Forcing students to live on campus: Expensive, violates rights, state law
Most of Ohio’s state universities require students to live on campus. For example, BGSU requires most freshmen and sophomores to live on campus. They can claim an exemption if they live with their parents within 50 miles of campus.
Two narratives explain why many state universities require students to live on campus. Most universities justify these mandates by stating that living on campus improves the likelihood of academic success. Yet, the research literature does not uniformly find that living on campus increases the grades of students.
Ohio University’s Distinguished Professor of Economics Richard Vedder states that on-campus living requirements represent “monopolists” practices since they require students to purchase housing as a condition of enrollment. Student housing has become a multi-billion-dollar industry with private equity firms profiting handsomely.
On-campus living mandates not only cost students dearly, but these mandates also violate Ohio law and likely infringe several constitutional rights.
An Ohio Revised Code (3345.47) states that:
“No state university shall require a student to live in on-campus student housing, if the student lives within twenty-five miles of the campus.”
The condition in this statute relates to where the student lives, not where the parent lives. Since almost all college students are legally adults, BGSU should exempt students based on where the student lives – not where the student’s parents live. It may be wise for many young adults to live on campus or with a parent – but state universities have no business mandating this.
The First Amendment has been interpreted to include the right to associate (or to not associate) with others for religious or expressive purposes. It is well known that on many campuses, many students feel the need to self-sensor on hot-button issues. A touchy issue today is the conflict in Gaza. It is reasonable to expect that some observant Jews would feel threatened for their physical safety if they were forced to live on campus. Yet, the policies at most of Ohio’s state universities would require them to live in an environment where they have good reason to feel unsafe.
Contrary to popular belief, dorms are not necessarily safe places for all students (the vast majority of campus sexual assaults occur in the dorms). The Second Amendment has been interpreted to allow adults to keep a gun in their home for self-protection. State universities should not be allowed to mandate that students make their “homes” in a dorm, while simultaneously prohibiting weapons for self-protection in the dorms. I am not advocating for guns on campus – I am advocating that state universities should not be allowed to mandate that students make their “home” in a dorm while prohibiting these same students from possessing weapons in their dorm-room “home”.
The Fourth Amendment states that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Yet, the housing policies at most universities allow housing staff to search student dorm rooms with or without cause. As with gun rights, if a state university wants the right to search students’ rooms without warrants, then they should not require those students to live on campus.
The penalty for not living on campus is often a fine rather than an academic penalty. If a student chooses to not live on campus (in violation of an on-campus living mandate), the cumulative fine can be as high as $30,000. Yet, a similarly situated student in Ohio would face no penalty if that student’s parents lived within 25 miles of campus. The Eight Amendment prohibits excessive fines, and the Fourteenth Amendment requires equal treatment. These large fines seem to be both unequal, arbitrary and excessive.
Living on campus may be desirable for many students. Even so, it is expensive – often financed by student debt. Student debt in the US is nearly $1.8 trillion. Ohio’s state universities should not be allowed to increase the cost of college education while violating state law and the constitutional rights of students by mandating that students live on campus.
(The opinions expressed are his and not those of Utoledo)
Dr. Douglas Oliver is an attorney and an Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Toledo.
