Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER CYR, District Judge. The present section 1983 action challenges the constitutionality of the administrative rules and regulations [Rules] of the University of Maine [University] governing the reclassification, as “residents,” of University students previously classified as “nonresidents” for tuition purposes. The plaintiffs, former students of the University of Maine School of Law, assert that the Rules, on their face and as applied, are violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 2, 1980, prior to entering their third year of law school as nonresident students and after having been denied administrative reclassification for the preceding academic year (1979-80). In anticipation of the denial of their requests for reclassification for the 1980-81 academic year, plaintiffs moved, on July 2, 1980, for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from requiring plaintiffs to pay nonresident tuitions for the ensuing academic year. In order to obviate the need for preliminary injunctive relief, the parties agreed that the plaintiffs would remit the amount of the difference between resident and nonresident tuition rates for the 1980-81 academic year to the clerk of court for escrowing, subject to the understanding that the es-crowed funds, with interest, would be paid over to the prevailing parties. The case was tried before the Court, sitting without a jury. Summary of Contentions The plaintiffs argue that' the University Rules violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment: (1) by imposing a substantially greater burden of proof upon students seeking reclassification as “residents” than is imposed upon students seeking classification as “residents” at the time of their initial admission to the University, and (2) by impermissibly discriminating against unmarried students, nonmilitary students and students who own no real property in Maine. Plaintiffs further allege denials of due process and equal protection resulting from the application of the Rules, due to the de facto existence of an irrebuttable presumption of nonresidency. Finally, plaintiffs assert that the rejections of their requests for reclassification were so arbitrary and irrational as to constitute denials of their due process rights. Defendants deny plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection claims; and further assert sovereign immunity under the eleventh amendment and that the individual defendants acted in good faith. The University Rules The University is a state-wide, publie, post-secondary education system comprised of seven campuses, including the University of Southern Maine, of which the University of Maine School of Law is a part. The University derives its funding from legislative grants, tuitions and fees, for which it must account to its Board of Trustees. On March 28, 1973 the Board of Trustees adopted “Rules Governing Residence,” upon which the present Rules (Appendix A) are based, following amendments made on March 24, 1976 and on April 27, 1977. On their face and as applied, the Rules permit attendance at the University upon payment of the lower, resident tuition rates by any student who has been “a bona fide domiciliary of the State for at least a year immediately prior to registration for the term for which resident status is claimed.” The Rules prescribe no explicit regulatory criteria for determining bona fide domiciliary status, except that a student who “has been here for at least a year primarily as a permanent resident and not merely as a student” is considered a domiciliary. But the Rules do describe certain circumstances in which it will be presumed that the student is not a bona fide domiciliary, absent adequate proof to the contrary: “[I]f the student is enrolled for a full academic program, as defined by the University, it will be presumed that the student is in Maine for educational purposes and the burden will be on the student to prove otherwise.” The Rules further identify certain specific instances in which reclassification to “resident” status is considered essentially automatic: (1) where a student is a member, or a dependent of a member, of the Armed Forces currently on active duty in Maine; (2) where an unmarried minor student’s parent or legal guardian is a bona fide Maine domiciliary; and (3) where a student is married to a “resident” of Maine. But for students not within any of these three categories the only indications of the types of proof required to overcome the presumption of nonresidency are found on the two-page questionnaire to be completed by applicants for reclassification (Appendix B). The information requested on the first page of the questionnaire appears to be aimed at enabling University officials to determine whether the student comes within one of the three categories just mentioned. The second page concerns whether the student: (1) has purchased “property” in Maine; (2) rents property in Maine; (3) is registered to vote in Maine; (4) has a Maine-registered motor vehicle; (5) pays Maine State Income Tax; (6) spends school and summer vacations in Maine; and (7) intends to remain in Maine after completion of his or her educational program. From the testimony of University officials and from the letters sent to the plaintiffs informing them of the reasons for rejecting their requests for reclassification, it appears that a student’s statement of intent to remain in Maine following graduation is insufficient, absent “objective confirmation of [the] statement of intent....” Sullivan letter of May 19, 1981 [Joint Exhibit 1(R)]. Such objective factors as a Maine bank account, a Maine driver’s license, a Maine-registered vehicle, an apartment in Maine, and the payment of Maine income taxes are generally considered insufficient to confirm a stated intention to remain in Maine after graduation, because these are considered normal incidents of a temporary Maine residency as well. Among the more significant factors identified by University officials as indicative of a bona fide domiciliary status are marriage, full-time employment, home ownership, the presence of close family members in Maine, and personal or family connections with Maine antedating admission to the University; although none of these factors is necessarily dispositive. Approximately 60% of those seeking reclassification in a given year are successful. Most successful applicants have had a prior affiliation with Maine, have been recently married, or have acquired real property in Maine. No evidence was offered as to the number or percentage of unmarried, apartment-dwelling students, with no preadmission connections with Maine, who have succeeded in obtaining reclassification as residents, although the defendants point to plaintiff Black as such a reclassified student. The Rules provide that the initial administrative decision on reclassification is for the campus business manager. An unsuccessful applicant may then appeal: (1) to the campus Vice President for Finance and Administration; (2) to the campus President; and (3) finally, to the Treasurer of the University (Vice-Chancellor for Finance). Roughly six to eight reclassification requests reach the President of the University of Southern Maine and approximately eight to ten (of approximately 200) reach the University Treasurer each year from all seven campuses. Plaintiffs’ Reclassification Requests