There is much to learn from the way each institution of higher learning responds to legal issues they face. Historically, institutions of higher learning have face many legal concerns, impacting safety and learning and policy across each campus. This paper will compare and contrast three legal issues across three very different diverse types of institutions of higher learning. The three issues compared are: acceptable use policy of university technology systems, policy on sexual harassment, and policy on alcohol use. The three institutions being compared are: Cuesta College (CC) a community college located in San Luis Obispo, California. California State University Channel Islands (CSUCI) a four year state institution in Camarillo, California,
…show more content…
However, on a positive note, that was not the case at CSUCI. Both USC and CC should indeed look to the policy found at CSUCI to update and bring their own policy on technology up to par. The policy put forth by CSUCI was informative, useful, and practical. The policy was up to date, gave definitions, samples and example. With so much of today’s content being utilized on the internet, I believe institutions of higher learning such as USC and CC are doing themselves a disservice by having out of date, inadequate policies when it comes to information and technology. The underlying philosophy from both USC and CC shows a lack in initiative to create pertinent needed policy when it comes to technology use. By not having good solid policies in place especially as it relates to technology, the institutions increasing risk, and liability, to be taken advantage of by students who are digital natives, and often more savvy than the institutions they are learning …show more content…
The policy on Alcohol for USC is combined with Drug use. The policy was up to date having last been revised in 2015. It is interesting to note the majority of the 15 page policy is dedicated to giving students resources, which suggests a philosophy of providing student support. The policy also provides descriptions such as, what is at-risk drinking?” (USC Drug Free, 2015). However, I personally believe this section creates un-do liability for the university by stating at risk drinking is 14 drinks for a male in a week, and seven drinks in a week for women (USC Drug Free, 2015) as this can be misread and if it the end of the week and they drink that amount and get into trouble on campus, they site this part of the policy, which is very concerning. Personally I believe psycho-education around drug and alcohol use (while important) should be left separate outside of the policy. The policy is thorough and does break down disciplinary action and sanctions that could result if the policy is violated (USC Drug Free,
However, on a positive note, that was not the case at CSUCI. Both USC and CC should indeed look to the policy found at CSUCI to update and bring their own policy on technology up to par. The policy put forth by CSUCI was informative, useful, and practical. The policy was up to date, gave definitions, samples and example. With so much of today’s content being utilized on the internet, I believe institutions of higher learning such as USC and CC are doing themselves a disservice by having out of date, inadequate policies when it comes to information and technology. The underlying philosophy from both USC and CC shows a lack in initiative to create pertinent needed policy when it comes to technology use. By not having good solid policies in place especially as it relates to technology, the institutions increasing risk, and liability, to be taken advantage of by students who are digital natives, and often more savvy than the institutions they are learning …show more content…
The policy on Alcohol for USC is combined with Drug use. The policy was up to date having last been revised in 2015. It is interesting to note the majority of the 15 page policy is dedicated to giving students resources, which suggests a philosophy of providing student support. The policy also provides descriptions such as, what is at-risk drinking?” (USC Drug Free, 2015). However, I personally believe this section creates un-do liability for the university by stating at risk drinking is 14 drinks for a male in a week, and seven drinks in a week for women (USC Drug Free, 2015) as this can be misread and if it the end of the week and they drink that amount and get into trouble on campus, they site this part of the policy, which is very concerning. Personally I believe psycho-education around drug and alcohol use (while important) should be left separate outside of the policy. The policy is thorough and does break down disciplinary action and sanctions that could result if the policy is violated (USC Drug Free,