represent him at the SSMS hearing.
The SSMS is comprised of members from the EOAA, the OSCAI, the Office of
Student Affairs, the Senate Office, and the university’s Office of General Counsel. Under
the SSMS procedure, a student discipline hear ing is conducted before a three- to five-
member panel that reviews the case de novo. The SSMS panel is authorized to determine
responsibility for violations of the Student Conduct Code, based on a preponderance-of-
the-evidence standard, and ma y change the findings and/or disciplinary sanctions
determined by the EOAA and the OSCAI. Panelis ts receive a copy of the investigation
report and an optional rebuttal statement from the accused student. But panelists consider
testimony and evidence presented at the hear ing anew. The accuse d student may bring a
lay advocate or licensed attorney to represent him at the hearing. An OSCAI staff member

5
or lawyer from the Office of the General Counsel presents the university’s case. After the
close of the hearing, the SSMS panel issues its written decision to the parties. Any party
may appeal decisions of the SSMS panel to the university provost or her designee.
Relator provided a written statement to the SSMS panel before his hearing. Relator
wrote that he did not deny the things that he said to J.G., and admitted that he had made
mistakes, but wanted to clarify that his intent was not to make J.G. uncomfortable. Relator
asked the panel for leniency and wrote that he “requested a hearing so that I could finish
my academic career, not to avoid taking responsibility for my actions.” Relator indicated
his understanding that he would graduate regardless of the sanction.
On November 17, 2016, relator and his student advocate attended a prehearing
meeting at which the SSMS chair reviewed the hearing procedures. She informed relator
that, among other things, the hearing would open with a presentation of the complaint and
the alleged rules violations. Relator would then have an opportunity to respond and would
“need to indicate whether you feel that you’re responsible or not responsible.” During the
meeting, the university officials asked rela tor on four occasions whether he had any
questions about the hearing process. Relator did not ask any questions.
On November 22, 2016, relator appeared before a three-member SSMS panel for
his formal disciplinary hearing. The SSMS chair again reviewed the hearing procedure
and asked if there were any questions. Receiv ing no questions, she re ad the complaint.
The SSMS chair then asked relator to state his name and his response of either “responsible
or not responsible.” Relator replied, “I’m Caleb Wesen. And I am responsible.”

6
Following relator’s plea, the university presenter pr oceeded with her opening
statement. The university pr esenter said, “[a]s the student has pled responsible, [the
panel’s] responsibility is really to determine what’s an appropriate sanction.” Relator did
not object. Relator’s advocate followed with his opening statement. The advocate began
by saying:
Given that Caleb has pled responsible, and I think you may be
aware, having looked at the materials, there is no law that’s in
dispute. Like the very basic facts that are alleged . . . are
supported by both sides. What’s really at issue here is, first of
all, the sanction. And second, the intent—the intent and the
interpretation of the actions that occurred.

Relator’s advocate asked the panel to view relator’s conduct at the museum and the
Facebook messages from relator’s perspective. The advocate dis puted the claim that
relator had been outside of J.G.’s apartment. Later in the opening statement, relator’s
advocate said that relator understood the inappropriateness of his actions, the effect on J.G.,
and the extent to which his actions violated the Student Conduct Code, but added that some
of the allegations went beyond what actually occurred. The advocate ended his opening
comments by saying:
Finally, given that there isn’t a lot in contest here, why are we
here[?] Caleb was offered an informal resolution of a
suspension. Had he taken that, he would have been suspended
this semester and would have had to restart his academic career
later. He’s scheduled to graduate this semester. . . . We were
hoping to resolve it favorably so that we didn’t have to go to a
hearing, we wouldn’t have to co ntest some of these issues, he
would just finish and be done with it . . . . Unfortunately, here
we are. Basically, regardless of what sanction you all choose,
he’s still going to graduate. . . . Still, I hope that you choose a
sanction . . . that is appropria te. We would ask that you
choose—or decide on a sanction involving probation . . . .

