Search News


Browse Archives

News

Kids Ordered Home

July 12, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The University of Memphis campus is no longer going to serve as a playground.

Amid concerns about safety and class disruption, the university has issued a policy that prohibits employees and students from regularly bringing their children on campus.

The need for the policy became apparent, faculty members said, as people began to notice groups of unsupervised kids around the university. Groups of children would regularly frolic in a fountain near the administration building. "It became a playground," said Sheryl Maxwell, associate professor of education and president of the Faculty Senate. “It was an accident waiting to happen.”

Ann Franke, a lawyer who has represented colleges and universities, said that because campuses are such inviting places, there “is growing concern about potential liability,” when kids roam the quads. “There have been serious injuries to children on campuses.”

It was not only unsupervised children that caused problems at Memphis. Faculty members and administrators said that regularly bringing kids to office hours or to class, whether by students or professors, had become a distraction in some cases.

Curt Guenther, a Memphis spokesman, noted that the policy still allows children on campus for sporting events, to take music lessons, and in emergency situations. "We realize that cars break down and babysitters come late, and sometimes kids have to come to class," he said.

One of the biggest problems, he said, was when the Campus School, for employees’ children in first through sixth grades, got out at 2:30 p.m. and kids would walk around campus unsupervised, many eventually popping in and potentially disrupting their parents’ office hours or class. “It’s an issue of safety, and our obligation to make this a learning environment as opposed to a child care environment,” Guenther said.

The university does have day-care for students’ children, but currently not for employees’ children. Faculty and staff members who kept their kids at work, or let them hang around after dismissal from the Campus School, will have to figure out new arrangements. Some of them are not looking forward to the added hassle.

“There’s been some grumbling that there’s nowhere else for children to go,” said Robert J. Frankle, associate professor of history. “Some faculty will have to leave a meeting to pick their kid up from Campus School and take them somewhere.”

Added LaTrella Thornton, organizational president of the National Coalition for Campus Children’s Centers, “That’s an issue for anyone with children, not just at a college.” She said that most campuses that provide day-care for students’ children also offer it for children of faculty members. “I’d like to see all universities look into that,” she said.

Indeed Memphis’s new policy comes at a time that many colleges are talking about how to become more “family friendly.” Many experts say that colleges need to be more flexible about balancing academic and family responsibilities if they want to be seen as good employers, especially by women, who tend even in progressive academic families to shoulder more child-care responsibilities than do men,

Memphis said it is committed to finding a reasonable solution, and is considering day-care for employees’ children, among other solutions. Guenther said it “would be awfully nice to have something for them on or near campus.”

Despite some inconvenience, faculty members generally seem to think a policy was needed. Maxwell said that the Memphis campus has become like “libraries and Wal-Mart in Memphis, where parents,” many not associated with the institution, “just dump their children off.” Maxwell said university employees were concerned that children could get hurt or even abducted, or just be generally inappropriate.

She recalled one instance where an unsupervised child, who had apparently been given a diaper by a parent, brought the diaper to a staff member and asked to be changed. She said that now unsupervised kids might be treated more like abandoned children.

In the most extreme case she could think of, Franke said one institution has taken to calling child-welfare authorities in the case of an unsupervised child. “This doesn’t seem that extreme,” she said. “It might be nice to have short-term drop off centers of child-care on campus, but it certainly isn’t [the university’s] obligation.”

Thornton noted that providing day-care could be an excellent faculty recruitment tool. “It would be a draw,” she said. In the absence of on-site care, though, she felt that, with “no one looking out for them” on campus, kids should not be allowed to stream in to classes or offices. “If there’s a class, or a schedule conflict, that’s something [parents] have to work out. And everyone with children has to deal with that.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Kids Ordered Home

  • Kid care
  • Posted by Desiree on July 12, 2005 at 11:04am EDT
  • It would seem to me that the logical solution would be for the Campus School to initiate an extended-day program whereby students could stay at the school from the end of the regular school day until about 5 p.m.

