본 연구의 목적은 헌법재판소 결정에 나타난 대학의 자율성의 법리를 비판적으로 검토하는 것이다. 본 연구의 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 헌법재판소는 대학의 자율성의 헌법적 근거를 학문의 자유 및 교육의 자주성에 찾고 있으나 대학의 자율성을 헌법에 명문화한 취지를 감안하여 헌법 제31조 제4항에서 구하는 것이 적절하다. 둘째, 대학의 자율성은 대학의 기능을 원활히 수행하기 위하여 학사, 인사, 시설, 재정 등에 대한 외부세력의 부당한 간섭을 배제한 채 대학구성원이 이를 자주적으로 운영하는 것을 의미한다. 셋째, 대학의 자율성은 법률로 구체화되는 기본권으로서의 성격을 지니고 있고 대학, 사립학교법인, 교수, 학생 등이 주체가 될 수 있으며 영역별로 그 주체성의 인정을 달리할 필요가 있다. 끝으로, 대학의 자율성은 합헌적이고 합리적이며 그 본질적 내용을 침해하지 않는 범위 내에서 광범위한 입법재량권이 보장된다.
The major purpose of the study is to analyze the legal theory of Constitutional Court cases on college autonomy critically. The major findings are as follows. First, the court and the constitutional scholars consider academic freedom as the constitutional bases of college autonomy but it is more reasonable to regard college autonomy in the Constitution 31-4 as its constitutional bases because of the constitution-revisor's intention to make the constitutional provision on college autonomy, the difference in the subject of academic freedom and college autonomy, the college functions, and the relationship between the right to equal education and college autonomy.
Second, the court and the scholars define college autonomy as the exclusion of the outsider's intervention in college management and the college member's self management of the college but it is reasonable to restrict the outsider's intervention to the unjustified one which is judged from the college function, the effective assurance of the right to equal education, and so on. Third, the court and scholars suggest that the content of college autonomy is student service, personnel management, facility management, and fiscal management. I think that the establishment and closing of the college and the power over the rule-making and revising cannot be the content of college autonomy because college autonomy is based on the existence of the college, the legal characteristics of college autonomy is not power but the fundamental rights, and the rule is not the content but the form.
Fourth, there is disagreement on the legal characteristics of college autonomy between the justices and between the constitutional scholars. I think that it is the fundamental rights embodied by the act on account of the location of college autonomy in the constitution, the compatibility between the fundamental rights and the institutional assurance, and the legalism of college autonomy. Also, college autonomy is not the welfare right nor the procedural right but the freedom considering its definition. Fifth, there is also disharmony on the subject of college autonomy between justices and between the constitutional scholars. I think that the college, the private school legal person, the professor and the student can be the subject of college autonomy because of the college as the legal person, the assurance of the private school autonomy, the asurance of the right to equal education, and so on.
Last, there is disagreement on whether the provision on the restriction of the fundamental rights is applicable to college autonomy between justices and between the constitutional scholars. I think that it is inapplicable to the restriction of college autonomy because of the legalism of college autonomy. On the contrary the congress has wide latitude in college autonomy unless it is unconstitutional or irrational and violates the essence of college autonomy.