Plaintiffs Black and Gildard applied on December 15, 1977 and February 2, 1978, respectively, for admission to the University of Maine School of Law for the 1978-79 academic year. In their applications they claimed that they were residents of New Jersey and Maryland, respectively, as the term “resident” was defined in the instructions. Both plaintiffs came to Portland, Maine prior to the commencement of the 1978 fall semester and resided in local apartments during their first year in law school. A. Reclassification Requests for Academic Year 1979-80 Following her first year of law school, plaintiff Black, on July 31, 1979, filed a reclassification request with the business manager of the University of Southern Maine, the defendant William Bullock, in accordance with the Rules. In support of her request she stated that she considered herself a bona fide resident of Maine. By letter dated August 22, 1979 Bullock denied the request for reclassification, explaining that Black had not satisfied the requirement that she “be in the state for at least a year primarily as a permanent resident and not merely as a student,” since she had been in Maine “primarily for education purposes.” [Joint Exhibit l(j).] Pursuant to the Rules, Black “appealed” Bullock’s decision to the campus Vice President for Finance and Administration, the defendant Walter Fridinger, stating in a letter dated September 6, 1979 that she intended to remain in Maine following graduation. She also complained that the reclassification questionnaire, focusing primarily on the applicant’s economic ties with Maine, was inapposite in her case because she lacked the financial resources to acquire such ties. She explained her reasons for deciding to become a permanent Maine resident, emphasizing her acceptance of Maine summer employment in the face of opportunities for similar employment in New Jersey. At a meeting with the defendant Fridinger, Black explained that she had not resided in New Jersey for a number of years and that before coming to Maine she had lived in Egypt for nearly two years. On September 11,1979 Fridinger denied the request for reclassification, because Black was in Maine primarily for purposes of her education and she had not submitted “sufficient evidence” to warrant reclassification, despite her stated intention to remain in Maine following graduation. [Joint Exhibit 1(L), at 2.] The campus president, defendant Robert Woodbury, next rejected her appeal for reclassification, citing the Rules to the effect that “... a student does not acquire a domicile in Maine until he or she has been here for at least a year primarily as a permanent resident....” [Joint Exhibit l(m), at 2.] Whereupon, Black unsuccessfully pursued a final appeal to the Treasurer of the University of Maine, the defendant William Sullivan, who noted, on April 25, 1980, that she had not “established objectively, that at [that] time [she was] a bona-fide domiciliary of the State of Maine.” [Joint Exhibit l(n).] Plaintiff Gildard applied for reclassification as a Maine resident on June 30, 1979, stating that he had been a registered Maine voter since October, 1978, had rented an apartment in Portland, and had had state income taxes withheld from his summer work-study paychecks. He also attached a Maine driver’s license issued to him on June 6, 1979. Following an interview with the defendant Bullock, Gildard’s request was denied for the same reason ascribed by Bullock for the denial of Black’s reclassification. In a letter to Fridinger, Gildard stated that his legal and financial ties to Maryland had been “broken” and that he had a Maine bank account. He stated that he had come to Maine with the intention of remaining in Maine as a permanent resident and that he had declined to attend a law school in Maryland even though he had been accepted there. At the interview with Fridinger, Gildard submitted a letter from the father of Gildard’s former roommate at the University of Maryland, who was a Maine native. They also discussed the fact that Gildard’s father had attended a summer camp in Maine during his youth. Fridinger denied Gildard’s request and President Woodbury did likewise in a letter essentially identical with that which had been addressed to Black. [Joint Exhibit l(m).] Finally, the defendant Sullivan denied reclassification for lack of “external factual evidence” of Gildard’s intention to permanently reside in Maine, except for paying rent, working part-time at the University, registering to vote in Maine, and obtaining a Maine driver’s license. Sullivan also pointed to the fact that Gildard had applied to other law schools besides Maine, indicating that “there was no evidence of particular affiliation with Maine prior to [his] acceptance by the Law School.” [Joint Exhibit 1(n), at 4] B. Reclassification Requests for Academic Year 1980-81 Plaintiff Black again requested reclassification on July 29, 1980, pointing particularly to her continuous occupancy of an apartment in Portland and her purchase of personal property in Maine. She also submitted an affidavit summarizing her Maine residential and employment history, advising that she had rejected an opportunity to attend Rutgers University School of Law, at the lower resident-tuition rate available to her there, because of her interest in living in Maine. She stated that she decided to become a permanent resident of Maine during the early part of 1979, and that she intended to seek full-time employment in Maine upon her graduation. She also described her involvement in the local community, including her participation in the Democratic Party caucus and her practice of donating blood to the Red Cross on a regular basis. Finally, she reported moving furniture from New Jersey to her Maine apartment. Once again, by letter dated August 12, 1980 [Joint Exhibit l(q)], Black’s request was rejected by Bullock. On appeal to defendant Samuel Andrews, then the University of Southern Maine Vice President for Finance and Administration, Black’s request was again rejected, with Andrews adopting Bullock’s reasoning verbatim. President Woodbury in turn found that Black was “in Maine primarily for the purpose of education and [had] not been domiciled here for any other reason.” [Joint Exhibit l(q), at 6.] Finally, defendant Sullivan agreed, stating that “there is no objective evidence that you are in Maine for other than education purposes.” [Joint Exhibit l(q), at 8.] Plaintiff Gildard again filed an application for reclassification on August 1, 1980, including a detailed affidavit explaining when he became interested in Maine and describing his present affiliation with Maine. Gildard’s request was rejected by Bullock, Andrews, Woodbury, and Sullivan, with each ascribing precisely the same reasons given in support of their rejections of Black’s second request for reclassification. C. Black's Request for Reclassification for the Spring Semester 1981 Following Sullivan’s rejection of her request for reclassification as a resident for the 1980 fall semester, Black wrote Bullock on November 10, 1980 informing him that she had accepted a position as law clerk to a state superior court justice and requesting Bullock to reconsider her application for reclassification. Apparently treating her letter as a request for reclassification for the 1981 spring semester, Bullock requested Black to submit responses to the questionnaire. Black complied and, following denials of her request by Bullock, Andrews, and Woodbury, she obtained reclassification as a resident from the defendant Sullivan on May 19, 1981, some 11 months after the filing of the present legal action in this Court. Sullivan explained that Black’s acceptance of employment as a law clerk in Maine was “objective confirmation” of her stated intention to remain in Maine, and that, because she had applied for this position approximately one year prior to the 1981 spring semester, she had shown that she had the requisite intent to remain in Maine during the intervening one-year period and, thus, was a “domiciliary” of Maine.for one year prior to the 1981 spring semester. DISCUSSION Equal Protection Claims The plaintiffs argue that the Rules, on their face and as applied, create classifications that impermissibly discriminate against: (1) out-of-state student applicants seeking reclassification as residents; (2) unmarried students; (3) nonmilitary students; and (4) nonhomeowning students. The Equal Protection Clause directs that ‘all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.’ F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 [40 S.Ct. 560, 561, 64 L.Ed. 989] (1920). But so too, ‘The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.’ Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 [60 S.Ct. 879, 882, 84 L.Ed. 1124] (1940). The initial discretion to determine what is ‘different’ and what is ‘the same’ resides in the legislatures of the States. A legislature must have substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the State to remedy every ill. In applying the Equal Protection Clause to most forms of state action, we thus seek only the assurance that the classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2394, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). The plaintiffs argue that it is not enough that defendants show a “reasonable basis,” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1161, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970), for these classifications, which plaintiffs insist “involve a suspect classification based on wealth and affect the fundamental right to travel.” In support of their argument that persons who “lack wealth” constitute a “suspect” class, plaintiffs rely on a number of Supreme Court decisions which have struck down economic obstacles to the attainment or exercise of fundamental rights. See Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972) [access to ballot for political candidates]; Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) [access to divorce court]; Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 90 S.Ct. 532, 24 L.Ed.2d 532 (1970) [school board membership]; Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 89 S.Ct. 1897, 23 L.Ed.2d 647 (1969) (per curiam) [right to vote]; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963) [counsel on criminal appeal]; Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) [transcript for criminal appeal]. Although certain classifications based on wealth may be considered “suspect,” the Supreme Court has explained that these earlier cases involved individuals or groups of individuals who shared two distinguishing characteristics: “because of their impecunity they were completely unable to pay for some desired benefit, and as a consequence, they sustained an absolute deprivation of a meaningful opportunity to enjoy that benefit.” San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 20, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1289, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973) (emphasis added ). The Rodriguez Court upheld a Texas public school financing system which resulted in a greater “per pupil” budget in property-rich districts, explaining that “this Court has never heretofore held that wealth discrimination alone provides an adequate basis for invoking strict scrutiny,” id. at 28-29, 93 S.Ct. at 1293-1294. At least one indicator of a bona fide domiciliary intent identified by University officials, viz., ownership of a home or real property, may advantage the ‘wealthier’ student. But plaintiffs do not advance, nor would the evidence support, the argument that plaintiffs’ impecunity rendered them completely unable to qualify for resident-student status, see id. at 20, 93 S.Ct. at 1289. Furthermore, home ownership is not a prerequisite to reclassification. Many nonhomeowning students, including the plaintiff Black, have been reclassified as residents in response to other reliable indicia of bona fide domiciliary intent. Finally, it has not been shown or suggested that home ownership assures reclassification. Thus, even though home ownership may be considered a wealth-based indicator of domiciliary intent, a constitutionally “suspect” classification of nonresidents is not established. The plaintiffs further argue that the Rules implicate their fundamental right to travel. See, e.g., Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 39 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974) [durational residency requirements for free medical care excessively burden right to travel]; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972) [improper restriction of voter registration based on durational residency requirement]; Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) [durational residency requirement for welfare eligibility unjustifiably burdens right to interstate travel]. Plaintiffs misplace reliance on these cases in their attempt to demonstrate a constitutional connection between state post-secondary school tuition-rate residency classifications and the fundamental right to interstate travel. These cases concerned state limitations on the right of new residents to receive basic necessities of life (Shapiro—right to welfare assistance; Maricopa — right to medical care), or to exercise the fundamental right to vote (Dunn). The Court in Shapiro expressly left open the question of the validity of waiting periods or residence requirements in relation to eligibility for tuition—free education Shapiro, supra, 394 U.S. at 638 n. 21 [89 S.Ct. at 1333 n. 21],... Montgomery v. Douglas, 388 F.Supp. 1139, 1143 (D.Colo.1974) (emphasis added), aff’d mem., 422 U.S. 1030, 95 S.Ct. 2645, 45 L.Ed.2d 687 (1975). A state-subsidized, post-secondary education is not a fundamental constitutional right. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2397, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) [no fundamental right to state-financed public education]; accord San Antonio' Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1297, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); Hammond v. Marx, 406 F.Supp. 853, 856 (D.Me.1975). The Supreme Court recently refused to apply the “rational relationship” test in an equal protection challenge to a Texas statute withholding state funds for the education of illegal alien children. Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (5-4). After acknowledging the existence of “a substantial ‘shadow population’ of illegal immigrants — numbering in the millions — within our borders” with illegal alien children being “special members of this underclass,” 457 U.S. at 218, 102 S.Ct. at 2395, the Court selected an intermediate standard of scrutiny, requiring Texas to demonstrate a “substantial interest” in its discriminatory classification, see Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). Although the Court reiterated that public education is not a fundamental right, it concluded that complete denial of access to public education “imposes a lifetime of hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status[,] [and the] stigma of illiteracy.” 