7

The university presenter distributed in formation to the SSMS panel, including
EOAA witness statements, screenshots of Facebook messages between J.G. and relator, a
gallery guard job description, and relator’s academic progress report. Four witnesses were
called on behalf of the university: relator’s museum supervisor, a gallery guard co-worker,
J.G., and J.G.’s roommate. Relator’s advocat e cross-examined each witness. Relator
testified and called no other witnesses. On cross-examination, the university presenter
asked relator about his plea. Relator answered that he felt he should take responsibility for
talking to J.G. about polyamor ous relationships and Kinky U,1 and for sending messages
to J.G. Relator added, “They happened. Ther e’s evidence of it right there . . . . I don’t
feel any need to say that those [things] didn’t ha ppen. . . . But . . . I wanted to be able to
say my intent behind it. [Be]cause it’s not nefarious.”
During closing statements, relator’s advocate reiterated that relator took
responsibility for his actions and his inappropriate statements, but that he did not act with
malicious intent. The advocate closed with a request that the panel implement a sensible
sanction. The essential thrust of relator’s case concerned the appropriate sanction and not
whether relator was responsible for a violation. At the close of the hearing, the SSMS chair
stated that the panel would decide on the appropriate sanction but would not vote on
responsible/not responsible because relator already pleaded responsible. Relator made no
objection to this course of action.

1 Relator reported that Kinky U is a student group at the university.

8
On November 28, 2016, the university notif ied relator of the SSMS panel’s decision
to impose disciplinary sanctions. The SSMS decision letter stated, in part, “The Panel met
directly following the conclusion of the hear ing in a deliberative session. As you pled
responsible to the Student Conduct Code subdiv isions charged, the Panel did not vote on
the subdivisions but moved directly into a discussion of the sanction.” The panel
sanctioned relator with a suspension through August 7, 2017, a cam pus ban during the
suspension, and an order of no contact with J.G. The panel explained that it found J.G.’s
testimony credible. The panel expressed concern that relator seemed not to fully appreciate
the impact of his actions.
On December 16, 2016, relator appealed the panel’s decision to the university
provost. Relator contended that the SSMS panel violated the university hearing
procedures, in part, by (1) sanctioning relator without voting or finding relator responsible
for the alleged violations of the Student Conduct Code, (2) accepting his plea of
“responsible” despite evidence that relato r maintained his innocence and sought
adjudication of the allegations, and (3) failing to provide relator notice of certain evidence
that was introduced at the hearing. Relator requested that the provost set aside the sanctions
and order a new hearing, or, in the alternativ e, that the provost amend the sanctions to
reflect probation in lieu of a suspension.
On December 21, 2016, the provost affi rmed the SSMS panel’s decision. The
provost explained that “the Panel did not vote on whether or not [relator] violated
Subdivisions 6 and 19 of the Student Conduct Code because there was no need; he pled
responsible to those violations.” On December 30, 2016, relator requested leave to file for

9
reconsideration of the provost’s decision. On January 31, 2016, the provost denied
relator’s request.
This certiorari appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Appellate courts generally defer to university decisions. Bailey v. Univ. of Minn. ,
290 Minn. 359, 360-61, 187 N.W.2d 702, 703-04 (1971); see Bd. of Regents v. Reid , 522
N.W.2d 344, 346 (Minn. App. 1994) (noting that as a “c onstitutional arm of Minnesota
state government,” the university occupies a unique position, and its governing body is
“generally free of legislative, executive, or judicial interference as long as it properly
executes its duties”), review denied (Minn. Oct. 27, 1994). However, a university’s
discretion is not unlimited, and its decisions must be explained. Ganguli v. Univ. of Minn.,
512 N.W.2d 918, 923 (Minn. App. 1994). Ou r review of a university decision is limited
to
an inspection of the record of the administrative tribunal, and
. . . confined to questions a ffecting the regularity of the
proceedings and, as to the mer its of the contr oversy, whether
the determination was arbitrar y, oppressive, unreasonable,
fraudulent, made under an erroneous theory of law, or without
any evidence to support it.

Chronopoulos v. Univ. of Minn., 520 N.W.2d 437, 441 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied
(Minn. Oct. 27, 1994). “A university’s decision may be arbitrary if the university violates
its own procedures.” Tatro v. Univ. of Minn. , 800 N.W.2d 811, 81 6 (Minn. App. 2011),
aff’d on other grounds, 816 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 2012).