    Of course, the parents would pay an hourly fee for this service which would subsidize the cost of hiring personnel to supervise the children at play and provide enriched learning experiences, such as tutoring, clubs, and special programs of extended study.

    We have several such programs in our area and they are VERY popular with both parents and children. These programs also operate during the summer when school is not in session and provide lots of fun and educational activities for the children.

  • Posted by Bobbie J.Allen on July 12, 2005 at 11:05am EDT
  • Parents/faculty members certainly need to have child care and alternative child care to ensure that they can carry on with their professional duties without disruption to the academic environment.I can not imagine parents not associated with the school feeling free to drop their child at the campus, that type of situation is ripe for liabilities---------------a lot of which would rest with the parent. It's tough having any career with children, I know this as well as anyone.Providing child care is the responsibility of the parent. If any University has a child care center, so much the better. However, if they don't, parents know what they have to do.

    Bobbie J.Allen

  • Memphis U. kids
  • Posted by Martha , Associate Prof at Western CT State U on July 12, 2005 at 12:33pm EDT
  • We faced a similiar effort by an administrator to eject "pets and children" from offices and classes. The faculty managed to have the ordered rescinded through the Senate. Universities are not businesses, and as educational institutions are ideally situated to find a variety of solutions to kids on campus. The talented faculty, staff, and administrators (and students) on any campus can do more than create "day care" -- and the notion that kids should be "seen and not heard" belongs, I hope, to another era. We should practice what we teach.

  • Wise Choice?
  • Posted by Blake Bradley , CSPS Graduate Student at Arkansas State University on July 12, 2005 at 9:39pm EDT
  • As a future College Student Personnel Services professional, I have to say that the University of Memphis's decision seems a little harsh. I agree that kids should not be left unattended on campus, but in this day and age, there is a big chance that this will occur, especially in an urban setting such as Memphis (only an hour away from ASU).

    In a time when colleges and universities are scrambling to increase enrollment, it really makes no sense to me that U of Memphis would make a decision that will potentially alienate many potential students. Putting some time and effort into making some sort of compromise would be a better option.

    There are liabilities to anyone being on campus. So should we close our campuses to everyone?

  • Posted by AWM on July 12, 2005 at 9:39pm EDT
  • I’m not sure I understand all of the comments here. How are we not practicing what we teach (preach?) by banning children and pets from offices and classes? I find that they are always a distraction. Even a well-behaved child scribbling at a desk causes visible discomfort to some students (certainly not all) from, at the least, continual scribbling and peripheral motion. And not from a business standpoint, but from a learning one: how can we provide the best instruction (the real purpose of college, I assume) if any of our students are unnecessarily distracted? It is not a business, but it is a place of HIGHER education. Lower education is high, middle, elementary and preschool. If done correctly, each of these progressively prepares the children to get to the place of higher education.

    “Day Care” may be a necessary evil to appease those who are unable to locate one of the dozens of fine facilities in nearly every city, but the true job of a higher education institution is certainly not in line with this new era where learning is relegated as secondary to promoting feel-good family values and individual self-esteem. I’m here to teach; they are here to learn (if we’re lucky, a little bit backflows in the opposite directions), and any disruption to this has no place. Period.

    I am so, so, so happy that my school finally enacted a policy banning children from classrooms and offices, and really, I have found that my good students respect this. Many of my better students, yes, who have children of their own and who are not wealthy enough to hire nannies, schedule classes around sitters and daycare, identify family members who can help in a crisis, and even keep a list of back-up sitters, just in case. The world is not going to stop for their children; many returning adults especially know this from experience and those just entering the “adult” world could stand to learn it, too.

    Unattended children are certainly a case for CYS, especially because college campuses are becoming a mecca for people with all kinds of psychoses. Going to college (in the current, aforementioned era) is now in the IEP (treatment plan) of many released mental patients who are now as unsupervised as some of these children.