457 U.S. at 223, 102 S.Ct. at 2398. The present case involves no such “discrete class” or unusual “hardship”. There being no “fundamental right” or “suspect class” implicated here, the appropriate “equal protection” test is whether the residency criteria bear a rational relationship to some legitimate state interest. Lister v. Hoover, 655 F.2d 123, 127 (7th Cir.1981); Hooban v. Boling, 503 F.2d 648, 650 (6th Cir.1974) (and cases cited therein). As the Supreme Court has explained— In the area of economics and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78 [31 S.Ct. 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369]. ‘The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.’ Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 69-70 [33 S.Ct. 441, 443, 57 L.Ed. 730]. ‘A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.’ McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426 [81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393]. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1161, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970). The purpose of the Rules is to permit practicable administrative distinctions between students who are in Maine primarily for the purpose of their education and students who are bona fide domiciliaries entitled to attend the University at the preferential tuition rate subsidized by Maine taxpayers. In Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973), which invalidated a Connecticut statute irreversibly classifying certain students, at the time of their admission, as “out-of-state” students, the Court nonetheless recognized that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving the quality of its colleges and universities and the right of its own bona fide residents to attend such institutions on a preferential tuition basis.... The State can establish such reasonable criteria for in-state status as to make virtually certain that students who are not, in fact, bona fide residents of the State, but who have come there solely for educational purposes, cannot take advantage of the in-state rates. 412 U.S. at 452-54, 93 S.Ct. at 2236-37. A. Spouses of Maine Residents Plaintiffs challenge the “resident” status automatically accorded by the Rules to a nonresident student, male or female, who marries a Maine resident. A similar provision has been said to “accord with valid state interests in granting resident tuition to dependents and family members of state residents.” Lister v. Hoover, 655 F.2d 123, 128 (7th Cir.1981). It seems reasonable to suppose that marriages between out-of-state students and Maine residents are not often arranged to buttress requests for tuition-rate reclassification. Furthermore, and as a general rule, it is not unreasonable to view marriage to a Maine resident as a significant indicator of the strength of one’s ties to Maine, as opposed to another state, and thus as substantiation of a stated intention to remain in Maine indefinitely. Given the reasonableness of its predicate, this provision of the Rules finds further rational foundation in its administrative convenience. B. Exemption For Military Personnel & Dependents The establishment of in-state tuition rates for members of the armed forces on active duty in Maine and for their dependents is a reasonable attempt to further Maine’s legitimate interest in supporting all United States citizens who serve their country in the military. The Rules contribute to the fabric of an informal interstate system of reciprocity which benefits Maine citizens serving in the military in other states. In discussing a similar provision, the Seventh Circuit concluded that “valid state interests [were] involved in all of the challenged exemptions.” Lister v. Hoover, supra, 655 F.2d at 127 n. 7. C. Home Ownership The plaintiffs argue that the Rules impermissibly discriminate against students who do not own real estate in Maine, particularly homes. Automatic reclassification is neither granted nor denied under the Rules, either on their face or as applied, on the basis of home ownership. At most, home ownership is considered significant corroborative evidence of intent to remain in Maine indefinitely. Plaintiffs maintain that a factor such as home ownership may not be considered at all, because it is dependent, at least in part, upon “wealth”. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that consideration of home ownership implicates a fundamental right or a suspect classification. Thus, the consideration of home ownership as a significant indicator of bona fide domiciliary intent is permissible provided it is reasonable. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. at 485, 90 S.Ct. at 1161. The Court believes it reasonable for University officials, as a general rule, to consider that a student who owns a home in Maine is more likely than his nonhomeowning-student counterpart to have formed the requisite intent to remain in Maine beyond graduation. D. Initial Classification v. Reclassification As their final equal protection challenge, plaintiffs assert that a student claiming resident status at the time of admission to the University is subjected to a less rigorous standard than a student seeking reclassification after having been classified a nonresident. It is not at all clear that a less rigorous classification standard is applied at the time of admission. The presumption of nonresidency applicable to out-of-state students enrolling in the University “for a full academic program” is not expressly rendered inapplicable to students claiming resident status at the time of admission. The instructions provided to applicants for admission to the School of Law [Joint Exhibit 1(c) ] state that in order “to establish clearly the residency status of each student before registering” the University of Maine School of Law will apply the Rules governing residence. These instructions go on to quote the Rules verbatim. The fact that the student is asked to specify his state of residence on the application for admission does not mean that a claim of residence is accepted without question. The plaintiffs point to an inter-office memorandum of the University of Maine School of Law stating that a student’s residence is “based normally on that state which is given as state of residency by the applicant on the application form,” Joint Exhibit 1(d), but the memorandum further states: “If there is a question regarding [residency] it is raised at an Admissions Committee meeting and- finally decided upon there,” id. Students seeking reclassification must complete a questionnaire. Applicants for admission to the School of Law are also asked to explain the basis for claiming a Maine residence. The existence of different information-gathering procedures does not mean that more or less scrutiny is given the information gathered. Even if a satisfactory showing had been made that a less onerous burden of going forward with the evidence is imposed on those who claim a Maine residence at the time of their admission to the University, the Court would consider such a practice reasonable. Most students claiming to be Maine residents at the time of their initial application