would include "a loaner computer that, against regulations, might be taken off campus."

This does not say that students violated regulations that prohibted taking their assigned laptops off campus, and specifically does not say that the student who filed the suit was not authorized to take "his" computer home.

It implies that some computers might be loaned with a restriction, but doesn't say that the restriction applied to them all.

It would seem that clear speaking is no more a capability of the adminstrator(s) of the school than of the talking heads who report the "news."

The published policy specific to the computers loaned to the plaintiff student(s) - if one exists - is possibly of rather intrinsic importance to the case, and so far as I've seen no such policy has been revealed. People have spoken about "policies" that might exist (if only in the head of someone in the school administration?) but nobody says anything about "the policy on computers loaned to the (affected) students."

AND

Another article recently indicated that the school has been "asked" by the "plaintiff's lawyers" not to "wipe" all drives on the students' computers, lest it delete evidence essential to the case. There was a suggestion that the school had suggested they might recall all the loaners and "clean them" - (once again illustrating their clear logic and infallible efficiency).

It would seem to me to be more important that they not wipe the hard drives on faculty and administrator computers(?????), since they are the ones accused of possibly having illicit information on them, and the ones in possession of computers that might contain incriminating evidence.

John