The former dean of the University of Otago's Faculty of Law says he supports students' push to put the brakes on the university's ability to discipline students for off-campus behaviour.
Following last month's bong scandal - in which proctor Dave Scott apologised for unlawfully going into a student flat and taking three bongs - the Otago University Students' Association (OUSA) called for Campus Watch and the proctor to no longer be allowed to discipline students off-campus.
Family law lecturer Prof Mark Henaghan, who is leaving at the end of the year to take up a position at the University of Auckland, said after his farewell from the students last week he supported OUSA's stance.
``There's no-one out there holding safety nets in life, and if we put too many safety nets in, and cameras and stuff, I think we overdo watching over them.''
The proctor's actions were well-intentioned, but the university was a place for students to ``grow up'' and learn to test their boundaries and make mistakes.
``I think it is a good thing that OUSA are trying to limit the application code of conduct,'' he said.
``Students have to have their private lives, and be accountable to their community.''
The current code of conduct had an element of ``overreach'', Prof Henaghan said.
Although Mr Scott admitted going into a house only once, OUSA recreation officer Josh Smythe said several students had contacted him claiming the proctor had gone into their houses while they were at home, and another flat of students told Critic Te Arohi he had gone in while they were out.
Incoming OUSA president James Heath said last week that he and current president Caitlin Barlow-Groome had had
a preliminary talk about the role of the proctor and Campus Watch with vice-chancellor Prof Harlene Hayne.
A university spokesman said late last month the university ``believes that the proctor's powers are already well-defined by existing policy and by the law, and that their scope is appropriate''.
In 2009, OUSA sought a ruling from the High Court on whether the university had the power to discipline students for behaviour off-campus. The High Court found in favour of the university, saying its Code of Conduct complied with the Education Act 1989.