for admission are likely to do so on the basis of readily verifiable preadmission affiliations with Maine; whereas most students requesting reclassification as residents would have to rely upon postadmission affiliations with Maine, often mere incidents of their presence in Maine for the primary purpose of attending the University. Preadmission connections with Maine, on the other hand, are reasonably considered more reliable indicators of domiciliary intent, even without other corroborative evidence. Finally, scrutiny of the residency claim of every applicant for University admission would impose a much heavier administrative burden without commensurate improvement in the reliability of the decisionmaking results. Due Process Claims Plaintiffs’ due process challenge comprises three components. First, plaintiffs say that they were denied substantive due process in that the rejections of their requests for reclassification were “arbitrary and irrational” in light of the evidence and the reasons given. Second, they argue that the Rules, although purporting to permit rebuttal of the presumption of nonresidency, are applied in such a way by University officials that the presumption is in fact irrebuttable for “individuals such as Plaintiffs who are single and who do not own property in any state.” Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief at 8. Finally, plaintiffs assert that the requirement that a student seeking reclassification demonstrate that he has been a bona fide domiciliary of the state for the preceding calendar year violates the due process standards enunciated in Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973). A. Arbitrariness of Reclassification Decisions The several administrative decisions refusing to reclassify plaintiffs as Maine residents are attacked as arbitrary and irrational. Plaintiffs point to their questionnaire responses, which are consistent with plaintiffs’ assertions that they are Maine domiciliaries, and they cite the failure of University officials to assign specific reasons for refusing reclassification. Plaintiffs further complain that one of the reasons identified by a University official for refusing a requested reclassification reflects that consideration was given to an inappropriate factor. Finally, plaintiffs maintain that the decisions of the University officials must be deemed arbitrary in light of the “overwhelming” evidence presented. “The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government, Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 123 [9 S.Ct. 231, 233, 32 L.Ed. 623] (1889).” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2976, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Although constitutionally-adequate procedures govern the determination of entitlements to state-created benefits, it is a further requirement of substantive due process that decision makers may not act in a manner which is “wholly arbitrary or irrational,” Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 282, 100 S.Ct. 553, 557, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980). See Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 248, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1446, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976); Drown v. Portsmouth School District, 451 F.2d 1106 (1st Cir.1971); Martin v. Harrah Independent School District, 579 F.2d 1192 (10th Cir.1978); Kindem v. City of Alameda, 502 F.Supp. 1108 (N.D.Calif.1980); Beatham v. Manson, 369 F.Supp. 783, 789-792 (D.Conn.1973). Cf. Willem v. University of Massachusetts, 570 F.2d 403, 406 (1st Cir.1978). As a matter of due process, officialdom may not preempt a constitutionally-protected interest by ignoring “well settled rules and understandings [or by] disregarding] facts.... ” Martin v. Harrah Independent School District, supra, 579 F.2d at 1200. The reasons underlying a decision may not be “arbitrary or capricious;” that is, the decision may not be “wholly unsupported” by fact, and its rationale may not be either trivial or irrelevant. See Drown v. Portsmouth School District, supra, 451 F.2d at 1108. See also Wishart v. McDonald, 500 F.2d 1110, 1115 (1st Cir.1974); Fisher v. Snyder, 476 F.2d 375, 377 (8th Cir.1973). In order to establish that an administrative decision is so arbitrary as to amount to a denial of substantive due process “the plaintiffs must show that there is no rational basis for the ... decision ... or that the decision was motivated by bad faith or ill will.... ” Stevens v. Hunt, 646 F.2d 1168, 1170 (6th Cir.1981) (citations omitted). See also Stratford v. State-House Inc., 542 F.Supp. 1008, 1015-16 (E.D.Ky.1982) [substantial evidence is not required so long as decision is “supportable on any rational basis” and is not a result of “willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of the facts”]. The state-created benefit presently at issue is a significantly reduced tuition rate. Although a state university is not required to provide its “residents” with a lower tuition rate than “nonresidents,” where a statutory or regulatory scheme purports to confer such a benefit to “bona fide domiciliaries,” the due process clause is implicated. See Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973). See also Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Company, 455 U.S. 422, 432, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1156, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 490-91 n. 6, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 1262 n. 6, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980). The Rules provide that a nonresident student who enrolls in a full-time educational program at the University is presumed to be in Maine primarily for education and not as a bona fide domiciliary; “and the burden will be on the student to prove otherwise.” (Appendix A). The Rules do not specify the kind or quantum of proof required to overcome the presumption. As a general rule, due process requires that the discretion of the decision-maker be guided by suitable substantive and procedural standards. See Raper v. Lucey, 488 F.2d 748, 753 (1st Cir.1973); Historic Green Springs, Inc. v. Bergland, 497 F.Supp. 839, 854-57 (E.D.Va.1980). See generally, 2 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 7:26 (2d ed. 1979). But the general rule must yield in circumstances like these, where the Rules are unspecific primarily because of the “nebulous” nature of the required administrative determination; that is, the bona fides of the expressed domiciliary intent of a full-time University student seeking a preferential tuition rate. See Lister v. Hoover, 655 F.2d 123, 125-26 (7th Cir.1981). The concept of domicile is subject to no formula, but rather depends on the facts of each case.... The relative weight given each objective factor is not capable of quantification. The question to be answered in each case is whether the student came to the State solely to attend school or whether he intends to make the State his home. Hooban v. Boling, 503 F.2d 648, 652 (6th Cir.1974). Cf. Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 130 (D.C.Cir.1977) [governmental interest in denying White House press passes for security reasons “does not lend itself to detailed articulation of narrow and specific standards or precise identification of all the factors which may be taken into account”]. The Rules do identify certain circumstances which conclusively evidence a bona fide domiciliary intent; for example, marriage to a Maine resident. Furthermore, the questionnaire (Appendix B) submitted by all students seeking reclassification suggests a number of factors considered relevant in determining domiciliary intent, including ownership or rental of property in Maine, voter registration, motor vehicle registration, and payment of Maine income taxes. The plaintiffs argue that their responses to all of these questions were consistent with their stated intentions to reside in Maine indefinitely, and inconsistent with an intention to reside in any other state. Therefore, plaintiffs insist that they are entitled to be reclassified even on the basis of the criteria prescribed by the University. However, “[t]he issue is one of intent and no catalogue of objective criteria could, in most circumstances, be conclusive or determinative.” Lister v. Hoover, supra, 655 F.2d at 126. Michelson v. Cox, 476 F.Supp. 1315, 1320 (S.D.Iowa 1979). To accept [plaintiffs’] argument would require the University to reclassify as a resident every student who, after attending the University for a year, makes a self-serving declaration that he intends to reside in [the state] permanently and [who] performs a series of ‘objective acts,’ some of which are required by law and all of which are customarily done by some nonresident students who do not intend to remain in [the state] after graduation. This would, in effect, create a presumption that such a student is a bona fide ... resident, thus seriously jeopardizing the University’s nonresident tuition program and consequently its entire financial structure. The Rules do not require that the various factors identified on the questionnaire be viewed by University officials as sufficient evidence of a bona fide domiciliary intent, and for good reason. Almost all of these indicia of domiciliary intent are readily established by students having no intention to remain in Maine beyond graduation. The reliability of any piece of circumstantial evidence of domiciliary intent turns to a great extent upon the readiness with which that evidence can be produced by domiciliaries and nondomiciliaries alike. Certain circumstantial evidence of domiciliary intent is appropriately considered either conclusive, because the game is simply not worth the candle, e.g., marriage to a Maine resident, or particularly persuasive, because its production for tuition-rate purposes is impracticable, e.g., preadmission affiliations with Maine. The plaintiffs assert that the unspecifieness of the University’s reasons for denying reclassification demonstrates arbitrary action. See Raper v. Lucey, 488 F.2d 748, 752-53 (1st Cir.1973). For the most part, the letters informing the plaintiffs of the denial of their reclassification requests summarily state: (1) that the evidence presented did not demonstrate that the student was “in the state for at least a year primarily as a permanent resident and not merely as a student;” and (2) that the student was considered “in Maine primarily for education purposes.” Letters from defendant Sullivan cite the lack of sufficient “external factual evidence” of intent to remain in Maine after graduation. The plaintiffs argue that due process requires the University to assign more detailed reasons, including some indication as to what objective indicators of a bona fide domiciliary intent would be considered sufficient. Compare Raper v. Lucey, supra, 488 F.2d at 753 [government had not “advanced any appropriate interest that would be served by its refusal to detail reasons”]. The University’s rejections of these reclassification requests made clear that plaintiffs had not overcome the presumption of nonresidency. The Rules and the questionnaire identify certain circumstantial evidence considered relevant to the purpose of the administrative inquiry. What they do not do is provide a pro forma list for use by students shopping for evidence of their intention to remain in Maine, which could only impede the decisionmaking process; the more perfunctory the proof, the less its probative value. Exhaustive detailing of the reasons for denying reclassification would be of dubious value in view of the highly subjective nature of the subject matter under inquiry. Plaintiffs further suggest that the University was obliged to grant reclassification or else point to specific evidence rebutting their declarations of intent to reside in Maine after graduation. The Court cannot agree. The Rules establish a presumption that plaintiffs were in Maine primarily for educational purposes; the burden of proving otherwise is on plaintiffs. Plaintiffs insist that the defendant Sullivan gave consideration to an inappropriate factor in rejecting their reclassification requests for the 1979-80 academic year. Sullivan informed plaintiffs that he had taken into account the fact that plaintiffs had applied to non-Maine law schools and therefore had not demonstrated any “specific affiliation with Maine prior to ... coming to law school here,” see Joint Exhibit l(m). The Rules provide that “a student does not acquire a domicile in Maine until he or she has been here for at least a year primarily as a permanent resident and not merely as a student.” The absence of any preadmission affiliation with Maine is a relevant consideration in determining whether a student is or has been in Maine primarily as a permanent resident (and, if so, for how' long) or primarily as a student. The defendants’ decisions denying reclassification were not arbitrary on the evidence submitted by plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs were residents of states other than Maine prior to their admission to the University. Neither plaintiff decided to come to Maine until after admission to the University. Both considered attending law schools outside of Maine. Gildard stated that he had formed the requisite domiciliary intent upon arrival at the University. Black claims to have decided to reside indefinitely in Maine in the spring of 1979. In support of their 1979-80 school-year reclassification requests, plaintiffs offered evidence of Maine’ voter registration, Maine driver’s license, summer work-study employment, year-round occupancy of Maine apartments, and statements of their intention to remain in Maine beyond graduation. In their reclassification requests for the 1980-81 school year, the plaintiffs elaborated on their residential history and their reasons for deciding to become permanent residents of Maine, pointing to (1) more recent part-time and summer work-study employment in Maine, and (2) participation or membership in local organizations. The constitutional question raised by plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim is not whether the University’s decision was unwise, but whether it was “so irrational that it may be branded as ‘arbitrary’,” see Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 248, 96 S.Ct. 1440, 1446, 47 L.Ed.2d 708 (1976). In light of the presumption of nonresidency and the clear absence of persuasive proof sufficient to meet the burden of establishing a bona fide intention to remain in Maine after their graduation, University officials did not act arbitrarily. See Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. at 454-55, 93 S.Ct. at 2237-38 [State is entitled to “make virtually certain that students who are not, in fact, bona fide residents of the