Chapter 3 discusses the Authority of Colleges and Universities, the issue of negligence and liability, educational malpratice, contract liability, and Section 1983 liability. Here are some questions for your consideration and discussion.
1. The book touched on Trustee Authority. There has been some discussion in The Chronicle concerning Trustees and alleged conflicts of interest (using Trustees for legal advice, etc.). Do you think the statutes that govern Trustee Authority should be mandated to include conflict-of-interest components, or, if they are included, should be more specific? Why or why not?
2. The book states that as the in loco parentis doctrine waned, the courts started viewing colleges and universities as "bystanders" to the "adults" on campus, reducing the liability of colleges in cases of negligence. However, in loco parentis is making a comeback. Do you think the increase in negligence lawsuits is related with the resurgence of in loco parentis in colleges and universities? Why or why not?
3. In your institutions, have you heard or seen incidents where the institution has chosen to discontinue a program or choose not to initiate in an activity on the basis of an increased chance of liability (ex. Study Abroad programs, off-campus concerts, etc.)? Do you think the institution was acting in its' best interest of was it being overly cautious?
4. On the topic of educational malpractice, do you think an institution can be liable if they admit a student with credentials far below the university's admissions standards who consequently gets academically dismissed? Why or why not?
I still find the concept of sovereign immunity and Section 1983 to be a little unclear. I get the idea, but the determination of how one is or isn't an "arm of the state" escapes me. If anyone wants to throw a little clarification my way, I would be extremely grateful.
I absolutely believe that trustees should be mandated to report conflict of interest issues and I feel that the rules should be more specific and strict. If my memory severs me correctly, I believe that the main way boards deal with trustee COI is that the individual trustee can’t vote on matters in which they have a personal/business stake. This is one way to deal with COI; however I don’t think that it really reduces the COI risk to the institution. I’m willing to bet that most of the board members are close friends and they will most likely vote to appease their fellow board member for political reasons. I understand that sometimes the trustee’s company may offer the best deal for the institution, but overall I think institutions should be very cautious about dealing with trustee companies. Even if it is a good deal the trustee will most likely make a great deal of money on the transaction. Overall, a trustee may want to consider steeping down if they continue to conduct a significant amount of business with the institution.
In regards to Michelle’s question on educational malpractice I believe that an institution should not be held liable if a student gets academically dismissed. I truly believe that if a student is fortunate enough to get admitted into a university that it is the student’s responsibility to succeed even if they have below average credentials. I think the courts have made the right decision to not side with plaintiffs on these types of cases. Like it or not, going to college is still a privilege and if you get the opportunity to go you should make the most of it.
In my experience at PHCC, I am not aware of any instances in which the institution has discontinued an activity or not initiated an activity due to possible increased liability. On the contrary, PHCC seems proactive in encouraging and sponsoring study abroad activities, as well as promoting both on-campus and off-campus events.
I was not familiar with Section 1983 and tried to research the history of the "key statute governing the enforcement of constitutional rights." It seems it was first enacted by Congress in 1871 as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Its original purpose was to uphold the 14th amendment and our constitutional rights against state infringement. It can be used against those representing a state that do not enforce state law.
2. I completely agree that with today's Millennials that in loco parentis is making a comeback. The difference I think is that in previous times there was more of an absence of parental involvement as opposed to today where parents are highly involved in their sons' or daughters' lives. This might be one of the reasons for increased liability, because parents today expect accountability. However, I do not think today's parents would allow colleges to take their place. I think as college officials we are obligated to have more of a shared responsibility with parents rather than a sole responsibility.
My question is how can we balance "forseeable" incidents with personal responsibility and how does this affect the "special relationship" between students and the insitutions that serve them?
