With the courts and the public increasingly holding that colleges and universities share responsibility for the acts of their students, schools would be well-advised to better screen out those who pose a real threat to the public. When the rapist re-offended while living in the hall, the university faced a far more damaging case from the rape victim than it might have faced from the student who had previously been convicted of rape to challenge his exclusion from housing. Schools should continue to admit rehabilitated offenders. But institutions should consider risking legal challenges from racists, beer bullies, sexual predators, and others who threaten the public safety. Higher education's fear of a lawsuit by an aggrieved student, as aberrant as his or her views and behavior may be, only facilitates that student's criminal and morally reprehensible behavior.
Higher education is a privilege.
Administrators can do more to confront and expose student racists and others who threaten the public while continuing to fulfill the important role they play in the reintegration into society of rehabilitated criminal offenders. Thankfully, Constitutionally-valid models for responding to dangerous students are beginning to emerge. The National Center for Hate Crime Prevention and the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention can assist institutions seeking to improve their response to hate crimes and violence. Both programs aim to improve prevention practices through policy change and by promoting a collaborative multi-disciplinary approach to prevention. Reprinted from the Higher Education Law Bulletin , Vol.