Running head: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING

International Service Learning: Institutional Risks, Liabilities, and Implications Ama P. Agumeh Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING INTRODUCTION As the world undergoes changes and rapidly becomes an interconnected global village, higher education institutions are striving to find ways to help college students acquire holistic learning experiences that integrate global education with cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal development. A typical example of such experiences is the service-learning program. The federal Community Service Act of 1990, as codified in 42 USC s. 12511 characterizes service learning as: A method under which students or participants learn and develop through active

participation in thoughtfully organized service that is conducted in and meets the needs of a community; is coordinated with an elementary school, secondary school, institution of higher education, or community service program, and with the community; and helps foster civic responsibility; and that is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the students, or the educational components of the community service program in which the participants are enrolled; and provides structured time for the students or participants to reflect on the service experience (item 40). Service learning programs put students in direct contact, through collaboration, with local communities working to solve vital social issues, making for a learning experience that is immersive and experiential outside the classroom (Rutgers Study Abroad, 2013). Service learning usually takes place off-campus, both locally and globally (international service learning). A typical International Service learning (ISL) program combines certain aspects of traditional study abroad and international volunteerism to give students the opportunity to earn credit abroad while participating in community-based service projects in places around the

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING globe (Rutgers Study Abroad, 2013, para. 1). For this paper, the term service learning will

include but not be limited to educational exercises such as internships, community service, field placements and volunteering that happen overseas, as well as study abroad programs that include any kind of community service. According to Crabtree (2008), international education practices first started as a result of underlying nationwide goals advocating for world unity and international sensitivity. The United States (US) benefited from a rapid growth period in the aftermath of World War II. It was therefore necessary that the US cultivated habits that put it in the best position to work with international business partners (p. 19). In the past, only a small number of college students who came from wealthy families experienced the benefits of international education. Today, more students from diverse background continue to take advantage of international education. Reports by Open Doors (2011) show that the number of students enrolled in US institutions who participate in international education programs have tripled in the last 20 years. Learn and Serve America reports that close to 25% of institutions of higher learning have entrenched service learning. Similarly, Campus Compact, the only nation-wide amalgamation of more than 1,100 institutions of higher learning that promotes service learning, civic engagement, and community service within higher education also reports a four percent increase to 35% in students participating in service learning programs between the years 2007 and 2010 (as cited by University of Wisconsin, 2011, p. 2). These reports suggest that more and more institutions are introducing international education, in this case international service programs, into their curriculum. IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING

Research has identified and reported significant importance of ISL programs. According to Engberg (2013), involvement in ISL programs has great influence on student learning and development across cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal domains as shown by King and Magolda (2005). Along the cognitive outcomes of student development, Engbergs (2013) research on the influence of international education and perspective taking found that ISL program participants experienced an increase in cultural knowledge (p. 477). In addition to this increase in cultural knowledge, other researchers found that students who participate in ISL programs develop the ability to navigate through complex ways of understanding cultural differences. Individuals ability to negotiate a variety of worldviews expands when they gain the capacity to understand cultural differences (Cushner & Mahon, 2002, p. 50). Consequent to an effective global experience, participants begin to question their own conventional perspectives of others and attitudes of their own culture, which before had gone unquestioned (Cushner & Mahon, 2002, p.49). Berry (1990) also suggests that ISL programs are more likely to foster greater problemsolving and critical thinking on the part of students, due to the ways in which culture, language, religion, and beliefs are under constant challenge in foreign settings (pp. 304-305). Engberg (2013) came to the conclusion that student participants in ISL programs are more likely to analyze their strengths, attitudes and beliefs; develop a stronger sense of themselves and gain boldness and maturity along the intrapersonal domain of student development (pp. 473-475). Other outcomes include boosts in sense of empowerment, acceptance of and genuine interest in understanding diversity along with an increased openmindedness as well as patience for ambiguity.

