KAREN D. BOYD & WADE LIVINGSTON
promote those outcomes
The Facilitator Model rejected detachment and
disengagement as an institutional risk management strategy.
Despite assigning shared legal responsibility, this model is not a return
in loco parentis
. The proscribed relationship does not expect nor convey
to colleges the power to control student behavior. Students are ultimately
responsible for their actions. Colleges are responsible for managing the
environmental conditions on their campuses, which includes actively facili-
tating desired student conduct and in essence promoting trusting reciprocal
relationships. Though the model and its recommendations were developed
to address undergraduate alcohol misuse and hazing, colleges must do
their part to influence and prepare all students, including future institutional
representatives who are in graduate programs, to better uphold their re-
sponsibilities within the model.
IV. The Facilitator Model
Higher education administrators and faculty are expected to adopt a rela-
tional philosophy, curricular content, and environmental management meth-
odology that maximize students’ knowledge of and ability to engage in safe
and personally responsible decision-making, thus reducing the risk that col-
leges are required to manage. Bickel and Lake reminded higher education
that the student-institution relationship (SIR) is more than a legal construct.
The Facilitator Model re-conceptualizes the SIR as, first and foremost, an