    Currently, I have been spending time at IUP in Pennsylvania and have witnessed its ‘kids at camp’ or something to that effect. A dozen or two children march military style and in a straight line right down the middle of the campus screaming their songs to the point where some instructors have moved their classes. What lesson is this? I take to the adage that with two ears and one mouth, we're meant to listen twice as much as we talk. Further, I’ve heard that we learn more by listening than by making noise. Maybe if more children were "seen and not heard" as youngsters we’d have better students as adults.

  • What is so hard about a day-care center?
  • Posted by Larry on July 13, 2005 at 10:05am EDT
  • Interesting point that AWM makes: maybe the giggling groups of girls (and guys screaming “woo”) on college campuses are the natural extension of younger children being encouraged to constantly speak and allowed to distract people who have specific things to do.

    Seriously schools, fund a day-care center (and, for tax purposes, let children of all faculty and staff attend). Make it a good one. This keeps everyone happy.

  • What ever happened to the idea that children are society's gift?
  • Posted by College Baby , former college kid now aspiring professor on July 19, 2005 at 7:03pm EDT
  • As a former baby who was strapped on the back of her student father at the University of Chicago Business school during the late 60's, AND a kid who rollerbladed the paths of a prestigious university in the Midwest in anticipation of her professorial mother's evening class finishing, I must say that this conversation about the inappropriateness of children on the university campus is personally galling as much as it is uncritically considered. What is most deplorable, is the willingness in an almost libertarian sense, to conveniently put the onus of responsibility on the individual instead of considering a policy that would address the issue systemically. When thinking about social policies, it is the uncritical response that concludes, "Oh the individual must bear the brunt of this cost-- it's their kid" as opposed to thinking, "Hmm, lots of kids here? This means this is a systemic issue involving many individuals who are all struggling to find a tenable solution, which means that as a society we must address the issue from a position of social policy that promotes systemic family connectedness."

    Additionally, the comment strikes me as particular callous when one considers that rate of childbearing in the professorial ranks. In particular, female academics are twice as likely to NOT have children due to the pressures of trying to compete and the perception that having children are a professional liability. They are also more likely to have fewer children than average. This seems peculiarly anti-life here-- the very people who think and write about fundamental implications of learning and research are the very people who cannot participate in family formation because children are a professional liability and when the children come, they are an additional liability to their place of work?!!!
    Puh LEEZE!

    But, I digress. I would dare guess that it is not the male counterparts that are dealing with the child-care issue, but their female colleagues, who despite our collective sense of female empowerment, are still stuck with the brunt of responsibility for child rearing on top of conducting their research agendas. The peer-reviewed academic research on this issue abounds-- all one has to do is query the latest dialog on the Chronicle to read anecdotal as well as research conclusions about these statements. If this were not enough, these female professor male colleagues are at a total professional ADVANTAGE when the kid question comes to bear because they statistically have more of a likelihood of succeeding professionally when they are married and with children!!!! Irony of ironies.
    But let's not forget the economic considerations of the class of people we're talking about. The average assistant professor makes a salary where the cost of good daycare, I repeat, good daycare is prohibitively expensive. Let's not forget the added social costs of shuttling and its subsequent environmental costs of increased fossil fuel consumption and the anomie of fragmented \families that are constantly spending time in their cars as opposed to home, work or social events building social capital.

    The last time I checked, public university spaces are public-- despite the fact that many public universities have their own private university police and separate codes of legal conduct. In Europe, this interpretation of public space has created a wonderful confluence of cross generational interaction where children, grandparents and working people freely use space in an attempt to live life well.

    How misanthropic to say that a child's coloring is distracting or children playing at a fountain is an anathema. What is most distracting; an overweight-belabored-breathing- person stuffed behind a desk that was constructed for a time when Americans were on average less fat, or a kid scribbling in their coloring book? (Mind you that breathing is not only heavy and belabored, but also painful to the empathetic listener).

    We need to start thinking about how family formation can be a positive attribute to society and stop considering this almost Ayn Rand determinism that has infected our sense of social policy and societal responsibility.