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING According to Kuh, participation in global education has been identified by the student development literature as an activity that positively contributes to college-student engagement (as cited in Rhodes, Biscarra and Roller, Loberg, 2012, p. 3). Rhodes et al. (2012) continue to

refer to Anderson, Lawton, Rexiensen, and Hubbard that international education has proven to be highly influential in shifting ethnocentric thinking to ethno-relative thinking and increasing intercultural competence (p. 3). Considering the importance of international programs discussed, there is no doubt that these programs contribute to the students learning experience, therefore, more attention need to be placed on making the global experience safe and worthwhile for students. LITERATURE REVIEW Categories of International Programs Though not the easiest thing to do, Hoye and Rhodes (2000) recommend that identifying each of an institutions international (service) program offering as well as understanding the kind of relationships that the institution maintains with each program in the foreign country, is the most important initial step for any person aiming to weigh institutional risks issuing out of an international program such as service learning (p. 156). From a legal risk and liability management context, international programs, be it service learning, internships, or study abroad experiences, can be classified under three different categories: college and university-sponsored programs, contractual programs, and permissive programs (May, 2010, p.404). Hoye and Rhodes (2000) identify hybrid programs as a fourth category under which international programs may fall (p. 155). College and university-sponsored programs refer to those that are formulated, conducted and managed, solely or with minimal help, by an institution of higher learning. Most traditional

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING study abroad, service learning, internship opportunities, faculty-led trips organized by colleges and universities fall under this category (May, 2010, pp. 404-405). Contractual programs may

include a foreign institution or a local study abroad provider organization creating and carrying out the program with directions from the institution of higher learning or formal written agreements between the institution and another institution with clearly stated terms on how the program should or will be carried out (May, 2010, pp. 404-405). May (2010) explains that permissive programs are not required, sponsored, paid for, organized, or endorsed by a college or university (p. 406). Academic and professional development purpose travels by faculty staff, or students fall under this category. Hoye and Rhodes (2000) identify hybrid programs as possessing certain aspects of permissive, contractual and university-sponsored programs. Some hybrid programs allow students to enroll and live at foreign institutions to take courses. They are allowed to accept internship offers in the foreign country without the home countrys intervention. Depending on the type of service learning program happening overseas (internships, community services, field placements and volunteering), service learning programs may fall under any of the four categories outlined (p.156). Legal Risks and Liability International service and study programs organized by institutions of learning, which usually involve travel and work both outside participants country of domicile and within the host country, put both participants and institutions at varying amounts of risks and liabilities. According to Kaplin and Lee (2009), tort law prohibits any college and its agents from injuring any individual to whom the college owes a duty (p.109). The risk of financial liability for injury to other parties (students) therefore remains a major concern for postsecondary institutions as well as their staff, faculty and other related personnel (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 85), especially

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING with regards to international programs where institutions have little or no control over what occurs outside of campus, specifically, educational programs happening in foreign countries.

University of Wisconsin System (2011) explains that the rate and intensity at which risks may occur depends on several differing circumstances in an ISL program. These circumstances include: services students will be asked to perform; knowledge, training and background of students, type of community agency that will be served, agencys experience in working with volunteers, age and circumstances of agency clientele; as well as placement location (p. 3). According to Burch (2010), students have sued their institutions responsible for service learning programs on the basis of negligence and the duty to protect students from acts of third parties (Burch, 2010, p.461). Johnson (2006) further identifies other liability claims that arise in international education practices under American legislation. These may include fault, respondeat superior, non-delegable duty and ostensible agency (p. 318). Fault-based liability may involve claims for negligent selection. retention or discipline of student participants; negligent failure to protect students from hazardous issues or activities on foreign premises over which the program exercises control; as well as negligent hiring, training supervision, or retention of employees. Kaplin and Lee (2009) point out that under agency law, the employer may be held responsible for the unlawful conduct of its agent (called respondeat superior) (p. 415), if it is found that the action was performed within the scope of employment duty. For example, an institution may be held liable for negligence for a car accident occurring during a ride to a service learning placement site abroad (Johnson, 2006, p. 333-334). Institutions may also be held strictly liable for independent contractor agents who commit torts for breaching a non-delegable duty. Non-delegable duty is loosely defined to include certain activities that are a part of international education programs. For example, hiring a private transport company to

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING transport students to internship sites in a country at war may be innately hazardous because no

matter how much reasonable care is exerted, the risk of harm cannot be exterminated (Johnson, 2006, p. 335). Ostensible agency liability may be imposed on an institution on the grounds of estoppel if the conduct that leads to the injury of a student participant is through an individual who is not classified as a member of staff but that individual acted within the scope of his employment contract (Johnson, 2006, 338-39). Considering the liability issues discussed Kaplin and Lee (2009) therefore administrators are advised to avoid an appearance of authority as a basis for performing their responsibilities (p. 106). Litigation Associated with International Service Learning Programs No court cases were found while reviewing litigation associated with ISL programs, however, lawsuits have been filed against domestic service learning providers e.g. Gross v. Family Services Agency Family and Nova Southeastern University, (1998). Despite this absence of lawsuits in ISL programs, Evans (1991) explains that institutions of higher learning may still have a duty to take proactive steps to enhance the safety of its students (p. 304). There have also been very limited lawsuits involving study abroad programs. According to Burch (2010), some individuals assume that the logic behind the low litigation rate may be because locations abroad may be safer environments for students than their home countries. This however sounds preposterous and seems very unlikely with regards to the wide geographical area of the United States (p. 481). Notwithstanding the low numbers of reported suits, the few broadcasted ones show that United States courts are open to trying cases and decline to allow educational institutions to shield bad behavior behind waivers and exculpatory clauses or behind claims that

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING the court does not have jurisdiction because the events occurred outside the United States (p. 482). An examination of existing court cases regarding study abroad and domestic service learning programs show that lawsuits have been filed against institutions and international program providers on the basis of negligence, duty of care, sex discrimination and sexual harassment. These are discussed below. Negligence and Duty of Care Kaplin and Lee (2009) state that, for the tort of negligence, the legal definition will be met if an institution owes a duty to the injured party but fails to exercise due care to avoid

injury (p. 112). Cardi (2005) explains that in the law of negligence, foreseeability of harm is the single most crucial theory (p. 923), and without foreseeability, there is no liability case against the defendant (in this case, the institution), (Johnson, 2006, p. 342). Gross v. Family Services Agency Family and Nova Southeastern University Gross v. Family Services Agency and Nova Southeastern University (1998) presents a case in which a female student, Gross, filed a negligence lawsuit against Nova Southeastern University. She alleged that Nova breached its duty to exercise reasonable care by assigning appellant, without adequate warning, to an internship site which it knew to be unreasonably dangerous (Gross v. Family Services Agency and Nova Southeastern University, 1998). She included Family Services Agency (FSA) in the lawsuit but the agency settled her claim. In this case, Gross, an enrolled female doctoral psychology student at Nova Southeastern University was assigned to an internship site, FSA, which was located roughly fifteen minutes away from Nova, as part of her requirements to fulfill the curriculum for her doctoral degree. Each student in the program received a list of preauthorized internship sites with full description of the kinds of

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING training extended. Students were then required to choose six out of the lot, after which Nova assigned students at any of their selected locations. Subsequently, Gross was placed at FSA. Gross was abducted, robbed and sexually assaulted at the parking lot of FSA after work one evening. Prior to this occurrence, there had been reports of illegal activities, which occurred in and around the location (Gross v. Family Services Agency Family and Nova Southeastern University, 1998).

