the hearing.” 419 U.S. at 582, 95 S.Ct. 729. But, it also cautioned that it was addressing itself “solely to the short suspension, not exceeding 10 days” and that “the timing and content of the notice and the nature of the hearing will depend on appropriate accommodation of the competing interests involved.” Id. at 579, 584, 95 S.Ct. 729. It went on to elaborate that “[l]onger suspensions or expulsions for the remainder of the school term, or permanently, may require more formal procedures.” Id. at 584, 95 S.Ct. 729. Here, Keefe faced expulsion from. the nursing program, and he was entitled to adequate notice before the hearing unless the school can provide good reasons why that would have been inadvisable. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (<HOLDING>). These flaws in the disciplinary process were
holding that court review of due process challenges require consideration of three factors 1 the private interest that will be affected by the official action 2 the fairness and reliability of the existing pretermination procedures and the probable value if any of additional or substitute procedural safeguards and 3 the public interest including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail holding that the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail must be considered in determining what due process requires holding procedural due process requires that the charge must be known before the proceedings commence holding that the facts did not measure up to the standard expressed for determining procedural due process holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard