TX: New law keeps sex offenders out of college dorms

State Rep. John Raney, R-College Station, represents a district flush with college students and considers higher education one of his legislative priorities. So it was “shocking” for him to learn that no Texas law prevented sex offenders from living in campus dorms — and even more upsetting when a constituent came to his office to tell him that at her out-of-state college, she had been forced to live down the hall from a student who had sexually assaulted her the year before. …

For one thing, it targets a small population: Of the roughly 1.5 million college students in Texas, fewer than 700 are registered sex offenders, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety. And Mary Sue Molnar, executive director of Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, a group that advocates for registered sex offenders, said she doubts any registrants would even want to live in campus dorms, given the intense stigma they face already. …

The Texas Association Against Sexual Assault took a neutral position on HB 355 during the session, Communications Program Director Ted Rutherford said. “We know the vast majority of rapists have not been previously criminally adjudicated.  So, this raises the question how much impact a bill like this could have,” Rutherford said.  “We also know there’s a lot of work to be done to prevent sexual violence, regardless of whether registered sex offenders are allowed on campuses.” Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Once again, one has to look at the details to understand what is really going on. The bill affects those who are convicted on or after 9/1/2017 and designated a level 2 or 3. Level one offenders require approval by the University to live on campus. This does not make the law any better or more effective, for it is still stupid law, but at least it is retroactive (from what I can tell).

Affects those who are convicted on or after 9/1/2017, I think you mean the new law is not retroactive if it has an effective conviction date after 9/17.

Just stupid. I am surprised being allowed by University leaders.