Dartmouth Aims for Legal Protection in Dorm Access Change
“You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.” — Joni Mitchell
Over the past several weeks, Dartmouth has faced many changes to the rules surrounding dorm and study space access. At the beginning of the term, students found themselves suddenly unable to access dorm rooms and study spaces of other houses. After great student pushback, an example being a Student Assembly petition with nearly 3000 signatures and 500 comments, the College has returned access to study spaces in all houses. This is the logical compromise between the school and students. It simultaneously alleviates many arguments against the new policy, but also keeps the core of the policy, limiting access to dorms, firmly in place. To understand why this compromise is so effective and yet lacking, we must look to why these changes came about in the first place.
The College has claimed that the limit on dorm access was motivated by a need for security, specifically due to a recent bias incident. This bias incident involved racist language being used in one houses’s dorm by members of another house. This bias incident is not the first to occur on campus but the number of such bias incidents has grown recently. The College’s claim that it is reacting to these incidents with tighter security is not false, but it belies that the underlying goal is to minimize legal liability.
Pervasive litigation culture is one of the hallmarks of the American justice system. Institutions therefore seek to protect themselves from lawsuits. As an expensive private College, it is expected that Dartmouth adequately protects its students. Until last year, Dartmouth’s legal responsibilities were less well defined as previous court cases concerning school safety mostly concerned lower education, not colleges. This changed last year as on March 22, 2018, in the case of The Regents of California et al. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. S230568, the California Supreme Court held that “postsecondary schools have a duty to protect students from foreseeable violent acts that occur while students are engaged in curricular activities”. While seemingly sweeping, this ruling is actually very specific in defining what a college can be held accountable for.
In order for a college to be liable for an incident under the new ruling, it must match two different qualifications. The first is that the incident must occur in circumstances under which the school has significant control and the other being that the incident must be a foreseeable act of violence. Dartmouth dorms are areas in which the College has authority and control. The bias incidents could well be used to argue that any act of violence that does occur was very much foreseeable. These circumstances could very well be used in a lawsuit against Dartmouth, claiming that the School failed its duty to protect students. Considering Dartmouth has just settled a sexual misconduct lawsuit this September, the College is very aware that it could face legal repercussions should it not do its best to protect students. With the increase in bias incidents and Dartmouth’s greater legal liabilities, neither the timing nor the policy itself are surprising.
While the policy makes sense for Dartmouth, that does not mean it makes sense for students. This is especially true due to Dartmouth’s poor rollout of the policy. The new restrictions were created in secret and the students were neither consulted nor informed of the new policies until they came into effect. The Student Assembly has been adamant that they were just as surprised as the student body towards the new restrictions. Students suddenly lost access to their nearest printer, the nearest source of food, and comfortable study spaces. Visiting a friend became harder, especially with a lack of signal and bad wifi complicating communication with the person who is supposed to let you in. This last part, someone letting you in, underlies that the restrictions don’t really stop bias incidents from happening. They usually occurred with groups of people and it would not be difficult for one member to be part of the house they are accessing or just have someone let them in.
Furthermore, the death of a student at UVM this past winter from hypothermia points out a different threat. It will happen that some students will get inebriated and have to get back to their dorm rooms in very cold temperatures. While it is unlikely that the journey from a place near East Wheelock to McLaughlin is dangerous, the lack of accessible shelter in the form of other accessible dorms is a potential point of failure.
The new compromise is a great improvement for students as they gain access to many of the facilities that formed the biggest problem with the initial restrictions. However, Dartmouth has still lost something that made it special. It was the openness and community that came from being able to freely visit friends and meet new people. Whether it be at Harvard or Columbia, students cannot access all dorms. This is because New York City or Boston have very real threats from outside campus. Our location in Hanover New Hampshire has allowed Dartmouth to be different and foster a unique small community without many barriers. Unfortunately, these new restrictions are dividing campus more than ever before. It is not surprising therefore, that some see the restrictions as a way to solidify the houses system. Students are very much aware that limiting access to dorms is an impediment to uniting the college community. Let us hope that the recent compromise is an indication that Dartmouth is listening to its students.
