|
Student Rights? Contact your Friendly Campus Administrator By Abby Bertumen Whether it is backlash from the college student movement of the 1960s or a direct result of the increasing amount of alcohol use on today's campuses, the concept of in loco parentis is back. In loco parentis--"in place of the parents"--was first used in the 1950s and 60s to describe the role colleges supposedly had in students' lives. Author Terry H. Anderson offered a legal definition of the college's position back then in The Movement and the Sixties: "It meant that unlike regular citizens, students between kindergarten and graduate school could be tried by civil and university authorities, and they could be found guilty, not just of breaking laws, but also of violating campus regulations." It is this legality that Ithaca College, and so many other colleges in this country today, still rely upon: the ability to formulate additional college policies above federal and state laws, and compromising personal freedoms guaranteed to the student in the very same handbook in which these additional policies are written. Student movements in the 1960s, especially the Free Speech movement, were integral in securing student rights in written college policies. However, some form of campus regulation still existed, as they do today; as a result, the college's will and role to control students' freedom has become more of a covert action. The issue is the student conduct code vs. the personal freedoms of the student contained within it, and how the former seems to unfairly curtail the latter. However, because of the way both are presented in the Handbook, students may be confused as to their rights in light of the conduct code. At the same time, students who are aware of their rights and abide by them, might still get penalized under the code. It is an issue that all students should begin to raise with campus administration and authority if they--despite the responsibilities that undoubtedly do come with living in a college setting--are to exist in a microcosmic democracy at least slightly resembling the one trying to be achieved for the rest of the nation. While some Ithaca College administrators may generally want to construct an environment of constitutionality and democracy, the fear of the consequences of empowering students with the total freedoms due an American citizen overshadows this effort--if it exists. But administrators, despite their arguments that colleges are special institutions of impressionable youth and institutions of specific goals of constructed learning which are their justification for their power, are not above personal freedoms. And students should know these and adhere to them above all else, even if it involves questioning administration and amending codes. One example that Buzzsaw Haircut provided last year of such a college practice was the issue of free speech. In the Ithaca College Handbook, the freedom of expression is clearly stated in that it allows students to hold discussions, distribute leaflets, circulate petitions, etc. However, the College adds that this expression is allowed as long as it "does not disrupt the essential operation of the institution." And the phrase gives the College a lot of liberty to interpret college free speech: organizations found this out by being required to be recognized by the Student Activities Board in order to distribute publications, and then having to seek second approval for what was limited terms of distribution. These policies proved to be negotiable, but students must be willing to question and discuss the policies for their personal freedoms' sake. This brings us to the issue of Campus Safety and room entry and searches. During a history class in which the discussion centered around students' rights in the past and today, I found that all of us had very differing assumptions and views of what Campus Safety was allowed to do when it came to our rooms. Some people argued that Campus Safety is allowed to conduct a room search whenever they want, and others said that students could refuse to let an officer enter their room, no matter what. Under the Ithaca College Handbook Student Conduct Code, in the Statement of Rights and Freedoms section , the right to privacy is stated as such: "Students are protected from arbitrary and capricious invasions of privacy and entryinto their residences..." Room searches differ from room inspections, which are permissible under the right of privacy, where resident assistants check for illegal appliances, closed windows, etc. during breaks. Students are aware of these inspections. Also, there are site inspections that an officer is permitted to perform upon entry into a room without a warning where health and safety are concerned, or the location of missing property and/or prohibited articles. "A search is looking in somebody's drawers, going through closets, kind of going into closed areas, where an inspection is looking at what is in sight," said Mike Leary, assistant director of Judicial Affairs. Leary added that the officer must get signed permission from the student to conduct a search. If the student does not agree to a search, the officer would have to get a warrant--in compliance with federal law. Leary said that student refusal to a search is "very rare." He said he imagines that the officer would get a search warrant if that happened. "I think that, for the most part, that's not an issue," Leary said of student refusal to a search. First, the officer's initial right to enter a room, is a controversial one. The exact terms on legal entrance can be justified by both student and officer in the rights section of the Handbook, yet the responsibilities section seems to give the college precedence over the outcome of the situation. Former Ithaca College R.A. Renee Thibodeau said that technically, barring a situation where any student's life would be in danger (such as a conflict between two people with screaming and yelling behind a closed door), a student can refuse to let any member of College personnel into the room. However, she said that it is the College's word over the students. And because the College is in a position of power in making the regulations, the student appears to have the disadvantage. As mentioned before, the Handbook reinforces this college practice. A student who refuses to let an officer into their room, could do so because the right secures their protection of privacy. However, what if the student's definition of an invasion of privacy differs from that of the officer and he/she denies entry, reserving their personal freedom? In any other setting, the officer would have to obtain a warrant. But, Section B of the Statement of Responsibilities says that "students are required to provide proper identification upon request or otherwise comply with the reasonable requests of any College employee, including, but not limited to, Campus Center Staff, residential life staff, Dining Services staff, and SASP members acting in performance of their duties." So the student who has denied entry to the officer may still be disciplined by the school because of their failure to comply--even though no other offenses have been found against them at that time. Leary agreed that this is certainly the case with room searches, where he said officers always try to get the cooperation of the students. If the officers initially want to search the room, however, the student is expected to comply under the conduct code, Leary said. Again, if this were not a college campus, a person refusing an unwarranted search would be found innocent until the officer returned with a warrant, searched and possibly found something illegal. Not so with Ithaca College. Such a student in a situation would be taken note of negatively, and subject to the consequences of non-compliance. "If [the officers] wrote a report, they might put in the report: 'student was uncooperative at first, would not let us into rooms,'" Leary said. He added, "Someone may be charged under the conduct code." So, although the College supposedly guarantees a student's civil right to privacy, it is indefinitely checked by the College and its advantage of power over the student body in the institution-specific policies it has formulated. Does Ithaca College unfairly further its role as caretaker of students by creating policies that both lead students to believe that their rights are guaranteed, but always keep them just out of reach by campus rules and regulations? The conduct code seems to affirm this. However, students' lack of knowledge of their rights on this campus also may compromise their right to privacy and cause them to act hastily in a situation. In the three years he has been with Judicial Affairs, and the 14 years he has been at the College, Leary said he can't think of any times where a student has refused entry or a search. He said that most often students comply because they are doing something wrong and know they are caught. However, what if a student or students were unfairly pointed out for a possible violation when a call comes about a noise disruption and possible alcohol and drug use, and officers wish to search their room? Rightfully, the uninvolved student or students could refuse or ask to see a warrant. However, they would risk punishment by College administrators. Leary said that he believed that students are willing to comply because they are "naive" about situations surrounding interaction with Campus Safety. "I think most people would think, automatically, 'okay,'" Leary said of students who saw an officer outside their door and he/she asked to enter. Despite their regulations, the College has written in the Handbook a guarantee for students' rights. Know them. Find out what would happen in certain situations. Advocate to the administration for the total freedoms owed a person, if it is found that college policies are restricting these rights. For questions, contact Campus Safety at 4-3353. Contrary to prevailing belief, Abby Bertumen is neither a libertarian nor a privacy freak. But, she is a freak... |
