Responses
Buck1985
responses.docxJamal Discussion:
When thinking of the term “loco parentis” in higher education its seen as an obligation for institutions to act in the best interest of enrolled students. Now to achieve this, schools must conduct themselves as parental figures. By definition the Latin terminology means “instead of parent”. Institutions have a huge influence on what goes on in student’s collegiate journey. For a while this concept has died off until recently. Certain liabilities to institutions calls for a return to “loco parentis”. Institutions want to get more involved with their students.
Institutional responsibility begins once students are in the company of educators. When parents send their students to institutions they are no longer physically in control. The responsibility of the student is not relinquished from the parent, there is some shared responsibility. Parents, teachers, and school administrators share responsibilities. Some of these responsibilities are still reserved for parents and institutions take on those of which they can. “Whereas courts in the early and mid-twentieth century applied the doctrine of in loco parentis to shield colleges and universities from liability in tort claims brought by students “adults” in the eyes of the law” (Kaplin &Lee, 2014, pg.102) The idea has lasted more so liberal arts colleges then many of the larger institutions.
The question at hand for me is what privileges and responsibilities have institutions invested in “loco parentis”, that doesn’t normally fall on parents? Institutions normally don’t assume moral responsibility for students, especially on the part of the institution. Today the doctrine doesn’t seem to apply to college students like before. Today with such court cases, it’s interesting to see what legal relationships between institutions and students will look like, and what new doctrine will take its place.
References:
Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2014). The law of higher education (5th ed.). Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley and Sons.
Loco Parentis is a Latin term which means “in the place of parents” (Cambridge, 2019).". This term implies the duty that an organization or an institute must legally take on in place of a parent. The book by Kaplin and Lee on higher education law, explains how some of the laws affect colleges and universities. Previously not many people were able to obtain higher education due to lack of awareness of its benefits and today while most of the people are attaining higher education, the rest are unable to due to lack of money and competition. Let's focus on our agenda here, what are the responsibilities of an institute giving higher education towards its students. The greatest responsibility of an institute is to be able to identify where a student lacks academically and be able to bridge the gaps of a student. The responsibility of the institutes has changed tremendously over time. Nowadays the institute has to consider a student's mental health. An institute should be able to cater to the emotional needs of a student just like a parent as the student is working not only for himself but for the institute as well as the state. In the past, the institutes didn't take action against any discrimination or violation against any student while today strict on-campus policies are regulating. Such policies make the students feel safer and eased as anything done to harm them in any way or any unjust act is reviewed by the institute and action is taken immediately. Previously many unethical researches have been done using human subjects that have not been criticized but today an institute is required to fill legal forms to conduct any research that is sensitive, this way cruel behavior is not continued just to pursue a research. Times sure have changed and with it has the responsibility of institutes, but all for better!
References
Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2011). The law of higher education. John Wiley & Sons.
Stamatakos, T. C. (1989). The doctrine of in loco parentis, tort liability and the student-college relationship. Ind. LJ, 65, 471.