State, but who have come there solely for educational purposes, cannot take advantage of the instate rates”]. The Rules are written and applied to impede preferential tuition-rate treatment of out-of-state students, unless the student is in Maine “primarily as a permanent resident and not merely as a student;” a legitimate state interest, see Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. at 454-55, 93 S.Ct. at 2237-38. Due to the paucity of persuasive evidence supporting plaintiffs’ statements of domiciliary intent, defendants refused reclassification, no doubt because whatever extrinsic evidence there was could just as easily have been presented by a student who did not intend to reside in Maine after graduation. The Court concludes that no defendant acted arbitrarily in determining that plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of nonresidency. B. Irrebuttable Presumption The plaintiffs maintain that although the Rules themselves provide that a full-time student may attempt to overcome the presumption that he is in Maine primarily for purposes of education, the proof required to overcome that presumption is unattainable by “individuals such as Plaintiffs who are single and who do not own property in any state.” They argue that this amounts to a de facto irrebuttable presumption in contravention of Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973). In Vlandis, the Court held unconstitutional a Connecticut statute which permanently classified students as nonresidents for tuition purposes on the basis of their legal address at the time of application to the university. [I]t is forbidden by the Due Process Clause to deny an individual the resident rates on the basis of a permanent and irrebuttable presumption of nonresidence, when that presumption is not necessarily or universally true in fact, and when the State has reasonable alternative means for making the crucial evaluation. 412 U.S. at 452, 93 S.Ct. at 2236. Yet the Court suggested that there would be no due-process clause infirmity if, following one year of residence, students are given the opportunity to establish that they are bona fide domiciliaries. Id. at 452-53 n. 9, 93 S.Ct. at 2236-37 n. 9. Thus, Vlandis reaffirmed its disfavor of statutes which erect irrebuttable presumptions that are neither necessary nor sound in all circumstances, thereby precluding individualized determinations of the relevant facts. The Vlandis “irrebuttable presumption” analysis has been described as a “strange hybrid of due process and equal protection scrutiny.” Note, The Irrebuttable Presumption Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 1534, 1548 (1974). In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), for example, the Court held invalid under the equal protection clause a statute which established an irrebuttable presumption that unwed fathers are not fit parents; whereas in Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 94 S.Ct. 791, 39 L.Ed.2d 52 (1974), school board regulations requiring all pregnant teachers to take unpaid maternity leave during a prescribed period prior to an expected birth were held violative of due process. Plaintiffs’ contention that the ad-' mittedly difficult burden of proof imposed on nonresident students seeking reclassification constitutes an irrebuttable presumption is flawed in several significant respects. First, cases invalidating irrebuttable presumptions have done so in the context of a statute, Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 37 L.Ed.2d 63, Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551, a regulation, Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 94 S.Ct. 791, 39 L.Ed.2d 52, or a constitutional provision, Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675 (1965), applicable to an identifiable class of persons designated therein. Coleman v. Darden, 595 F.2d 533, 537 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 927, 100 S.Ct. 267, 62 L.Ed.2d 184 (1979). It is not at all clear that “persons in the same situation as the Plaintiffs” (Plaintiff’s Trial Brief at 7) constitute an “identifiable” class. Assuming that an identifiable class is established however, the Rules on their face do not exclude such persons, as a class, from reclassification. Although marriage to a Maine resident will result in reclassification, the Rules neither definitively nor exclusively entitle either married or Maine-property owning- students to reclassification. Although the Rules do accord automatic reclassification to certain categories of students, it does not follow that students outside of those categories are precluded from showing that they are bona fide domiciliaries. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have not established that University officials, in applying the Rules, exclude unmarried, nonproperty-owning students from reclassification as Maine residents. Due process requires only that a student be granted a “fair opportunity” to demonstrate entitlement to reclassification. See Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. at 446, 93 S.Ct. at 2233. Despite the fact that plaintiffs were nonresidents prior to becoming full-time students at the University, they were given ample opportunity to persuade University officials that they were not in Maine for the primary purpose of attending the Law School. The defendants received and considered extensive written and oral information from the plaintiffs and conducted what was essentially a de novo review at each of the three levels of administrative review. Not only have the plaintiffs failed to establish that an irrebuttable presumption was applied to unmarried, nonpropertyowning students, the evidence here presented by the defendants, including the ultimate reclassification of plaintiff Black, gainsays the existence of any conclusive rule or policy applicable to such students. Clearly, nonresident students in certain circumstances may find it much easier to demonstrate an entitlement to reclassification than do certain other nonresident students. However, the fact that University officials find such circumstances as marriage, property ownership and preadmission affiliations with Maine highly probative of a bona fide domiciliary intent does not establish the existence of an irrebuttable presumption. The Prerequisite One-Year Domicile Plaintiffs’ final argument is directed to the following provision in the Rules. No student once having registered as an out-of-state student is eligible for resident classification in the University, or in any college thereof, unless he or she has been a bona fide domiciliary of the State for at least a year immediately prior to registration for the term for which resident status is claimed.... For University purposes, a student does not acquire a domicile in Maine until he or she has been here for at least a year primarily as a permanent resident and not merely as a student.... Plaintiffs maintain that this provision indicates that it is not sufficient that a student establish that he or she is a bona fide domiciliary at the time of application for reclassification. The student must also demonstrate that he or she has been a bona fide domiciliary during the preceding year. This particular provision is not unique to the University of Maine. An almost identical University of Minnesota requirement was challenged before a three-judge district court in Starns v. Malkerson, 326 F.Supp. 234 (D.Minn.1970), aff’d mem., 401 U.S. 985, 91 S.Ct. 1231, 28 L.Ed.2d 527 (1971). See also Michelson v. Cox, 476 F.Supp. 1315, 1319 (S.D.Iowa 1979). The district court interpreted the provision as follows: “The effect of this regulation is to impose on any person moving into the State a one year durational residency requirement to qualify as a resident for tuition purposes at the University.” 