Brown University is facing a lawsuit stemming from a rape allegation in 2006. The Associated Press reports is available online.

Depending what occurs as the lawsuit moves forward, the case could result in changes to how universities deal with serious criminal accusations within their campuses.

Many universities, including in Canada, have internal processes with lower standards of proof and less protections for the accused than available in the common law justice system which applies equally to criminal acts both on and off the properties of universities.

If this lawsuit is successful, it will force American universities to review how they handle accusations of criminal activity. While we’re not aware of the details of the Brown University situation, it is very concerning that the accusation of sexual assault was not criminally prosecuted or, at the very least, plea bargained within the criminal justice system.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has voted unanimously to lift its censure of the First Nations University of Canada (FNUC) in response to governance changes the University implemented in February.

The changes were finally begun after both the provincial and federal governments cut funding to the institutions following years of financial mismanagement and poor governance.

CAUT censured FNUC in late 2008 citing serious governance problems at Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations owned institution.

CAUT is calling on the federal government to restore full funding to the institution. The federal government restored partial funding to CAUT with restrictions preventing the limited funds from being used to cover losses stemming from previous mismanagement.

“Back in 2008 we took that very serious step hoping that it would help encourage change, and that change has come,” said CAUT Executive Director James Turk stated in the news release. “We were once one of the loudest voices in the country when it came to demanding changes at the institution – those changes have been made, so we’ve lifted censure, and it is time for the federal government to do its part.”

In her last commentary for Maclean’s OnCampus, Robyn Urback goes after Queen’s University president Daniel Wolfe.” Urback writes “‘paternalism’ is the new “freedom of thought’” at Queen’s.

What grave offence against civilization has Dr. Wolfe committed to earn the scorn of Maclean’s star blogger?

He announced a five year phase-out of bottled water sales at the Kingston, Ontario university. Ms. Urback equates the end of bottled water sales to be an attack on freedom of choice and a ‘paternalistic’ action by Dr. Wolfe.

She is wrong in her attack (and it is an attack), there is no “ban” on bottled water. Students will be able to consume bottled water, they just won’t be able to purchase bottled water on campus.

Provided Queen’s installs a series of reusable bottle filling stations, the phase-out of bottled water sales will be of benefit to the overall student body.

Janet Steffenhagen, the education reporter for The Vancouver Sun, notes a report by the B.C. School Trustees’ Association calling for more leeway to charge Freedom-of-Information applicants for the full costs of their requests.

My response to the report is simple: start making raw data available on the Internet and the cost of administering information will go down.

Ms. Steffenhagen’s blog is unique among “old-school” education journalists in Canada. It is updated daily and a wealth of information. If you follow this blog because you are interested in education policy generally, you definitely want to follow her blog: http://communities.canada.com/VANCOUVERSUN/blogs/reportcard/

An interesting post on the New America Foundation’s Higher Ed Watch blog today noting that President Obama’s recent increase to the Pell Grant – a national bursary program in the United States – will only succeed if institutions do not divert funds away from needs-based financial assistance to enrich “merit” based scholarships.

The trend in higher education in recent times has been to use “merit” based scholarships to attract children from higher income categories. In Canada, this recruitment trend has resulted in institutions offering first-year “scholarships” – which are commonly referred to as tuition discounts within the sector – to practically every incoming student. The cost of these “scholarships” is staggering and they eat up a large amount of an institutions overall financial aid budget.

The problems associated with these tuition discounts are plenty.

Most administrators I’ve talked to about this issue state they would like to eliminate these “scholarships” and invest the funds into needs-based and upper year financial aid, but fear being the first university to do so. They are right to be concerned about being first – losing well-off students would be a major hit to the financial ledgers of ancillary services and potentially harmful to institutional reputation. Students from well-off families are more likely to be successful for a variety of reasons.

Hopefully, over the summer, I’ll have a chance to write in-depth my thoughts on this topic. Until then, I leave you with the link in the first sentence.