10

This negligence lawsuit faced two obstructions based on where the injury occurred (the injury occurred outside of property owned or controlled by Nova) and who caused the injury (injury was imposed by the punishable act of a third person). The courts however decided that a special relationship existed between Gross and Nova hence, Nova had a duty to exercise reasonable care and a duty to warn her of foreseeable and unreasonable risks of injury (Gross v. Family Services Agency and Nova Southeastern University, 1998). According to Kaplin and Lee (2009), in negligence cases such as this, the most crucial issue is whether the college took adequate precautions to ensure the safety of its students, even if it did not have total physical control of the site and not the location where injury occurred (p. 119). Bloss v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents Bloss v. University of Minnesota, (1999) provides a good example of the importance of information sessions for international programs to avoid risk and liabilities. In this case, a student brought a lawsuit against a university on the basis of negligence for the failure of the university to secure housing closer to campus, failure to provide transportation to and from campus, failure to adequately warn about risks, and failure to protect students from foreseeable harm (Bloss v. University of Minnesota, 1999). In this suit, Bloss, a student at University of Minnesota, sought recovery for injuries she sustained when she was sexually assaulted by a taxi cab driver during

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING her participation in a university-sponsored study abroad program in Cuernavaca, Mexico.

11

However, the University of Minnesota argued that students had signed Acceptance, Release and Waiver documents and that there was no legal institutional duty to warn students about unlawful acts of third parties. The university also argued that in its 18-year history of running the program, it did not know of any sexual assaults to students nor tourists, and that each student acknowledged receipt of explicit oral and written warnings relating to safety in Cuernavaca (Bloss v. University of Minnesota, 1999), which should have prevented the assault had she followed the instructions. The courts agreed with the universitys arguments that the University of Minnesota is entitled to statutory immunity in the exercise of its discretionary decision to create a cultural immersion program that placed students in homes, relied on available public transportation, and provided a variety of student warnings and information (Bloss v. University of Minnesota, 1999). Fay v. Thiel College Fay v. Thiel College (2001) presents a court case in which a female student, Fay, sued an institution she attended, Thiel College, for injuries suffered while on a study abroad program in Peru. Signing a Waiver of Liability and a Thiel College consent form were prerequisites for departing the United States to Peru to participate in the study abroad program. Fay fell ill during the program and was admitted at a hospital in Cuzco, Peru. As an English speaker in a country that spoke Spanish, Fay was left alone at the hospital with Ms. Helikson, by the team she travelled to Peru with; three professors and other students. It is alleged that Ms. Helikson was not in any way related to Thiel College and was not in any way acting as an agent and/or representative of Thiel College (Fay v. Thiel College, 2001). While at the hospital, Fay was subjected to the unnecessary surgical removal of her appendix despite her lack of consent to the

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING act and was sexually assaulted by the same surgeon who had performed the surgery and the

12

same anesthesiologist who had administered anesthesia-both of whom were men (Fay v. Thiel College, 2001). Fay was fully conscious before, during and after her surgery. The courts determined that the subject waiver of liability form was a contract of adhesion because it was forced on the student to sign. Failure to sign the contract meant that she could not participate in the study abroad trip. The courts also concluded that Thiel College owed Fay a special duty of care as a result of the special relationship that arose between the college and the institution pursuant to the consent form that she was required to execute prior to participating in the Thielsponsored trip to Peru (Fay v. Thiel College, 2001). The courts decided that they would leave the question of whether Thiel College breached the duty of care owed to Fay, and whether the presence of a professor decreased the risk of harm to the student, for the jury to decide (Fay v. Thiel College, 2001). Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School District The case of Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School District (2007) presents an example of a negligent supervision legal action against a school district. Patterson was a mature student at the California Heavy Duty Truck Program, a truck driver training school that required all of its students to participate in supervised off-campus community service projects as part of their hands-on and on-the-road experience (Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School District, 2007). The community service projects included learning how to load bleachers safely onto flatbed trailers. Patterson had no experience in this activity. While doing his community service project with other inexperienced students and without supervision, Patterson fell from a trailer and got injured.

