In particular, there are underlying reasons that we want the US government to respect certain individual freedoms, and to the extent that some other organization is sufficiently government-like, we might want it to respect those freedoms for it's users for similar reasons. In the case of a university, I think it's pretty clear that Stanford is a de-facto government over the students attending there. Sure, attendance is technically voluntary and you can leave at any time, but that's also true of normal governments, especially state and local governments. The key thing is that being forced to leave your home and community to avoid a state government violating your rights would really suck, so that gives them a significant position of power over you, and we have a constitution to ensure they don't abuse it.
Stanford absolutely has that level of power over its students, and so it's totally reasonable to claim that they ought to abide by due process restrictions that are similar to (although probably not identical to) those from the Constitution. These things aren't binary, a university can be government-like in some ways and private-citizen-like in others.
Not to mention that moving to another state requires... a U-Haul and an apartment lease. Becoming a "citizen" of Stanford takes a hell of a lot more work, and if you annoy somebody enough that he and a dozen friends make false anonymous reports to get you kicked out, well, that was your chance, hope you like CSU Chico.
edit: actually I googled Chico and it looks pretty nice, I was just trying to think of a "remote"/unfashionable state school, no offense meant to Chico grads
There's all kinds of reasons that might happen that aren't your fault. In the past, maybe having the wrong skin color might have done it. In the present, I'm sure you can think of some ways to be unpopular that aren't a good reason to get kicked out.
One-sided power is never good.
Especially when even for the government, those rules don't apply outside of the criminal sphere.
(Those rules that apply to government outside of the criminal sphere are more often appropriate expectations for fairness in private interactions; “due process” in broad terms is appropriate, whereas the specific criminal procedural protections generally are not.)
Which is a travesty seeing as how many various organizations within government can unilaterally take action that will f-up one's life as bad as a nonviolent misdemeanor.
The law: https://web.archive.org/web/20090430235943/http://www.leginf...
Some analysis: https://academeblog.org/2020/06/27/stanford-and-the-legacy-o...
Sure, the point is not that the bill of rights applies to Stanford. The point is that the teachers are morally right, for the same reason that we have the 6th ammendment.
Your points about freedom of association are likewise illegible in this context.
Be very careful when seeking to reform such a system, because those you are trying to disarm will use those very same bureaucratic weapons to stop you.
Thats coherent. I was originally thinking about this as a 'good for the goose, good for the gander' situation because the idea that you should generally speaking know who is accusing you and of what seems pretty reasonable.
Yes, but is that a good idea? Latest example: the incident at Hamline University, where a student felt offended when he was shown Mohammed images in an art history class. These were not the CIA-sponsored Jyllandsposten kind designed to incite outrage but perfectly orthodox Persian and Mughal miniatures with scenes from the Islamic prophet's life. Universities have a purpose in society, and the at-will cater-to-students atmosphere really doesn't help that.
Also - freedom of association and freedom of speech, these are extremely valuable rights, they are necessary for the functioning of society and rightfully enshrined by the constitution. But what good are they if you can get fired for associating with the wrong kind of people (atheists? Satanic Temple?) oy saying the wrong this (perhaps the word "transsexual"?
It's a difficult problem that is not helped by facile "from first principles" analysis.
If someone makes a complaint about me at work, I don't exactly have the right to know my accuser. The issue is that the people that now make up these corporations and various education administrations don't care about these protections people are granted when dealing with the federal government.
Maybe they should be? That would be an extremely hard legal argument to make, that would go up against the first amendment and the idea of freedom of association.
After all, no one is forcing you to teach at Stanford right?