3. In one of my previous institutions, working with students and internships, there were many legitimate concerns regarding institutional liability. We had student, faculty, and employer contracts to protect us from liability and involved the university's legal team for recommendations on official legal jargon associated with liability. It was challenging at times to be able to work collaboratively with academnic affairs with regards to internship placements and documentation. There were mandatory internships, that had little concern but had more responsibility with regards to liability due to increased involvement. There were also non-mandatory internships which created many issues associated with faculty involvement and student obligations. In addition some had academic credits assigned to internship courses which increased student responsibility, but others were P/F courses which decreased student responsibility because there were no academic penalties. The final issue associated with internships and liability dealt with faculty involvement and faculty compensation.
1. Statutes addressing trustee authority should encompass conflict of interest clauses, particularly in research universities. A university trustee should be someone who looks after the best interest of the institution and makes ethical decisions based on what will assist the institution achieve its strategic goals. In order to provide a system of checks and balances that holds all trustees accountable for decisions that could benefit them personally, conflict of interest statutes must exist. A conflict of interest statute upholds the integrity of the trustee role by removing individuals from influencing decisions that could bring them personal gain and provides a buffer to also protect the trustee from being labeled biased. I think the only problem with this would be the notion of defining conflict of interest and how that would differ from state to state or institution to institution. Also, would the definition be broad enough to encompass a lot or would it need to be specific to avoid loop holes?
2. I strongly believe that the reason institutions are resorting back to in loco parentis has a lot to do with liability. As our society continues to increase its litigious tendencies, institutions need to find ways to safeguard themselves. Acting in the place of parents allows the institution to place restraints on students and therefore lessens the ability of the students to get into trouble - which is a very parent-like mentality. Do I think it's right? No. Do I think it limits the ability of a student to develop by making his/her own decisions? Yes but I cannot blame an institution for wanting to put in place practices that limit the possibility of them being sued and losing resources that they could be giving students to further their educational needs.
2. I agree that in loco parentis is making a comeback. I think this is for two reasons. The first (at least at the community college) is related to dual enrollment students because they are technically under the legal age. A colleague of mine has had a dual enrollment student as young as 14. The second is the "helicopter" parent mentality of the millennial generation. These parents want to be involved with their children (which is a good thing), but if their children are of legal age, their children are the ones responsible for how they behave as college students. I'm so thankful for FERPA because in my opinion, that helps to separate what we as college instructors / professors can and can not discuss without a student's consent. I do believe that the rise of dual enrollment students and millennial generation students (because of parental involvement) does have a direct effect on the increase in negligence lawsuits. I was actually quite surprised to read in the chapter how the courts had ruled on the various cases discussed.
3. I am personally not aware of any activities or programs that PHCC has decided to discontinue due to the potential for lawsuits. Frankly, I am glad! In my opinion, we have great legal counsel and he seems to work well with the administrators, faculty, and staff to help ensure that liability issues at PHCC are minimized!
4. This is a tricky question. The way you phrase it - it seems to apply more to the community college rather than a university primarily due to remedial education being one of the missions of community colleges. I do feel that community colleges (as this is one of their missions) have a responsibility to ensure that they have done all that they can to help remediate students who have tested into those courses. In my opinion, advisors should pay careful attention to make sure that these students have successfully completed these courses prior to moving them into "mainstream" courses. I feel that educational malpractice could potentially be claimed at the developmental level, rather than at the "mainstream" level because if a student has succeeded at the developmental level, they are more likely to succeed at the "mainstream" level.
I agree with Matthew and Viancca regarding Trustee COI and its application in the university setting. As mentioned, the trustee should act in the best interest of the institution, as well as, protect the university’s financial, physical, and human assets and operations for future generations. I think the policies regarding COI should be narrowly drafted to prevent loopholes. However, as with all legal jargon, everything is subject to interpretation and arguments can always be crafted to persuade those rendering decisions.
I was thinking about the university when I wrote that question; I was thinking of special exception admission based on legacy, special talent (Music, athletics, etc.), parental clout. I'm not saying that happens here. It was more of a hypothetical.
