606, 44 Ill.Dec. 744, 411 N.E.2d 1110, 1116 (Ill.App.Ct.1980) (<HOLDING>). Nelson cites no law to the contrary. We are
holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because  hearing as used in  2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses holding there is nothing inherently repugnant to due process in requiring a party to choose between giving testimony at a disciplinary hearing and keeping silent even though giving testimony at the hearing may damage his criminal case and keeping silent will most likely lead to loss of his employment holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that a student has a right to counsel in a university disciplinary hearing where there is a pending criminal charge for the same incident but noting that the attorneys role at the disciplinary hearing is limited to safeguarding the students rights at the criminal proceeding and not to affecting the outcome of the disciplinary hearing recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process