正当程序是一个经典且历久弥新的议题。在推进高等学校依法治理，提高高校治理体系和治理能力现代化水平的今天，如何在学生惩戒中，通过正当程序的充分实现来保障学生权利显得格外重要。高校在行使惩戒权的过程中，惩戒决定程序作为惩戒权实施的核心阶段，其与惩戒规则制定程序和惩戒救济程序共同构成了惩戒程序的全貌。但从当前高校听证制度的建构、校规文本中的程序性条款、司法典型案例以及相关学术研究来看，在惩戒决定程序环节，由于正当性缺失，使得学生因未能充分参与到程序中，大大降低了惩戒决定的可接受度，造成学生权利受损、学校声誉降低和司法资源浪费等诸多弊端。特别是近年来的“于艳茹案”“柴丽杰案”等受到社会广泛关注的案例对程序正当性提出的实质性要求，倒逼学术界对惩戒决定程序进行更为精细化的研究，以为学校治理的法治化、科学化和制度化提供理论支撑。鉴于此，本文在重塑学生惩戒分类维度的基础上，基于公民参与理论和平衡理论，明确学生惩戒决定程序正当性的标准，并以程序主体、依据和阶段为轴心建构起整体研究的理论分析框架，进而通过文本分析、案例研究等方法对国内外学生惩戒决定程序相关的法律规范、校规和司法案例进行全景呈现，找出其中的问题，尝试提出完善高校学生惩戒决定程序的路径。研究内容具体分为以下四个部分：
        第一部分主要围绕学生惩戒的性质和类别、惩戒决定程序的价值基础及其标准与应用等基本问题，搭建研究的理论分析框架，包括第一章和第二章。学生惩戒决定程序作为学校依法依规对学生作出负面评定的决定过程，是惩戒程序中的关键环节，主要包括惩戒决定程序启动、拟惩戒决定作出和正式惩戒决定作出三个阶段。在这个过程中，由于正义是程序的核心价值，而正当性又是实现正义的重要路径，故程序正当性便成为一切程序的价值基础，学生惩戒决定程序也不例外。具体到学生惩戒决定程序，应兼具程序性和实质性的程序正当性标准，即无偏私、及时获得参与感以及经抗辩和证成获取正当理由。考虑到学生惩戒具有行政罚、类社团罚和专业罚多重属性，在应用公民参与理论和平衡论时，需要同时兼顾学生惩戒分类的三大维度，将不同惩戒事项对应于正当性标准下的不同参与方式，进而确定相应的监督主体。
        第二部分即第三章，这部分结合理论分析框架，对我国的法律规范、校规和司法案例进行全方位呈现。主要以法律规范文本、校规文本和学生惩戒案例判决书为分析蓝本，分析了我国学生惩戒决定程序的现状和问题。研究发现，我国学生惩戒决定程序最明显的特点是：法律规范对惩戒决定程序的立法主旨逐渐从维护秩序向权利保障转变，且更加关注惩戒决定程序阶段，但对程序主体的重视存有偏袒；校规的规定仍未破除惩戒决定程序的拼凑感；司法对惩戒决定程序的审查虽呈类型化特点，但在运用实质性正当程序标准时态度仍保守，易造成“以自治之名而侵害权利”等问题。
        第三部分即第四章，以美国联邦和部分州的法律文本、亚利桑那大学和康奈尔大学两所大学的校规文本、司法判例作为分析蓝本，探讨了美国学生惩戒决定程序的现状和特点。经由美国法官发展出的学生惩戒决定程序的正当性标准，主要特点是无差别适用兼有程序性和实质性的正当性标准，即通知、听证、实质性证据，而且根据惩戒事项是否涉及学术判断为界适用抽象和具象的实质性正当程序标准。在正当性标准的指导下，美国立法对学生惩戒决定程序最明显的特征是：法律将告知和听证作为“最低限度正当程序”的核心事项加以规定，并出现了赋予学生申请律师权和质证权等实质性权利的突破性规定；在校规中，将学生惩戒决定程序按照惩戒事项进行分流，以分流的方式实现程序的灵活性。
        第四部分即第五章，尝试探讨了完善学生惩戒决定程序的路径，可以从以下三个方面着力：一是确立惩戒决定程序类型化的立法观，坚持遵循一般原则与多元原则的程序类型化要求；二是推进司法对学生惩戒决定程序监督的全面性：在尊重学术自由的前提下，坚持合法性与正当性的双重审查逻辑，以对惩戒决定程序进行全面的司法审查；三是提升高校作出惩戒决定的正当性，在培养学校和学生正确理解正当性标准的基础上，提高校规与法律规范之间的可证成性，同时重视域外经验参照与制度创新能力，探索性建构非诉讼代理制度，最终保障学生和学校权利的充分实现。

Due process is a classic and new topic. It is particularly important to protect students' rights. In the process of exercising the disciplinary power in universities, the disciplinary decision procedure, as the core stage of the implementation, constitutes the whole picture of the disciplinary procedure. However, from the construction of the hearing system in universities in recent years, the procedural provisions in the text of school regulations, typical judicial cases and relevant academic research, in the process of disciplinary decision. In recent years, the substantial requirements for procedural legitimacy put forward by the "Yu yanru case" and "Chai Lijie case" and other cases that have attracted widespread attention in the society force the academic circles to conduct more detailed research on the disciplinary decision procedure, to provide theoretical support for the legalization, scientization and institutionalization of school governance. In view of this, based on the theory of procedural control and citizen participation, this paper defines the standard of the legitimacy of students' punishment procedure, and constructs the theoretical analysis framework of the overall research with the procedural basis, subject and stage as the axis; On this basis, through text analysis, case analysis and other methods, this paper presents a panoramic view of the legal norms, school regulations and judicial cases related to the student disciplinary decision procedure at home and abroad, finds out the problems, and tries to put forward the path to improve the student disciplinary decision procedure in universities. The research content is divided into the following three parts:
The first part mainly focuses on the basic problems such as the nature, category and value basis of students' disciplinary decision procedure, and constructs the theoretical analysis framework of the research, including chapter one and chapter two. As the action force of justice, the standard of procedural legitimacy with both procedural and substantive aspects is as follows: the procedural due process standard is unbiased and timely obtain a sense of participation, and the substantive due process standard needs to obtain justifications through defense and evidence. Under the guidance of citizen participation theory, the degree of impairment of disciplinary results on students' rights and interests, disciplinary reasons; Under the guidance of the balance theory, determine the supervision subjects of the three work sequences corresponding to the participants, horizontal application and vertical application of the legitimacy standard, and finally construct the integration mode of the legitimacy standard and the student disciplinary decision procedure.
The second part is the third chapter. Combined with the theoretical analysis framework, this part presents China's legal norms, school regulations and judicial cases in an all-round way. Mainly based on the text of legal norms, the text of school regulations and the judgment of students' disciplinary cases, this paper analyzes the current situation and problems of students' disciplinary decision procedure in China. But there is a bias in the emphasis about the procedure; The provisions of the school regulations have not broken the sense of patchwork of the disciplinary decision procedure; Although the judicial review of disciplinary decision procedure is characterized by typology, it is still conservative in the application of substantive due process standards, which is easy to cause problems such as "infringement of rights in the name of autonomy".
The third part, the fourth chapter, takes the legal texts of the United States Federation and some states, the school rules and judicial precedents of the University of Arizona and Cornell University as the analysis blueprint, and discusses the current situation and characteristics of the disciplinary decision procedure of American students. The legitimacy standard of student disciplinary decision procedure developed by American judges is mainly characterized by the indiscriminate application of both procedural and substantive legitimacy standards. Under the guidance of the legitimacy standard, the most obvious characteristics of American legislation on the student punishment decision procedure are: the law stipulates notification and hearing as the core matters of "minimum due process", and there are breakthrough provisions that give students the right to apply for lawyers and cross examination and other substantive rights; In the school rules, the students' disciplinary decision procedure is divided according to the disciplinary matters, and the flexibility of the procedure is realized in the way of diversion.
The fourth part, the fifth chapter, attempts to explore the path to improve the students' disciplinary decision procedure, which can be focused on the following three aspects: first, establish the legislative view of the typification of disciplinary decision procedure, and adhere to the requirements of procedural typification following the general principles and pluralistic principles; The second is to promote the comprehensiveness of judicial supervision over students' disciplinary decision procedure: on the premise of respecting academic freedom, adhere to the dual review logic of legitimacy and legitimacy; It is the basis of the exploration of the legal system and the protection of the legitimacy of the non legal system. At the same time, we should pay full attention to the construction of the legal system and the legitimacy of the disciplinary system. At the same time, we should pay attention to the construction of the legal system and the legitimacy of the school.