We do have students who are admitted who have to complete remedial courses that do not count towards their general education courses. This is, of course, to ensure that they are prepared for those higher level gen eds.
Thanks for your insight into the community college!
1. Regarding Michelle’s question of whether “the statutes that govern Trustee Authority should be mandated to include conflict-of-interest components, or, if they are included, should be more specific?” Florida statutes do include conflict of interest components. PHCC has a Board Rule regarding conflicts of interest which references the state statute and specifically names actions which are prohibited. I would think that every institution (certainly those which are public) would have similar governing rules. Here is a link to the state statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0112/part03.htm&StatuteYear=2009&Title=%2D%3E2009%2D%3EChapter%20112%2D%3EPart%20III In reviewing the statutes, specific guidance is provided regarding issues such as “doing business with one’s agency,” for example. I think this is very beneficial in terms of spelling out what is and isn’t allowable practice. The issue which I think Michelle and Matthew raised is whether people respect and follow the statutes. In my particular institution, our Board members are highly ethical individuals, who are very clear on their roles and are exceedingly careful to follow the state statutes and rules. Although Board members may be friends outside of the Board meeting, they are also aware of their responsibilities and have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers (if they’re a public institution) to govern the institution in a way that insures best use of public funds. 2. The question of educational malpractice when an institution accepts a student whose credentials are below the institution’s standards is an interesting one. This has happened on more than one occasion, and quite often to the benefit of these students who have risen to the challenge and, with tutoring assistance have been able to perform well. I found it ironic that, in this case, a student athlete, who clearly benefitted from this type of admissions “assistance” then blamed the institution for his not having gained the necessary academics.
3. I really value the question you pose here as it relates directly to the work we are doing in the USF Center for Leadership and Civic Engagement. Every year we organize and send 18-25 Alternative Spring Breaks trips to locations across the country. After reading Chapter 3 and reflecting on it, I obviously know a large amount of liability exists in allowing these students to serve on behalf of the university across the nation and how has the university been so comfortable with this program for so many years?
There are known issues of liablity that exist and incidents that have taken place through the years, but the program remains and recieves full support of the university. The university acts in it's best interest by applying methods of risk management and certainly provides for risk transfer through liabilty insurance, indemnity agreements, and releases. I think it is a good example of the university general counsel working to ensure that we allow these great educational and life-changing programs to take place, but still allowing for and recognizing the liablity that is present.
Bloss v. University of Minnesota was a very interesting case that also made me think more about your question. Although this case involved a study aboard program, I thought it had some direct links to how we organize and implement our Alternative Spring Breaks. Liability surrounding the location, safety of the location, providing students with information on the area, and safety of the housing during the Spring Break. These are all obvious reasons that the University may choose to stop the program if we don't properly investigate the issues of liability.
The issue of having a COI statute in by-laws, legislation, etc. is vital to making sure that the integrity of the school, the institution of the board and the individual board members is held in tact. I have a first had account of an example of a conflict of interest that was very close to home for me. My sister had graduated second in her high school class form FAMU High in Tallahassee, FL. She was also the SGA VP, on the National Honor Society throughout high school, and had maintaned a high GPA. She had earned the presidential scholarship to attend FAMU in the College of Pharmacy. She was awarded the scholarship by my father, who was the president of FAMU at the time of her matriculation to FAMU. After much scrutiny in the media, my father was forced to withdraw her scholarship because it was seen as a conflict of interest. This was done despite the fact that there was no rule in place stating that a child of a university president could not receive a presidential scholarship no matter how deserving. My father did it because he wanted to avoid the perception of inpropriety.
With respect to the board of trustees there is definately a need for COI statutes because it can be quite harmful. Without it, there are no real checks and balances. In fact the SUS would run rampant with vengence and greed. I have seen firsthand what happens when there is a COI in place and there is an administration and board of trustees who basically ignore the policy and do whatever they want. Imagine what it would be like if there wasn't a COI at all. Believe it or not that does happen more often than we would like to admit.
