The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University: Who Assumes the Risks of College Life

1. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University: Who Assumes the Risks of College Life?

2. Presentation The following presentation will provide an overview of the book, The Rights and Responsibilities of the Modern University: Who Assumes the Risks of College Life, by quoting sections of the book that encompass the content of the chapter and using examples also provided in the textbook. �The wisdom of the wise and the experience of the ages are perpetuated by quotations� --Benjamin Disraeli

3. Toward a Balancing of Rights and Responsibilities on Campus Modern American Universities often evoke images of laureled sanctuaries where higher learning is facilitated in a unique and particularly safe environment. Yet, college education is filled with potential safety risks for students.

4. Toward a Balancing of Rights and Responsibilities on Campus Basic Causes of Danger on College & University Campuses: Students who move to the campus are living �on their own" for the first time in their lives Infrastructure of buildings are a hazard�Residence Halls on many campuses, for example, are old and inadequate to house students Many college students do not perceive their campus as being dangerous and are unaware of any potential harm The rise of alcohol and drug use among college students directly affect students� behavior�many times negative behavior�that account for the most significant risk factors on campuses today.

5. Toward a Balancing of Rights and Responsibilities on Campus The complexity and confusion in university law is the natural and direct result of the revolutions in university law and culture in the post World Ward II era. Most commentators and courts believe that the American university stood for the most part in loco parentis to its students before 1960. Before the Civil Rights Movements, universities were given legal insularity and carried out in loco parentis procedures. However, in the 1960s and 1970s students argued that in loco parentis authority had been used on them to punish them for or limit their involvement in civil rights movement. In the 1970s and 1980s, the university shifted to being a bystander. Progressively, universities and university law stride to serve as �facilator[s] of student education and development and of students and universities as legally empowered and mutually responsible. DUTY�defining a both legally and educationally sound university legal system and developing a proper legal relationship between the university and its students to produce a balanced environment of rights and responsibilities.

6. The Era of Loco Parentis and Legal Insularity Legal Images and rules can radically alter parameters of risk and can foster a range of effects on university culture from dictatorial style control of student life, to disorder, danger, and administrative disempowerment.

7. The Era of In Loco Parentis and Legal Insularity In loco parentis promoted the image of the parental university and insured that most problems were handled within the university, by the university, and often quietly

8. The Era of In Loco Parentis and Legal Insularity University life in the era of in loco parentis�truly the insularity era�was subject to some very marginal scrutiny in the courts, particularly regarding physical safety of student that could be protected by good faith and reasonable care. In the era of In Loco Parentis, law was not important to college-student relations. University was part family, charity, and/or government. In return, universities were given immense flexibility to make decisions based on this hybrid relationship. The story of in loco parentis is one of the rise and decline of insularity from legal responsibility and the rise of justiciability of university life.

9. Revolutions on University Campuses�The 1960s Civil Rights Movements (and Beyond) and the Death of Loco Parentis

10. Revolutions on University Campuses�The 1960s Civil Rights Movements (and Beyond) and the Death of Loco Parentis The demise of in loco parentis was hastened by the fact that university life in the 1960s (and 1970s) became a focal point of the major social issues of the time. The targets of reformers in college were the improper (and sometimes racially motivated) denial of civil rights, denial of procedural due process, unequal treatment of women, and abuses of authoritarian governmental power, etc. The Civil Rights Movement raised questions of basic civil rights and the bargains struck between universities and students.

11. Revolutions on University Campuses�The 1960s Civil Rights Movements (and Beyond) and the Death of Loco Parentis A case that set precedent... Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education Six Black students were essentially expelled for participating in civil rights demonstrations seeking the desegregation of lunch counters and other places of public accommodation. They received a letter from the President of Alabama State College notifying them that they had been expelled from the school. However, the letter neglected to succinctly explain the reasons for the expulsion. The letter simply stated that their conduct was harmful to the school.

12. Revolutions on University Campuses�The 1960s Civil Rights Movements (and Beyond) and the Death of Loco Parentis Outcomes from the Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education Court Decision Students won the following rights: The right to engage in political speech and to publish political messages free from censorship; The right to participate in, work for and establish student organizations; Equal access to college funds for organizations, despite the unpopularity of religious and political viewpoints put forth by those organizations; The right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures; Some rights to process even in academic performance evaluations.