10
I. The university did not violate its own procedures by accepting relator’s plea of
“responsible” and making no further finding concerning his responsibility.

Relator argues that the university violated the following procedures: (1) Board of
Regents Policy section 7, subd ivision 1 (“A finding of respon sibility for violation of the
Student Conduct Code must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. . . . [If a hearing
is requested] a panel will determine responsibility and potential sanctions . . . .”); (2) SSMS
Order of Proceedings (“The Panel finds the accused responsible or not responsible for each
Student Conduct Code subdivision alleged in the complaint.”); and (3) Student Conduct
Code Procedure (“[T]he hearing process usually allows for students to . . . be notified in
writing of the alleged violatio n and the underlying factual alle gations . . . [and] be found
responsible only if the information as a whole shows that it is more likely than not that the
student’s conduct violated [the Student Conduc t Code] . . . .”). Relator argues that the
university violated “these” procedures by fa iling to make factual findings on contested
facts and failing to make an ultimate finding that relator violated the Student Conduct Code.
At the conclusion of the SSMS hearing, th e chair informed rela tor that the panel
would decide on any sanctions but would “not be voting on responsib le/not responsible,
because [relator has] already pled that.” The university provost later explained, “the Panel
did not vote on whether or not relator violated Subdivisions 6 and 19 . . . because there was
no need; he pled responsible to those violations.”
Contrary to relator’s argument, the university’s student discipline procedures do not
require that the disciplinary panel make specifi c findings on facts that are not in dispute.
The university procedures set forth the evidentiary standard and authorize the SSMS panel

11
to find an accused student responsible for ch arged violations. Th e procedures do not
specifically address the precise effect of a stude nt’s plea of “responsible,” but neither is
there any requirement that the panel make findings concerning re sponsibility when the
student pleads “responsible.” We see no vi olation of the univers ity’s procedures by
accepting relator’s plea of responsible as its basis for holding him responsible for the
charges. Relator’s presentati on to the SSMS panel concerned only the sanction. He
expressly acknowledged responsibility for the claimed violati ons of the Student Conduct
Code. Neither relator nor his student advoca te offered evidence or argument that he did
not violate the code.
Nonetheless, relator relies on our decision in Ganguli that the university decision
was arbitrary because it was rendered without specific findings on each charged violation.
In Ganguli, we held that decisions rendered without findings are characterized as arbitrary
and capricious. 512 N.W.2d at 923 (citation omitted). However, this case is readily
distinguishable from Ganguli. In Ganguli, we reversed the decision of a university
committee after the committee rejected a complaint arising from a denial of faculty tenure.
Id. at 923-24. Under the tenure procedures, the committee was required to make findings,
conclusions, and recommendations af ter reviewing th e complaint. Id. at 921, 923. We
determined that the committee acted arbitrar ily by failing to make any findings in its
decision denying the tenure complaint, thus pr eventing meaningful appellate review. Id.
at 923-24.
Here, the SSMS panel relied on relator’s plea as the factual basis for its disciplinary
decision. The panel so indicated in its decision letter, stating, “[a]s [relator] pled

12
responsible to the Student Conduct Code subdiv isions charged, the Panel did not vote on
the subdivisions but moved di rectly into a discussion of the sanction.” The university
adequately explained the basis of its decision and did not act arbitrarily. Moreover, relator
fails to identify on appeal how the university would have, on this record, found relator not
responsible; he readily acknowledged respons ibility, and both relator and his student
advocate asked only for a limited sanction for relator’s admitted violations of the Student
Conduct Code.
Relator also argues that the university viol ated its procedures by failing to provide
notice of new factual allegations that were introduced at the hearing. Specifically, relator
alleges that the university did not provide notice before the hearing that it would introduce
evidence that relator had been seen loitering outside of J.G.’s apartment.
Before the hearing, relator’s advoc ate contacted the SSMS chair and SSMS
secretary and provided a copy of a restraining order that had been issued against relator,
prohibiting him from being within two blocks of J.G.’s apartment and within one-quarter
mile of the Weisman Art Museum. Relator also submitted a written prehearing statement
to the SSMS panel in which he acknowledged the existence of a restraining order that
contained a new allegation that he had been near J.G.’s apar tment, which he denied. On
the same day, relator attended a prehearing meeting at which he and his advocate discussed
the restraining order with the SSMS chair, SSMS secretary, and the university presenter.
Relator’s advocate agreed with the university representatives that the reasons underlying
the restraining order would overlap with the a llegations presented at the hearing, but that
the restraining order itself would not be dispositive of any fact or allegation.

