Since the 1960s, court precedent has ruled that the rights of adult college students effectively void a university’s responsibility to protect its students called “in loco parentis.” This legal doctrine would dictate that institutions need to take on a parental role in student’s lives, but with its termination universities have less incentive to protect students from harm.
Prior to the intense civil unrest that occurred on college campuses in the 60s, colleges were given a great deal of leeway when it came to the interpretation of the doctrine. Institutions were allowed to enforce regulations that denied students basic rights if they believed such regulations maintained the physical, mental or moral welfare of students.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, the concept of high school was still in its infancy in large parts of the country, and the majority of college students began their courses at 15 years old. So, for years these regulations were relatively uncontroversial.
The Constitution does not guarantee the same rights to minors and adults, leaving strict university regulations mostly uncontested. However, as the modern higher education system took shape in the twentieth century, it became obvious the “in loco parentis“ doctrine was in trouble.
In 1961, the federal court case, Dixon v. Alabama, finally invalidated the doctrine. After six students were expelled from Alabama State College for participating in civil rights demonstrations, the court held that the withholding of rights for students in both public and state-assisted private institutions was in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
During the decades that ensued, this guarantee of constitutional rights for students brought an end to colleges’ parental responsibility to protect their students from harm.
The phasing out of a university’s paternal responsibility was best articulated in 1979, with the court opinion of Bradshaw v. Rawlings. Donald Bradshaw was a sophomore at Delaware Valley College who was injured after his intoxicated friend crashed while driving him home after attending a school-sponsored picnic. Bradshaw not only sued his friend but also Deleware Valley College for failing to prevent underage drinking at the picnic, which according to his argument was the cause of the accident.
The court found the college was not an insurer of students’ safety, and does not owe it to students to protect them from harm. The court opinion read, “A dramatic reapportionment of responsibilities and social interests of general security took place. Regulation by the college of student life on and off campus has become limited.
At one time, exercising their rights and duties in loco parentis, colleges were able to impose strict regulations. But today students vigorously claim the right to define and regulate their own lives.”
Since these rulings, the limiting of university liability has been criticized by many. Just this year, Barlow v. State of Washington held that a university’s responsibility to students is akin to the relationship between a landowner and an invitee. The upholding of this limited university liability was criticized in the court’s dissenting opinion, where Washington Supreme Court Judge, Raquel Montoya-Lewis wrote that she believes since the removal of the in loco parentis doctrine, universities have been in a “bystander era.”
There have been many attempts to ensure that schools have an incentive to protect their students in the bystander era, such as The Clery Act, named after Jeanne Clery. In 1986, Jeanne Clery was murdered in her dorm at Leigh University. Clery’s parents sued the university, accusing them of covering up a rise in crime at Leigh, with 38 other violent crimes occurring on campus in the three years leading up to Clery’s death.
The Clerys received a two million dollar settlement, and in 1990, the family worked with Congress to pass The Clery Act, requiring all schools that accept state aid to publish on-campus crime statistics in a yearly report.
The requirement to release crime statistics was a great step toward incentivizing colleges to protect their students, the idea being that institutions would be tougher on crime to have their published statistics make them attractive when it comes to admissions.
However, there are still efforts to ensure that institutions of higher learning understand that their relationship with students is more than just a place to learn and live. They also serve as aids in students’ personal growth, helping them become young adults who are ready to enter the workforce smartly and confidently.
They should have a reasonable responsibility to protect their students from crime and substance abuse culture, where the university plays a more active role rather than using disciplinary action to combat a very powerful campus culture.
I do not want to attend a university that does not have my best interest in mind. There needs to be an end to the bystander era so students and families feel safer paying thousands of dollars to attend college. Universities do not need to feel a parental responsibility to protect the adults who walk their halls, but they can still do their part in mitigating harm on campus.
This story was written by John O’Shea. He can be reached @[email protected]