With regard to Trustee authority and conflict of interest components I am in agreement that statutes should have some governance over a conflict of interest in that the Trustees are in place to act in the better interest of the institution without regard to personal gain or favor. The question I ponder however, is that with so many Trustees being appointed by governors or other like-leveled individuals is it truly possible to omit interests that may be in conflict. As we look at the politics of the appointment processes and favors for support, etc, many Trustees may indeed have some significant interest in the work and business of the Institution. While statutes should be in place to help safeguard against this there also needs to be appropriate checks and balance to ensure that situations may be called to question appropriately and swiftly to ensure the integrity of governance and authority.
When considering in loco parentis, I do indeed believe that the increase of negligence lawsuits in our highly litigious society has and is leading to a resurgence of the doctrine if not in practice than at least in philosophy. I think that parents and those footing the bill are expecting more form us and thus our philosophy and in some cases our practice on campus is changing to reflect that.
on the note liability and discontinuance of programs generally, I cannot think of university sponsored programs that i've seen discontinued at the hands of institutional liability concerns, but in my work, I've seen many institutions beginning to develop policies and processes by which chapters of fraternities and sororities cannot register event outside of certain jurisdictions etc. For instance, formals for many institution cannot happen outside of the bound of city limits, some go to the extent of not allowing them of campus, I can't help but believe this is based in precedent by which universities have been held liable for what they should have known to be occurring or can easily foresee as problematic.
One instance that just came to mind is the situation recently where many institution have discontinued trips Mexico in light of the warfare and drug trafficing issues that are currently ongoing. Many have also been issuing statements of warning for spring break and other like trips to manage the perception of liability on the part of the institution. I think this is good measure to manage a foreseeable problem, but certainly a situation by which institutions are managing the potential of being held liable.
Chapter 3 discusses the Authority of Colleges and Universities, the issue of negligence and liability, educational malpratice, contract liability, and Section 1983 liability. Here are some questions for your consideration and discussion.
ReplyDelete1. The book touched on Trustee Authority. There has been some discussion in The Chronicle concerning Trustees and alleged conflicts of interest (using Trustees for legal advice, etc.). Do you think the statutes that govern Trustee Authority should be mandated to include conflict-of-interest components, or, if they are included, should be more specific? Why or why not?
2. The book states that as the in loco parentis doctrine waned, the courts started viewing colleges and universities as "bystanders" to the "adults" on campus, reducing the liability of colleges in cases of negligence. However, in loco parentis is making a comeback. Do you think the increase in negligence lawsuits is related with the resurgence of in loco parentis in colleges and universities? Why or why not?
3. In your institutions, have you heard or seen incidents where the institution has chosen to discontinue a program or choose not to initiate in an activity on the basis of an increased chance of liability (ex. Study Abroad programs, off-campus concerts, etc.)? Do you think the institution was acting in its' best interest of was it being overly cautious?
4. On the topic of educational malpractice, do you think an institution can be liable if they admit a student with credentials far below the university's admissions standards who consequently gets academically dismissed? Why or why not?
I still find the concept of sovereign immunity and Section 1983 to be a little unclear. I get the idea, but the determination of how one is or isn't an "arm of the state" escapes me. If anyone wants to throw a little clarification my way, I would be extremely grateful.
