Laws on students consumer rights
JFK Consumer Bill of Rights John F. KennedyТs 1962 Consumer Bill of Rights, which is not a legal document, asserts that consumers have the right to consumer safety, information preventing fraud, deceit and informed choice, to choose from multiple alternative options and the right to complaint, to be heard and addressed. A number of these principles are enshrined in the law of higher education. Right to limited fiduciary care (institutional care in the studentТs best interest) Johnson v. Schmitz (2000), found in a federal district court, that a PhD committee established for the sole purpose of advising the student had an obligation to advise the student in his best interest. This is a limited fiduciary right. Right to care regarding the safety of students Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1979) reiterated that where a special relationship is established, courts may impose a duty upon an institution or individual to ensure the care of others. Duty is defined here Уas an obligation to which the law will give recognition in order to require one person to conform to a particular standard of conduct with respect to another person.Ф Institutions have a duty of care to ensure the safety of students while respecting their personal autonomy. Mullins v. Pine Manor found that "[t]he fact that a college need not police the morals of its resident students ...does not entitle it to abandon any effort to ensure their physical safetyФ. Right to a grievance filing process Dixon v. Alabama (1961) determined that when studentТs constitutional rights are not upheld, students are eligible to sue for damages in a court of law for monetary or material damages. Individuals may also file complaints regarding discrimination with the federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Right to protection from injury on campus A number of state courts have also found that institutions have a responsibility to prevent or make efforts to limit injury on campus rom dangerous property and criminal conditions so long as injury is both foreseeable and preventable. Right to protection from injury in facilities under campus jurisdiction Knoll v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (1999) found that institutions are responsible for ensuring the safety of facilities which are either under institutional jurisdiction or oversight. Institutions are, thus, responsible for institutionally owned dormitories and fraternities whether on campus or off campus and also for fraternities which may not be owned by the institution but are regulated by the institution. By taking on a regulatory role the institution also takes on this liability. Another state court found, that when students are not lawfully permitted to be on institutional property or in institutional buildings after hours, for instance, the institution is not responsible. Right to protection from foreseeable crime on campus Students should be safety from for seeable crime especially in light on past reports of crime, loitering or dangerous conditions have been made. Institutions are required to take safety precautions including the monitoring of unauthorized personnel in dormitories, taking action against unauthorized personnel when they pose a threat to safety and ensuring adequate security measures are in place. Right to protection from injury caused by other students Students deserve protection from other students over whom the institution has oversight including voluntarily assumed jurisdiction eg: clubs, sororities, fraternities, teams. This, for instance, includes protection from foreseeable or preventable fraternity hazing even if fraternities are not located on institutional property. The institution also has a responsibility to inform itself of safety risks existent in institutionally regulated programs. State courts have found that institutions are not responsible, however, for screening exconvicts before admission.