RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceAccording to Princeton’s “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities,” the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students can enter a student’s room when there is “reasonable suspicion that University policies or regulations have been violated, or that someone’s safety is ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
The University as a private institution in its administration of discipline is not obligated to abide by due process as the term is used in our legal system. Not so if the University were a public institution. Public institutions must abide by the rules of due process in their discipline processes and most use language that conforms to the language used in describing procedures, evidence standards and even standards for guilt and innocence by a University's governing bodies.
Private universities, on the other hand, can do whatever they want. The courts have ruled that private universities have complete discretion on how the University administers discipline. In a Brandeis University case, recently, the courts held that the University didn't even have to follow its own written rules. Further, private universities have been cautioned to deliberately word their rules to be different from those used to set public standards: such as "preponderance of evidence" or "probable cause." Princeton chose "compellingly convincing evidence" and reasonable suspicion" as Princeton's own standard, even though nobody knows what this means. Universities are counseled that once they use the words of due process, they may be held to the standards of due process, so they are counseled to use other words.
Thus, your suggestion to use the words of due process will never happen because Princeton University needs to be vague to allow discretion and latitude.
Besides,Princeton is better and fairer than the US judicial system. That's why students comes here: we're better than hundreds of years of evolved jurisprudence and constitutional clarification.
Princeton paid some lawyer the big bucks to select these words...it's not gonna change.
"The problem with this part of RRR is that it cannot be known a priori whether a student has indeed violated the rights of others before a search is conducted of their dorm room, so the presumption should be that a student’s right to privacy remains intact."
I think they're referring to noise complaints, which sort of can be known a priori
@vroom
Because noise complaints are evidence of sense experience, they are instances of a posteriori rather than a priori knowledge.
Your last paragraph: Can't tell if sarcastic or sycophantic
'Besides,Princeton is better and fairer than the US judicial system. That's why students comes here: we're better than hundreds of years of evolved jurisprudence and constitutional clarification.'
riiiiight....
OK, OK I give up...who's schwanz is bigger?