🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun8.215335.21240@eff.org> J Greely <jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>
>Theoretically, I agree.  I don't know if her job *required* her to
>give special attention to that minor (are RA's legally considered to
>be acting in loco parentis?), I just know that she did.  It's similar
>to keeping an eye on students who are underage for liquor (most of
>them, these days...); I don't know what the legal basis for their
>interest is, but I know they're interested.  Of course, I thought that
>the parents of this student were damn fools for putting her in a dorm
>at fifteen.

Why?  Was she in some way unable to cope with dorm life, or is this merely
paternalism on your and the RAs part?  Did it make a difference that she was
female?  (I know I was in a dorm at 16, and nobody thought anything of it-- and
there is no legal difference between 15, 16, and 17, except with respect to
driving, in MD.)

>>sure wouldn't want to go to that school!  fascism just doesn't do it
>>for me...
>
>Ooooh, he used the f-word.  Gratuitously, IMHO.  When I get back from
>Usenix I'll contact the dorm folks and ask about the legal position of
>their staff with respect to their charges.  I suspect that "fascism"
>has nothing to do with it.

The 'f' word probably is a bit strong-- I'd use the word 'paternalistic'.  The
doctrine of in loco parentis was abandoned long ago, was it not?
--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
     .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.