13. The Rise of the �Bystander� University in the 1970s and 1980s�The �Duty�/ No �Duty� Era In the period ranging roughly from 1970 to the mid-1980s, American courts stopped relying upon the fallen parental legal model and began an approach to law suits using the legal analytical/doctrinal tools of �duty� and �no duty�

14. The Rise of the �Bystander� University in the 1970s and 1980s�The �Duty�/ No �Duty� Era In the role of bystanders, colleges had no legal duties to students and hence were not legally responsible for harm �No duty� court decisions outlines that universities (no longer able to exercise parental discipline and control) can prevent student from engaging in behaviors that can cause harm to themselves (e.g. binge drink and drug use)

15. The Rise of the �Bystander� University in the 1970s and 1980s�The �Duty�/ No �Duty� Era Bradshaw v. Rawlings (Example of a bystander case) On April 13, 1975, 18 year old college sophomore was injured in an automobile accident. He was riding as a passenger in the backseat of a vehicle driven by an intoxicated fellow student. They had just come from an off-campus sophomore class picnic. The drinking age was 21 in Pennsylvania: this was a sophomore class event where most individuals were underage

16. The Rise of the �Bystander� University in the 1970s and 1980s�The �Duty�/ No �Duty� Era Continuation of Bradshaw v. Rawlings (Example of a bystander case) The picnic was an annual event and signed off by an advisor (who was not at the event). Copies of the flyers for the event were made on college equipment and posted all around campus. The event was publicized as a �wet� event. The court ruled that the university was not legally responsible for the harm because there was no legal duty to prevent or intervene.

17. The Rise of the �Bystander� University in the 1970s and 1980s�The �Duty�/ No �Duty� Era A Few Implications of the �Duty�/ �No Duty� Era Students are �adults.� Universities cannot and should not �baby-sit� students. A student�s loss of right to protections from harm is directly related to student freedoms/individual rights won in the 60s and 70s. Universities cannot �realistically� enforce campus regulations, especially involving alcohol use and campus activities (including fraternities)

18. The Rise of the �Bystander� University in the 1970s and 1980s�The �Duty�/ No �Duty� Era Universities have a duty to... Protect students from foreseeable criminal intrusions by dangerous people in the community. Treat students and non-students (especially those that reside in the residence halls) the same way it would treat tenants. Use reasonable care in planning and executing student activities, like field trips. Ensure that students are aware of and accept the risks involved with the activity Protect off-campus students from foreseeable dangerous people on-campus.

19. Student/University Relationship(s) at the Turn of the Millennium�The Duty Era The new image is one of shared responsibility and a balancing of university authority and student freedom

20. Student/University Relationship(s) at the Turn of the Millennium�The Duty Era Courts confront the law of student/university relations on a situational basis�one case at a time�and are demonstrably influenced by two counter-balancing notions In loco parentis The Bystander Era The courts promote/enforce business-like responsibilities and rights while maintaining the uniqueness of college affairs. This new perspective give the university the right to act more like a business where special applications of more general negligence and duty guidelines are used.

21. Student/University Relationship(s) at the Turn of the Millennium�The Duty Era The courts found helpful to sort claims into the following four categories: Premises/landlord responsibility with respect to conditions on premises (like broken locks); Responsibility to control dangerous persons on campus and/or prevent harm caused by them; Responsibility regarding student activities (like chemistry lab, sports, field trips, etc.) Responsibility for student alcohol use and abuse These categories help courts relate a particular type of claim to particular duty rules and solve problems posed by the �claim� within those parameters.

22. Student/University Relationship(s) at the Turn of the Millennium�The Duty Era The relationships between students and universities in a modern era The university/student relationship is unique and it is more than strictly educational; the primary function of the university is to foster �intellectual development through an academic curriculum� Many other aspects of university life are �university guided,� including housing, food, security, extra curricular activities, and student life; Students are not solely responsible for their own safety simply because they are adults; The fact that students may be adults does make the university concerns and efforts related to student alcohol use inappropriate; The university is in a unique relationship with students because of the �situations created by the concentration of young people on a college campus and the ability of the university to protect its students�

23. Student and University Relationship(s) at the Turn of the Millennium The duty era has effectively ended almost all aspects of college insularity except with respect to alcohol use on and off campus. The pendulum has swung away from extreme student freedom models. The duty era has been implicit search for a balance between university authority and student freedom and for shared responsibility for student/safety risk.

24. The Facilitator University The facilitator university model is primarily designed to offer a comprehensive, adaptable legal and practical model for university/student safety affairs. It is the �windows� which arranges (and discards) the various �icons,� as it were.

25. The Facilitator University The facilitator model is principally aimed at establishing balance in college and university law and responsibilities. It is particularly valuable to first examine the various images and place them on a continuum from most �university authority� to most �student freedom� orientated. The facilitator university is different from a fiduciary in all but very unusual circumstances.

26. Conclusion To reduce danger on campus and enhance the educational program, we must facilitate shared responsibility for safety. In the rush to resist law and blame or distance themselves from students, college lost sight of important opportunities to build safer campus environments and close the distance between administration/faculty, students, and even law itself

27. Conclusion The law can bring campus communities together and provide the structure in which student freedoms can flourish. Students can be free and safe and yet enjoy constitutional adulthood Student simply need structure and guidance to manage their educational and personal development opportunities in college Some structure actually enhances the hard won student constitutional freedoms. Lack of structure undermines those freedoms