13
At the hearing, the university briefly mentioned the allegation that relator had been
seen near J.G.’s apartment in its opening statement. Relator’s advocate responded in
greater detail. He provided information about the accusation, questioned the accuracy of
the identifications, and denied that relator ha d been in the area. J.G. and her roommate
testified that they saw relator outside of their apartment on two occasions after the
conclusion of the EEOA investigation. Rela tor’s advocate cross-ex amined each witness
and directly questioned relato r about the allegations. Neith er the university nor relator
mentioned the restraining order, and relator did not object to the introduction of the factual
allegations concerning his presence near J.G.’s residence.
The university procedure provides that accused students will “usually . . . be notified
in writing of the alleged violation and the underlying factual allegations . . . .” Before the
hearing, relator received notice of the charge of “Harm to Person” fo r stalking, a copy of
the EEOA investigation containing factual allegations related to stalking, and notice of the
university’s witnesses, including J.G and her roommate. Relator and his advocate
conferred with the university an d agreed that the reasons fo r the restraining order would
overlap with the allegations presented at the h earing. During the hearing, relator did not
object to the introduction of the allegation th at he had twice been outside of J.G.’s
apartment. He responded fully to the allega tion. We conclude that relator received
sufficient notice of the factual allegations th at were introduced at his hearing and the
university did not violate its procedures.

14
II. The university’s acceptance of relator’s plea of “responsible” was not arbitrary
or otherwise improper.

Relator argues that he did not understa nd the consequence of pleading responsible
and that the university acted arbitrarily by accepting his plea without a full exploration of
the evidence supporting it.
First, relator contends that the univers ity never explained that if he pleaded
responsible the SSMS panel would forgo making a finding concerning responsibility. He
claims to have believed that findings concerning responsibility would be made despite his
plea. At the prehearing meeting, relator was informed that the hearing would open with a
presentation of the charges, after which relator would have an opportunity to respond and
would need to indicate whether he was pleading responsible or not responsible. Relator
was asked four times if he had any questions about the h earing process. He asked no
questions. During the formal hearing, the SSMS chair asked if anyone had questions about
the process before the complaint was read. Relator asked none. After the SSMS chair read
the charges and asked for relator’s response as to whether he was responsible or not
responsible, relator replied, “I’m Caleb Wesen. And I am responsible.” To be sure, the
university did not explicitly inform relator that the panel would forgo making specific
findings based on his plea; neither did the univ ersity inform relator that the panel would
make specific findings regardless of his plea . The record shows th at relator had ample
opportunities before and during the hearing to ask questions an d seek clarification on his
plea and its consequences. He sought no cl arification. Relator’s contention that the

15
university led him to believe that the panel would make specific findings irrespective of
his plea is without merit.
Second, relator asserts that he pleaded responsible only to affirm that he committed
certain actions, but that he intended to contest whether those actions constituted violations
of the Student Conduct Code. Relator asserts that his plea of responsible “did not entail
the consideration or meaning attributed to it by the University and was not a waiver of his
right to a hearing . . . .” Relator’s written statement to the SSMS panel before the hearing
and his presentation of his case belie his assertions on appeal.
In his written statement to the panel, rela tor asked for leniency and stated that he
“requested a hearing so that I could finish my academic career, not to avoid taking
responsibility for my actions.” 2 Relator admitted wrongdoing and wrote that he did not
intend to harm J.G. During relator’s testimony, the university’s presenter asked him about
his plea and for what he was taking responsi bility. Relator testified that he took
responsibility for his conversations and messages to J.G. Relator said, “They happened.
There’s evidence of it right there . . . . I don’t feel any need to say that those [things] didn’t
happen. . . . But . . . I wanted to be able to say my intent behind it. [Be]cause it’s not
nefarious.” In opening and closing statements, relator’s advocate told the panel that relator

2 Relator understood that he would graduate after the fall 2016 semester regardless of the
panel’s disciplinary decision. Relator’s advocate and the university presenter repeated this
understanding throughout the disciplinary hearing. However, relator later learned he would
not graduate because he had failed a freshman-level course.

