STUDENT LIFE IN LEGAL/MORAL CONTEXT.   Term Paper ID:26452 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines role of college in controlling student behavior, related legal decisions & philosophy, freedom & privacy, consent, morality.... More...

8 Pages / 1800 Words 5 sources, 27 Citations, TURABIAN Format $32.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines role of college in controlling student behavior, related legal decisions & philosophy, freedom & privacy, consent, morality. Paper Introduction: A current controversy spreading across college campuses is the nature and extent of a school’s control of the social life of its students. In the 1960s, universities ascribed to the view that, if they could go to war, at age 18, they were adults, and accordingly, the administration did not involve itself in the social and private lives of its students. Three decades later, however, universities have a new assessment of their part in regulating the social aspect of the campus culture. College administrators are now looking at their students as “quasi-adults” and are asking themselves, “What kinds of parents can we be?” In recent years, many college campuses have taken an in loco parentis approach in dealing with their students. For example, Lehigh University banned parties on campus unless a Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. [4] Goldberg, The Slow taming of 'Animal House', N.Y. (New York), February 26,1999. Thus, under Dworkin's theory, a university would be required to produce a high level of evidence to support its decision to restrict its students' social and personal lives, and it would also have to consider any less intrusive alternatives. The dissenting opinions reveal an entirely different perspective. Inevitably, such people will miss out on those vitally important experiences that make a person a well- rounded and complete individual. The Court's opinion is clearly based upon its interpretation of "deeply rooted" moral laws, which justify the restriction of an individual's liberty, even in completely private situations. Mills, Gerald Dworkin and Patrick Devlin, as well as any law applicable this issue, provides insight into both sides of this legal and philosophical argument. at 114. [23] Id. at 341 (citing P. Mill, On Liberty at 91 ( C. Instead, like the political winds that continuously influence society's philosophies, laws, and beliefs, this particular controversy will continue to shift and change along with the rest of the political climate. The Court divided 5-4 in its analysis of a state's power to regulate homosexual activities between consenting adults. [1 ] Id. [6] J.S. First, an individual is essentially free to do as he chooses, so long as his actions do not interfere with the rights of another; and, second, if the person's actions are prejudicial to the interests of another, the individual will be held accountable to society and subject to social or legal punishment.[7] An application of Mill's maxims to the college social dilemma suggests that a school does not have the authority to regulate the social and private lives of its students because individuals are free to live their lives as they see fit. [17] F. [19] Id. Certainly a Court which contends that the state has the right to regulate private sexual acts between consenting adults would also find that a university has the right to regulate the social lives of its students in order to maintain its moral standards. at 91. A current controversy spreading across college campuses is the nature and extent of a school's control of the social life of its students. 1997) (1sted. 1997) (1st ed. While some believe a school has a duty to act in loco parentis, others reject such a paternalistic approach as a subtle method by which the morals of the administration can be inflicted upon the individual students. (New York), February 26, 1999. Devlin would consider solutions such as "alcohol-free, adult supervised student centers", "bicycle trips, pumpkin carvings and dinners" and other new gathering spots to give students more "social choice" to be appropriate alternative measures for a school to implement in place of unsupervised parties and the selective Greek system.[22] The U.S. Miller, Chris, The Frat Attack Follies-A Veteran of Animal House Defends College Fun, Wall St. In the 196 s, universities ascribed to the view that, if they could go to war, at age 18, they were adults, and accordingly, the administration did not involve itself in the social and private lives of its students.[1] Three decades later, however, universities have a new assessment of their part in regulating the social aspect of the campus culture. ----------------------- [1] Bronner, In Revolution of Rules, Campuses Go Full Circle, N.Y.Times, March 3, 1999. The Court framed the issue as whether the Constitution endows an individual with the fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.[23] The Court decided it did not. [27] Id. One would surmise that the dissent in Bowers would find a school's regulation of its students' private lives to be an infringement of their liberty. On the other hand, unbridled freedom for those on the cusp of adulthood can be a powerful and dangerous elixir. [26] Id. Certainly, under Devlin's analysis, the "stamping out of alcoholism", the curbing of "piggish behavior" and the development of a safer, more structured system for the students' social interactions is within the scope of a school's authority. Patrick Devlin is the most restrictive of the three political thinkers analyzed herein. The bottom line is that there is no universal answer to this question concerning the extent to which college administrators should curtail a young adult's liberty. In fact, attempting to control the behavior of these newly formed adults almost inevitably leads to rebellious conduct, which is the antithesis of the objective of regulating students' social lives.[1 ] A recent article in The Wall Street Journal concurs with Mill's reasoning in the context of college fraternities.[11] Characterizing "frat" parties as "harmless fun", the author notes "life is tough, and during most of it there are people sitting on you trying to limit your behavior."[12] The author discusses pre-college parental control and post-college careers and family, concluding that students need a period of uncontrolled existence in order to grow and develop properly into more well rounded adults.[13] Moreover, restrictions on a university's social activities will not end the behavior deemed undesirable by the administration; it will only force the students to go off campus to do as they please.[14] Another significant point addressed by Mill is that simply because an individual's conduct may have detrimental impact on another, such injury alone is not enough to justify society's interference. The fact that a government's majority finds a particular practice to be immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law regulating such private conduct.[27] The Court in Bowers found that a paternalistic approach is desirable in situations involving a person's private life if the individual engages in activity contrary to the morals of the country. In The Enforcement of Morals, Devlin contends that, in order to survive, society requires a "community of ideas" including shared ideas on politics, morals and ethics.[21] Society must be held together by the bonds of common thought and common morality. Times, March 3, 1999. [22] See, Goldberg, supra note 6; see also Bronner, supra note 1. Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (1965)). (Emphasis added). [21] Id. at 1 1. People "consent to a system of government, run by elected representatives, with an understanding that they may act to safeguard our interests in certain limited ways."[18] He considers his concept of paternalistic interference to be a type of "insurance policy", taken out by society to protect against people's irrational decisions, which may be far-reaching, dangerous and irreversible. [25] Id. Chief Justice Burger, in his concurring opinion, noted that "condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao- Christian morals and ethical standards" and that it has been considered an offense of "deeper malignity than rape, a heinous act the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature."[24] Thus, the majority of the Court held that a state does have the power to regulate homosexual activities between consenting adults. Therefore, Dworkin argues that the focus should be on the issue of "consent" and the extent to which all people must consent to limited restrictions on their liberty as members of society. Bibliography Bronner, Ethan, In Revolution of Rules, Campuses Go Full Circle, N.Y. Dworkin, Paternalism, 56 The Monist, pp.1 ff. Dworkin slightly softens his paternalistic view by requiring that in cases of such legislation there must be a "heavy and clear burden of proof on the authorities to demonstrate the exact nature of the harmful effects (or beneficial consequences) to be avoided (or achieved) and the probability of their occurrence."[2 ] He also believes that, if there is an alternative means of accomplishing the desired end, without restricting the individual's liberty, then it must be adopted by society, regardless of the expense or inconvenience. [14] Id. [18] Id. For example, a person pursuing a legitimate objective cannot always avoid injuring another in his pursuit.[15] This is simply the nature of any competition or contest. (1972). Devlin maintains that an individual's liberty may be restricted not only to prevent harm and offense, but also to protect public moral values. 186 (1986) further exemplifies the sharp difference of opinion regarding society's interference with an individual's liberty. at 333. J. [11] Miller, The Frat Attack Follies-A Veteran of Animal House Defends College Fun, Wall St. College administrators are now looking at their students as "quasi-adults" and are asking themselves, "What kinds of parents can we be?"[2] In recent years, many college campuses have taken an in loco parentis approach in dealing with their students. In contrast, the dissent, like Mill, views such paternalistic infliction of legal moralism as abhorrently invasive of an individual's right to "be left alone" in his or her private life. [9] Id. Hardwick, 478 U.S. Times,February 17, 1999 [5] Id. An analysis of the campus controversy under Dworkin's approach would seem to suggest that students, by accepting the school's invitation to attend its institution, also "consented to a system of government" that "may act to safeguard [their] interests in certain limited ways."