Friday, September 21, 2007

Speaking of the strange, mysterious and wonderful world of Wesleyan

I found this while blogging about.

Interesting to have an insider's view of what's going on.

Particularly interesting is the story about using fire drills to inspect students rooms. Isn't this a violation of civil rights?

Time to start chalking again brats.


Anonymous said...

Sir, the Wesleyan Argus, the campus newspaper offers much more thorough and fair coverage of these issues then Wesleying. Wesleying is primarily a forum for announcing student events and offering more immediate information on things.

The Argus covers such issues in-depth and with journalistic thoroughness. Rather than Wesleying, which posted the fire warning as that, simply a warning, rather than a thorough treatment of the issue.

As to the substance of your point, the fire safety inspections are in fact constitutional because the rooms are entered in good faith to check the status of smoke detectors. When fire safety inspectors check for the presence of banned substances, they do so following the plain sight rule.

Ed McKeon said...

Seems like the fire safety inspectors ought to be inspecting for fire safety. I can see how candles and filmy curtains might be in their jurisdiction. Other "banned" substances are a matter for other law enforcement officials.

Don't think you'd get away with this in the real world.

Ed McKeon said...

And don't call me sir.

Anonymous said...

We're working on it.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who uses the word "Argus" in the same sentence as "Journalistic Thoroughness" without any variation on the words "laughable" "shameful" or"totally and completely absent" probably has something they need to be concealing from the authorities.

Unknown said...

don't call them brats. seems fair I think, no?

Anonymous said...

I think that if you look at the Argus' coverage so far this year, you'll notice a significant increase in the level of journalistic acumen from the paper.

As for the plain sight doctrine that Ed referred to, you're correct that fire safety officials aren't legally required to report the presence of banned substances, they certainly can.

The plain sight doctrine outlined in Horton V. California gives them this authority. The university clearly has a compelling interest in curtailing the presence of banned substances on campus. So even if, as you said, it's a matter for other law enforcement officials, the university has an incentive to prevent the possession of such materials through legitimate means.

And from now on, I'll try to cut back on using "sir" on your blog.

-Brad (OP)