I absolutely believe that trustees should be mandated to report conflict of interest issues and I feel that the rules should be more specific and strict. If my memory severs me correctly, I believe that the main way boards deal with trustee COI is that the individual trustee can’t vote on matters in which they have a personal/business stake. This is one way to deal with COI; however I don’t think that it really reduces the COI risk to the institution. I’m willing to bet that most of the board members are close friends and they will most likely vote to appease their fellow board member for political reasons. I understand that sometimes the trustee’s company may offer the best deal for the institution, but overall I think institutions should be very cautious about dealing with trustee companies. Even if it is a good deal the trustee will most likely make a great deal of money on the transaction. Overall, a trustee may want to consider steeping down if they continue to conduct a significant amount of business with the institution.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Michelle’s question on educational malpractice I believe that an institution should not be held liable if a student gets academically dismissed. I truly believe that if a student is fortunate enough to get admitted into a university that it is the student’s responsibility to succeed even if they have below average credentials. I think the courts have made the right decision to not side with plaintiffs on these types of cases. Like it or not, going to college is still a privilege and if you get the opportunity to go you should make the most of it.
In my experience at PHCC, I am not aware of any instances in which the institution has discontinued an activity or not initiated an activity due to possible increased liability. On the contrary, PHCC seems proactive in encouraging and sponsoring study abroad activities, as well as promoting both on-campus and off-campus events.
ReplyDeleteI was not familiar with Section 1983 and tried to research the history of the "key statute governing the enforcement of constitutional rights." It seems it was first enacted by Congress in 1871 as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Its original purpose was to uphold the 14th amendment and our constitutional rights against state infringement. It can be used against those representing a state that do not enforce state law.
2. I completely agree that with today's Millennials that in loco parentis is making a comeback. The difference I think is that in previous times there was more of an absence of parental involvement as opposed to today where parents are highly involved in their sons' or daughters' lives. This might be one of the reasons for increased liability, because parents today expect accountability. However, I do not think today's parents would allow colleges to take their place. I think as college officials we are obligated to have more of a shared responsibility with parents rather than a sole responsibility.
ReplyDeleteMy question is how can we balance "forseeable" incidents with personal responsibility and how does this affect the "special relationship" between students and the insitutions that serve them?
3. In one of my previous institutions, working with students and internships, there were many legitimate concerns regarding institutional liability. We had student, faculty, and employer contracts to protect us from liability and involved the university's legal team for recommendations on official legal jargon associated with liability. It was challenging at times to be able to work collaboratively with academnic affairs with regards to internship placements and documentation. There were mandatory internships, that had little concern but had more responsibility with regards to liability due to increased involvement. There were also non-mandatory internships which created many issues associated with faculty involvement and student obligations. In addition some had academic credits assigned to internship courses which increased student responsibility, but others were P/F courses which decreased student responsibility because there were no academic penalties. The final issue associated with internships and liability dealt with faculty involvement and faculty compensation.
1. Statutes addressing trustee authority should encompass conflict of interest clauses, particularly in research universities. A university trustee should be someone who looks after the best interest of the institution and makes ethical decisions based on what will assist the institution achieve its strategic goals. In order to provide a system of checks and balances that holds all trustees accountable for decisions that could benefit them personally, conflict of interest statutes must exist. A conflict of interest statute upholds the integrity of the trustee role by removing individuals from influencing decisions that could bring them personal gain and provides a buffer to also protect the trustee from being labeled biased. I think the only problem with this would be the notion of defining conflict of interest and how that would differ from state to state or institution to institution. Also, would the definition be broad enough to encompass a lot or would it need to be specific to avoid loop holes?
ReplyDelete2. I strongly believe that the reason institutions are resorting back to in loco parentis has a lot to do with liability. As our society continues to increase its litigious tendencies, institutions need to find ways to safeguard themselves. Acting in the place of parents allows the institution to place restraints on students and therefore lessens the ability of the students to get into trouble - which is a very parent-like mentality. Do I think it's right? No. Do I think it limits the ability of a student to develop by making his/her own decisions? Yes but I cannot blame an institution for wanting to put in place practices that limit the possibility of them being sued and losing resources that they could be giving students to further their educational needs.
These are great discussion questions!