16
accepted responsibility for his actions and asked the panel to impose a reasonable sanction.
No argument was made that there should be no sanction.
At the close of the hearing, relator was told that the panel would move to determine
sanctions because he had plea ded responsible. Relator di d not object. The record
demonstrates that relator understood the consequence of pleading responsible. He put on
a case to explain his intent and to seek a lesser sanction from the panel. The university did
not act arbitrarily by accepting relator’s plea.
III. Relator’s due-process rights were not violated.
Relator argues that he was denied due process of law because the panel accepted his
plea without analyzing and weighing the evid ence to reach its decision. Relator also
reasserts, as claims of due-process violati ons, his arguments that the university acted
arbitrarily by (1) failing to make specific findings that relator violated the Student Conduct
Code, apart from his plea, and (2) failing to provide notice of all of the underlying factual
allegations that were introduced at the hearing.
The United States and Minnesota Constituti ons guarantee the right to due process
of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7. A student’s interest in
attending a public university is protected by the due-process clause. Abbariao v. Hamline
Univ. Sch. of Law , 258 N.W.2d 108, 112 (Minn. 19 77). Due-process requirements are
flexible and “var[y] with the circumstances of the case . . . [and] involve[] a balancing of
the interests involved in the speci fic case under consideration.” In re Welfare of H.G.B. ,
306 N.W.2d 821, 825 (Minn. 1981) (citing Cafeteria & Rest. Workers Union, Local 473 v.
McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S. Ct. 1743, 1748 (1961)). Whether procedural due-

17
process rights have been violated is a question of law reviewed de novo. Plocher v. Comm’r
of Pub. Safety, 681 N.W.2d 698, 702 (Minn. App. 2004).
Due process requires that students facing su spension receive notice and a hearing.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579, 95 S. Ct. 729, 738 (1975). “When the sanction is for
misconduct, a student must be given notice and some opportunity to be heard.” Shuman v.
Univ. of Minn. Law Sch ., 451 N.W.2d 71, 74 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn.
Mar. 16, 1990). If the school acts in bad faith or is arbitrary or capricious in imposing a
sanction, courts may intervene. Id. (citing Abbariao, 258 N.W.2d at 112). In Dixon v.
Alabama State Bd. of Ed. , the Fifth Circuit concluded that public college students facing
expulsion should receive notice of the charges, the names of witnesses and a report on the
facts to which each will testify, and an opportunity to present a defense against the charges
through testimony or written affidavits of witnesses. 294 F.2d 150, 158-59 (5th Cir. 1961).
Here, the university provided relator with notice of the specific charges, the names of the
witnesses, the underlying factual allegations included in the investigation report, the
opportunity to testify, call witnesses, and cross-examine the university’s witnesses, and the
opportunity to be represented by a lay advocate or attorney at the hearing. The university
also conducted a full hearing even after relator pleaded responsible to the charges.
Relator relies on Juster Bros., Inc. v. Christgau to argue that an administrative
hearing violates due process unless the deci sion-maker analyzes and weighs the evidence
to reach a determination. 214 Minn. 108, 120, 7 N.W.2d 501, 508 (1943) (citing Morgan
v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 23, 58 S. Ct. 999, 1000 (1938 )). This case is unlike Juster.
Juster involved a contested appeal from an ad ministrative agency d ecision to set an

18
employer’s contribution rate for unemployment compensation. Id. at 109, 112, 7 N.W.2d
at 503. Here, relator pleaded responsible to the charges. Relator cites no authority for
reversing an agency decision where the deci sion-maker failed to analyze and weigh the
evidence after a party has accepted responsibility . Relator admitted the violations of the
Student Conduct Code and did not request that the university determine whether there was
a violation. The disciplinary panel consid ered only the appropriate sanction for the
admitted violations, exactly as relator requested.
Relator was not deprived of due proce ss of law by the uni versity’s student
disciplinary process.
Affirmed.