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING

13

Following the injury, Patterson sued his institution for negligent supervision, alleging that the School District had a duty to supervise, train, educate, instruct, and oversee the conduct of its truck driver training students on safe methods for trailer loading to prevent harm to students (Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School District, 2007). The Sacramento City Unified School District initially moved for summary judgment in September 2005, arguing that there was no statutory basis for imposing liability for negligent supervision, training, and instruction of adult students and general negligence as a matter of law.. (Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School District, 2007). The School Districts motion was denied. The School District came back in March 2006 with a second motion to dismiss the case against them on the basis of assumption of risk doctrine. The School District therefore had the burden of establishing Pattersons primary assumption of risk by demonstrating that they (the defendants), owed no legal duty to Patterson to prevent the injury, which he suffered. The trial courts granted Sacramento City Unified School Districts motion to dismiss by ruling that there was an assumption of risk, which barred Pattersons negligence claim (Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School District, 2007). Patterson appealed the decision in the second motion. The Court of Appeal held that: The second motion for summary judgment was not identical to the first motion; there was a legitimate issue of material fact as to whether the school district breached duty of care; the doctrine of primary assumption of risk did not bar Pattersons action. (Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School District, 2007). According to Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School District (2007), an off-campus school sponsored activity for which duty of care exists is one which credit is given for attendance. In which case, the defendant will be subject to plaintiffs negligence claim. In Patterson, there was a foreseeability of harm since the students had little experience in loading a trailer and a supervisors presence could have avoided the

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING

14

injury. The second motion to dismiss should therefore not have been granted. The courts ruled in favor of Patterson by reversing the earlier judgment. Consequently, Patterson recovered his costs on appeal (Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School District, 2007). Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment King v. Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University King v. Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University (2002) presents a typical sexual discrimination and harassment case in which six African-American female students (including King) at Eastern Michigan University sued their institution making their claims that they were discriminated against in educational program receiving federal assistance when fellow male students sexually harassed them, and their supervisors were indifferent to their claims while they studied abroad in South Africa (King v. Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University, 2002). King and the other plaintiffs alleged that they were called derogatory names and were harassed by other male participants. They also claimed that they voiced their concerns to the program supervisor but he turned deaf ears and referred them to his assistant who also was one of the perpetrators in the sexual harassment and discrimination acts. The plaintiffs made their claims based on the Title IX statute which states that No person in the United States shall on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (20 U.S.C. 1681(a)). The defendant, Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University, argued that Title IX did not have extraterritorial application (King v. Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University, 2002). However, the courts sided with the plaintiffs claims stating that study abroad programs are operations of the University which are explicitly covered by Title IX and which necessarily require students to leave U.S. territory in order to

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING pursue their education (King v. Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University, 2002), and

15

proceeded to reject the defendants motion to dismiss the plaintiffs Title IX sex discrimination claims (King v. Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University, 2002, p. 791). RISK IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT An increasing number of lawsuits seek to impose liability on the college and its staff for injuries occurring during off-campus course (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 118). Institutions engaged in ISL programs, in managing risks, may advise students about the risks involved and how to manage these risks; find ways to minimize the injuries caused by these risks; completely annihilate or avoid programs that pose risks all together (Burch, 2010, p. 503). Avoiding risk may be considered by institutions and service providers, as Kaplin and Lee (2009) identify this method of risk management as the most certain method for managing an unknown exposure to liability (p. 86). However, Johnson (2006) also draws our attention to the fact that the goal of focusing on safety concerns related to international education is not to offer a global experience that is free from risks because exposing students to some of these risks is seen as part of the whole foreign experience (p. 316). In view of this, risk management may be a solution because it helps stabilize the institutions financial condition over time and can improve the morale and performance of institutional personnel by alleviating their concerns for potential personal liability (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 85), as well as keeping students safe from harm while they embark on their international experiences. Kaplin and Lee (2009) also recommend that an institutions legal counsel be involved in all stages of managing risks. While managing the risks associated with operating a global education program, Johnson (2006) suggests that it could be beneficial for institutions (program providers) to identify and differentiate between inherent risks (risks that relate to the quality of the programs facilities) and

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING special risks (risks pertaining to non-educational activities) that are not integral parts of the