ReplyDelete2. I agree that in loco parentis is making a comeback. I think this is for two reasons. The first (at least at the community college) is related to dual enrollment students because they are technically under the legal age. A colleague of mine has had a dual enrollment student as young as 14. The second is the "helicopter" parent mentality of the millennial generation. These parents want to be involved with their children (which is a good thing), but if their children are of legal age, their children are the ones responsible for how they behave as college students. I'm so thankful for FERPA because in my opinion, that helps to separate what we as college instructors / professors can and can not discuss without a student's consent. I do believe that the rise of dual enrollment students and millennial generation students (because of parental involvement) does have a direct effect on the increase in negligence lawsuits. I was actually quite surprised to read in the chapter how the courts had ruled on the various cases discussed.
3. I am personally not aware of any activities or programs that PHCC has decided to discontinue due to the potential for lawsuits. Frankly, I am glad! In my opinion, we have great legal counsel and he seems to work well with the administrators, faculty, and staff to help ensure that liability issues at PHCC are minimized!
4. This is a tricky question. The way you phrase it - it seems to apply more to the community college rather than a university primarily due to remedial education being one of the missions of community colleges. I do feel that community colleges (as this is one of their missions) have a responsibility to ensure that they have done all that they can to help remediate students who have tested into those courses. In my opinion, advisors should pay careful attention to make sure that these students have successfully completed these courses prior to moving them into "mainstream" courses. I feel that educational malpractice could potentially be claimed at the developmental level, rather than at the "mainstream" level because if a student has succeeded at the developmental level, they are more likely to succeed at the "mainstream" level.
I agree with Matthew and Viancca regarding Trustee COI and its application in the university setting. As mentioned, the trustee should act in the best interest of the institution, as well as, protect the university’s financial, physical, and human assets and operations for future generations. I think the policies regarding COI should be narrowly drafted to prevent loopholes. However, as with all legal jargon, everything is subject to interpretation and arguments can always be crafted to persuade those rendering decisions.
ReplyDeleteMisty:
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about the university when I wrote that question; I was thinking of special exception admission based on legacy, special talent (Music, athletics, etc.), parental clout. I'm not saying that happens here. It was more of a hypothetical.
We do have students who are admitted who have to complete remedial courses that do not count towards their general education courses. This is, of course, to ensure that they are prepared for those higher level gen eds.
Thanks for your insight into the community college!
1. Regarding Michelle’s question of whether “the statutes that govern Trustee Authority should be mandated to include conflict-of-interest components, or, if they are included, should be more specific?” Florida statutes do include conflict of interest components. PHCC has a Board Rule regarding conflicts of interest which references the state statute and specifically names actions which are prohibited. I would think that every institution (certainly those which are public) would have similar governing rules. Here is a link to the state statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0112/part03.htm&StatuteYear=2009&Title=%2D%3E2009%2D%3EChapter%20112%2D%3EPart%20III
ReplyDeleteIn reviewing the statutes, specific guidance is provided regarding issues such as “doing business with one’s agency,” for example. I think this is very beneficial in terms of spelling out what is and isn’t allowable practice. The issue which I think Michelle and Matthew raised is whether people respect and follow the statutes. In my particular institution, our Board members are highly ethical individuals, who are very clear on their roles and are exceedingly careful to follow the state statutes and rules. Although Board members may be friends outside of the Board meeting, they are also aware of their responsibilities and have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers (if they’re a public institution) to govern the institution in a way that insures best use of public funds.
2. The question of educational malpractice when an institution accepts a student whose credentials are below the institution’s standards is an interesting one. This has happened on more than one occasion, and quite often to the benefit of these students who have risen to the challenge and, with tutoring assistance have been able to perform well. I found it ironic that, in this case, a student athlete, who clearly benefitted from this type of admissions “assistance” then blamed the institution for his not having gained the necessary academics.
3. I really value the question you pose here as it relates directly to the work we are doing in the USF Center for Leadership and Civic Engagement. Every year we organize and send 18-25 Alternative Spring Breaks trips to locations across the country. After reading Chapter 3 and reflecting on it, I obviously know a large amount of liability exists in allowing these students to serve on behalf of the university across the nation and how has the university been so comfortable with this program for so many years?