326 F.Supp. at 235 (emphasis added). The court then framed the issue as being “whether it is constitutionally permissible for a state to create an irrebuttable presumption that any person who has not continuously resided in Minnesota for one year immediately before his entrance to the University is a nonresident for tuition purposes,” id. at 237, and referred to this minimum requirement as a “one-year waiting period,” id. at 239. The University of Minnesota offered as the primary justification for the “waiting period” the state’s interest in achieving “partial cost equalization” through “contribution, tangible or intangible, towards the State’s welfare for a period of twelve months.” Id. at 240-41. Accepting this rationale as valid and sufficient, the court concluded that “the regulation requiring one-year domicile within the State to acquire resident classification for tuition purposes at the University is constitutionally valid.” Id. at 241. The United States Supreme Court affirmed without opinion. 401 U.S. 985, 91 S.Ct. 1231, 28 L.Ed.2d 527. Two years later, in Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973), the Supreme Court commented on its affirmance of Starns: Under the regulation involved in Starns, a student who applied to the University from out of State could rebut the presumption of nonresidency, after having lived in the State for one year, by presenting sufficient evidence to show bona fide domicile within Minnesota. In other words, residence within the State for one year, whether or not in student status, was merely one element which Minnesota required to demonstrate bona fide domicile. Id. at 452-53 n. 9, 93 S.Ct. at 2236-37 n. 9. Also, in striking down a Connecticut statute which prevented students coming from another state from establishing at any time that they were bona fide residents, the Vlandis majority noted: But even if we accepted the State’s argument that its statutory scheme operates to apportion tuition on the basis of old and new residency, that justification would give rise to grave problems under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 450 n. 6, 93 S.Ct. at 2235 n. 6. Apparently recognizing a distinction between a state’s attempt to discriminate against new bona fide residents and the Minnesota minimum waiting period in Starns, the Court warned that its decision in Vlandis should not be “construed to deny a state the right to impose on a student, as one element in demonstrating bona fide residence, a reasonable duration residency requirement, which can be met while in student status.” Id. at 452, 93 S.Ct. at 2236. It is this proviso in Vlandis upon which the University of Maine relies in support of the constitutionality of its requirement that a student be a bona fide domiciliary for at least one year, before he or she is entitled to reclassification. However, the interpretation given to the Minnesota regulation by the district court in Starns and apparently relied on by the Supreme Court does not clearly follow from the above-quoted language. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the Maine provision, both as it appears on its face and as it has been interpreted by University officials, before the Court can determine whether Starns is controlling. The Rules employ the terms “domicile” and “residence,” as to the meaning of which the following discussion by the Maine Law Court is instructive: Domicile is a somewhat elusive concept which often is confused with the related yet separate concept of ‘residence.’ A principal distinction between the two is captured in the frequent observation that a person can have more than one residence but only one domicile.... Domicile has two components: residence and the intention to remain. When these occur there is domicile. Margani v. Sanders, 453 A.2d 501, 503 (Me. 1982). Indeed, a close analysis of the Rules indicates that the word “domicile” is used to refer not merely to a place of abode, i.e., a residence, but to a status. The Rules provide in particular that “a student does not acquire a domicile in Maine until he or she has been here for at least a year primarily as a permanent resident and not merely as a student....” Moreover, the object of evaluating requests for reclassification under the Rules is to determine whether a student is a “bona fide domiciliary” of Maine. The Court cannot conclude, consistent with their language, that these Rules merely impose a one-year “durational residency requirement,” that is, a requirement that the student have “lived in the State for one year, ... [in order] to demonstrate bona fide domicile,” Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. at 452-53 n. 9, 93 S.Ct. at 2236-37 n. 9, because the Rules expressly require that the student be a bona fide domiciliary for one year prior to being entitled to reclassification. Not only does this appear to be the clear import of the one-year bona fide domicile requirement, the University officials have in fact interpreted this Rules provision as requiring a decision on their part, not only as to whether a student requesting reclassification is presently a bona fide domiciliary, but also whether he has been one for a year prior to the time of the determination. A 'student reclassified in accordance with this requirement is thus impliedly determined to have been a bona fide domiciliary for the entire preceding year. However, there is no formal or informal provision for according practical, retroactive effect to any such decision, as by refunding the tuition differential for the preceding one-year domiciliary period. Indeed, the Rules specifically provide that “[a]ll changes approved during a semester will be effective the beginning of the next semester; none are retroactive.” In Montgomery v. Douglas, 388 F.Supp. 1139 (D.Colo.1974), the district court, relying on Starns and Vlandis, upheld, against similar attack, a Colorado statute defining in-state students as those “domiciled in Colorado for one year or more immediately preceding registration ... for any term or session for which domiciliary classification is claimed.” Id. at 1140. In the face of plaintiffs’ argument that Vlandis only endorses a one-year durational residency requirement as a means of demonstrating bona fide domicile, the Colorado court concluded that the Supreme Court’s reference to bona fide domicile indicated that Colorado’s requirement of a one-year domicile may be viewed, consistent with Vlandis, “as an element the state could consider in determining bona fide domicile,” id. at 1143. The Montgomery reasoning is not particularly persuasive in light of the fact that the relevant Colorado statute defined domicile as “a person’s true, fixed, and permanent home and place of habitation,” id. at 1140 (emphasis added), thus suggesting an element of good-faith in the use of the term “domicile.” Moreover, the University of Maine durational residency requirement specifically requires that a student be a bona fide domiciliary for a year. In a more recent decision involving a University of Iowa