16

global learning program (p. 315). In doing so, ISL providers can eliminate certain activities that may be deemed nonessential in student learning, by not recommending as outdoor activities (Johnson, 2006, p. 315). This way, the institution may not be held liable for injuries caused as a result of engaging in such activities that are classified under special risks. IMPLICATIONS: BEST PRACTICES FOR SAFETY AND MITIGATING RISKS According to Engberg (2013), a successful experiential learning program is one where participants acquire increases in cognitive, interpersonal and intrapersonal development, in a safe environment. Faculty, administrators and staff members play important roles in planning and implementing these effective programs. However, executing a safe program will involve training faculty, administrators and staff, as well as providing relevant information on the legal aspects of their professional responsibilities and the legal implications of their action; be prepared to commit adequate resources to support such training (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 63). Issues such as sexual harassment and public safety should be addressed as well. At these trainings, emphasis should be placed on the importance of maintaining closely-knitted working environments to minimize legal and financial risks involved in service learning programs (Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 63). Prior to sending students to international sites to commence their service learning, it is recommended that a risk assessment is carried out to deem the foreign placement location safe for program participants. Risk assessment can be carried out through site visits, site evaluations, accessing U.S. State Department Consular Information websites for safety travel information, etc. In the event that the results of the assessment show that a particular location is unsafe, it is again recommended that the institution disallows the particular location from participating in the

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING ISL program (Gallagher, 2008, p. 8). Burch (2010) also proposes that sites be continually

17

assessed at the time the program is designed, at the time the student is placed at a particular site, and while the student is working at the placement site (p. 504). This way, institutions will be kept up-to-date on situations regarding safety at the foreign location for immediate action. There are also travel risks involved in ISL programs especially when students travel from their home countries to their host countries, as well as during their commute to their placement sites. Gallagher (2008) advises institutions to leave the safety and responsibility of making travel arrangements to and from the placement sites, to participants in order to create as much distance between the students liability exposure and that of the college or the university (p. 9). Kaplin and Lee (2009) suggest that in such circumstances, the institution may require the student to execute a release or waiver as a precondition to participate in the activity (p. 90). Program managers should however make it a point to provide a comprehensive list of travel information such as visa requirements and safety and emergency procedures, to their students. In the event that an institution decides to bear transportation responsibilities between placement sites, the institution should provide proper maintenance of vehicles as well as vehicular insurance. Program managers should also beware of authorizing students to drive institutional vehicles as the institution would have to bear any potential liability to passengers. Institutions, which grant students the license to drive, must ensure that the students are responsible and have attended, at the barest minimum, a defensive driving workshop. This will contribute to ensuring safety in transportation at all times. The issues of discrimination and sexual harassment have also been the source of most international program lawsuits. It is worthy to note that Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, prohibits sex discrimination by public and private educational institutions receiving

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING federal funds (as cited in Kaplin & Lee, 2009, p. 168), and this may apply to injuries that happen at field placements during experiential learning programs abroad. A good number of

18

third party acts of discrimination and sexual harassment are covered under institutional policies. This policy information should be shared with placement sites and students. If possible, a written agreement should be obtained from both placement sites and students, making them aware that they are obligated to abide by these policies during international programs (Gallagher, 2008, p. 13). In addition, students should be reminded that since service learning includes curricular programs, they are still bound by institutional rules and regulations as published in their student handbooks or other documents and would face the results of abusing the code of conduct (Burch, 2010, p. 508). Students traveling to host countries to study are exposed to health risks and usually, institutions and their staff have no way of regulating the conditions or availability of healthcare in other countries (Burch, 2010, p. 504). For this reason, institutions need to explore available healthcare options and communicate their findings to students. According to Burch (2010), all students should be provided with information regarding the Center for Disease Control and Preventions and the World Health Organizations recommended vaccinations and health warnings (p. 507). Should vaccination be required, Gallagher (2008) suggests that decisions on who bears the cost should be explicitly communicated in advance of student placement. Documentation should be made for proof that in deed participants received such information and met vaccination requirements (Gallagher, 2008, p. 10). In some cases, certain situations would call for different safety measures and practices. The above recommendations do not necessarily guarantee safety at all times. However, it is believed that they would help mitigate the risks involved in experiential learning programs.