ReplyDeleteThere are known issues of liablity that exist and incidents that have taken place through the years, but the program remains and recieves full support of the university. The university acts in it's best interest by applying methods of risk management and certainly provides for risk transfer through liabilty insurance, indemnity agreements, and releases. I think it is a good example of the university general counsel working to ensure that we allow these great educational and life-changing programs to take place, but still allowing for and recognizing the liablity that is present.
Bloss v. University of Minnesota was a very interesting case that also made me think more about your question. Although this case involved a study aboard program, I thought it had some direct links to how we organize and implement our Alternative Spring Breaks. Liability surrounding the location, safety of the location, providing students with information on the area, and safety of the housing during the Spring Break. These are all obvious reasons that the University may choose to stop the program if we don't properly investigate the issues of liability.
The issue of having a COI statute in by-laws, legislation, etc. is vital to making sure that the integrity of the school, the institution of the board and the individual board members is held in tact. I have a first had account of an example of a conflict of interest that was very close to home for me. My sister had graduated second in her high school class form FAMU High in Tallahassee, FL. She was also the SGA VP, on the National Honor Society throughout high school, and had maintaned a high GPA. She had earned the presidential scholarship to attend FAMU in the College of Pharmacy. She was awarded the scholarship by my father, who was the president of FAMU at the time of her matriculation to FAMU. After much scrutiny in the media, my father was forced to withdraw her scholarship because it was seen as a conflict of interest. This was done despite the fact that there was no rule in place stating that a child of a university president could not receive a presidential scholarship no matter how deserving. My father did it because he wanted to avoid the perception of inpropriety.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the board of trustees there is definately a need for COI statutes because it can be quite harmful. Without it, there are no real checks and balances. In fact the SUS would run rampant with vengence and greed. I have seen firsthand what happens when there is a COI in place and there is an administration and board of trustees who basically ignore the policy and do whatever they want. Imagine what it would be like if there wasn't a COI at all. Believe it or not that does happen more often than we would like to admit.
With regard to Trustee authority and conflict of interest components I am in agreement that statutes should have some governance over a conflict of interest in that the Trustees are in place to act in the better interest of the institution without regard to personal gain or favor. The question I ponder however, is that with so many Trustees being appointed by governors or other like-leveled individuals is it truly possible to omit interests that may be in conflict. As we look at the politics of the appointment processes and favors for support, etc, many Trustees may indeed have some significant interest in the work and business of the Institution. While statutes should be in place to help safeguard against this there also needs to be appropriate checks and balance to ensure that situations may be called to question appropriately and swiftly to ensure the integrity of governance and authority.
ReplyDeleteWhen considering in loco parentis, I do indeed believe that the increase of negligence lawsuits in our highly litigious society has and is leading to a resurgence of the doctrine if not in practice than at least in philosophy. I think that parents and those footing the bill are expecting more form us and thus our philosophy and in some cases our practice on campus is changing to reflect that.
ReplyDeleteon the note liability and discontinuance of programs generally, I cannot think of university sponsored programs that i've seen discontinued at the hands of institutional liability concerns, but in my work, I've seen many institutions beginning to develop policies and processes by which chapters of fraternities and sororities cannot register event outside of certain jurisdictions etc. For instance, formals for many institution cannot happen outside of the bound of city limits, some go to the extent of not allowing them of campus, I can't help but believe this is based in precedent by which universities have been held liable for what they should have known to be occurring or can easily foresee as problematic.
One instance that just came to mind is the situation recently where many institution have discontinued trips Mexico in light of the warfare and drug trafficing issues that are currently ongoing. Many have also been issuing statements of warning for spring break and other like trips to manage the perception of liability on the part of the institution. I think this is good measure to manage a foreseeable problem, but certainly a situation by which institutions are managing the potential of being held liable.