[19] Moreover, restrictions of liberty aimed at eliminating drugs, sex and excessive drinking may be considered the "insurance policy" Dworkin advocates to protect against irrational, dangerous and irreversible behavior. at 351. An analysis of the political opinions of J.S. Thus, like Devlin, the Court's opinion in Bowers reflects the belief that a person's individual liberty may be restricted by the state to protect moral values. Mill, J.S., On Liberty, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall (C. Instead, Dworkin maintains that parental paternalism is nothing more than wagers by parents that, by curbing a child's liberty, the child will ultimately recognize the wisdom of such restrictions. 1859). at 349 (citing Bowers, supra (Blackmun, J., dissenting;Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, J J., joining)). According to Mill, since society (parents, churches, schools) has absolute control over an individual's life until he or she reaches the age of majority, if it has not managed to raise its children as rational people, than society alone is to blame for the consequences.[9] In the college context, many students have been under the absolute control of adult figures; thus, by the time they are 18, they should be fit to make their own choices concerning their social and private existence. Supreme Court's decision in Bowers v. For example, Lehigh University banned parties on campus unless a staff member or other adult was present, Princeton University ended a 25-year tradition known as the "Nude Olympics", in which sophomores ran naked at midnight after the first snowfall, and, at Harvard, students live in houses supervised by faculty members, staff and resident tutors.[3] Recently, Dartmouth College announced that it was abolishing all single-sex fraternities.[4] Dartmouth's trustees and new president indicated that the school "must begin to change its fraternity- dominated social culture...and must stamp out alcohol abuse."[5] The crux of the problem presented by this issue is the extent to which a college should interfere with the social and private lives of individuals attending its school. [2 ] Id. Shields rev. ed. at 1 . Four justices agreed that the case was not about announcing a "fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but rather "the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men...the right to be let alone."[25] The dissent accuses the Court of failing to recognize the distinction between the "laws that protect public sensibility and those that enforce private morality."[26] It maintained that private conduct between consenting adults that does not interfere with the rights of others should not be regulated by the state. In his essay, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill asks, "How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society?"[6] Mill answers this question by formulating two basic maxims. However, according to Mill, this would not be a reason for interference by the school: "society admits no right, either legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors to immunity from this kind of suffering" and instead is "to interfere only when means of success have been employed which is contrary to the general interest to permit- namely, fraud or treachery, and force."[16] Gerald Dworkin takes a different approach to liberty than Mill. There is a danger that those who are not permitted to act freely may spend their lives conforming to roles others have scripted for them. Subjugation of individual liberty is the price one must pay to be part of society. at 347 (citing Bowers v. [3] Id. [7] Id. Bowers crystallizes the debate that has been raging for centuries and is at the heart of the current controversy on college campuses, that is, the extent to which society has the right to restrict individual liberty. In essence, the parents focus on "future oriented consent, on what the child will come to welcome, rather than on what he does welcome."[17] Accordingly, adults may, like children, lack the capacity to make and implement rational decisions. Shauer and W. Shields rev. ed. Times, February 17, 1999. [2] Id. Similarly, in the Greek fraternity-sorority system, some people may not be invited to join. Goldberg, The Slow Taming of 'Animal House', N.Y. Sinnott-Armstrong, The Philosophy of Law at 331 (1996) (citing G. [8] Id. Hardwick, 478 U.S. [13] Id. Shauer, Frederick and Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, The Philosophy of Law, Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace (1996). [24] Id. If the conduct does not harm others, society has no business interfering with an individual's activities.[8] Society cannot regulate activities simply because it dislikes the individual's conduct or otherwise finds it to be distasteful. J. In his essay, Paternalism, he rejects Mill's contention that only children of "non-age" require restriction of their liberty. at 337. 1859). Mill essentially postulates that, if an individual does not violate a specific duty to another, society must simply reserve its moral judgment of the individual's actions or associations. [12] Id. at 35 . [15] Mill, supra note 1 , at 114-115. 186 (1986)). [16] Id. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.