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING CONCLUSION It is important for institutions of higher learning to make the inference that they owe

19

students duty of care. This is because student participants in service learning programs, usually, do not have professional knowledge of the risks in international travel or organizations (Burch, 2010, p. 500). Burch (2010) advises institutions engaged in international programs such as ISL to not only identify reasonably foreseeable risks to students but must warn students of the risks and provide students with strategies to avoid these risks (p. 480). Furthermore, students need to be provided with all the necessary information concerning health insurance when they participate in International programs happening in countries where health facilities are not up to similar standards as the U.S. This way, students would be less likely to run into problems that would cause them to sue institutions. Additionally, students should be informed about the results of assessments. In the event that host countries are determined to be unsafe or war-prone, students should be warned and given the choice to either stay or evacuate. Again, in order not to coerce students into choosing one site because it is the only one available, institutions should make it a point to provide a good number of placement sites for students to choose from (Burch, 2010, p. 504-505). Further, after institutions select placement sites, program managers and the participants should review host sites anti-harassment policies to determine the repercussions and how to file claims for students who may fall victim to these discrimination and harassment (Gallagher, 2008, p. 13). In the end, the aim is not to eliminate risks completely since that is impossible but to reduce the chances of occurrence.

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING References Berry, H. (1990). In combining services and learning: A resource book for community and

20

public service. In J. Kendall, Service-Learning in international and intercultural settings (pp. 311-313). Raleigh, NC: National Society for Internships and Experiential Education. Bloss v. University of Minnesota Bd. of Regents, 590 N.W.2d 661 (1999). Burch, K. M. (2010). Going global: Managing liability in international externship program. Journal of College and University Law. 36 (2), 1-50. Cardi, W. (2005). Reconstructing foreseeability. Boston College Law Review, 46, 921-984. Crabtree, R. (2008). Theoritical foundations for international-service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning , 18-36. Cushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2002). Overseas student teaching: Affecting personal, professional and global competencies in an age of globalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 6(1), 44-58. Engberg, M.E. (2013). The influence of study away experiences on global perspective-taking. Journal of College Student Development, 54(5), 466-480. Fay v. Thiel College, 2001 W.L. 1910037 (Pa.Com.P1), 55 Pa. D. & C.4th 353 (2001). Federal Community Service Act of 1990 42 USC s. 12511. Gallager, A. (2008). Experiential learning: Managing risks, maximizing rewards. 1-43. Itasca, IL: Gallager & Co. Gross v. Family Services Agency and Nova Southeastern University, Inc., 716 So. 2d 337 (1998). Kaplin, W. A, & Lee, B. A. (2009). A legal guide for student affairs professionals (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

INTERNATIONAL SERVICE LEARNING King v. Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University, 221 F.Supp.2d 783 (2002). Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them and why they matter. Washington, D.C: Association of American Colleges and Universities. May, P. (2010). Common legal issues when employing staff in support of overseas academic programs. Journal of College and University Law, 455-510. Patterson v. Sacramento, 155 Cal.App.4th 821,66 Cal.Raptr.3d 337 (2007). Reams, P. (2003). Service learning in healthcare higher education: Risk or not risk. Education for Health,16 (2), 145-154.

21

Salimbene, F.P . (2007). Releases of liability for service learning programs: Effective innocuous, or a waste of time. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education , 3 (1), 1-23. Title IX of the Education Amendments, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. (1972). University of Wisconsin System. (2011). Program review: Risk and liability in service learning programs.University of Wisconsin, Office of Operation, Review and Audit. University of Wisconsin System. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://www.wisconsin.edu/audit/ServiceLearning.pdf