A New Threat to Student Privacy

How would you feel if everyone could see your college GPA? Students generally don’t need to worry thanks to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which prohibits schools from releasing a student’s information without their or their parents’ explicit permission. However, an exception to these regulations threatens student privacy.

Consider Emory University, for instance. Emory’s campus at Oxford College reveals the names of students whose GPAs range between 3.0 and 3.5 and is above 3.5. The former is for students who qualify for the Merit list, and the latter is for students who qualify for the Honors list. With the names publicly available online, anyone can effectively search for a name and find where they fall on the GPA spectrum. Worse yet, the list signals that all other students not on the list performed poorly over the course of the semester. This essentially grants the public the opportunity to attain records of what a student might want to remain private. But doesn’t this violate FERPA?

Sadly, it doesn’t. FERPA allows schools to disclose “directory information” of individuals who qualify for recognition lists, honor rolls or awards. FERPA defines “directory information” as

information contained in an education record of a student which would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. It includes, but is not limited to, the student’s name, address, telephone listing, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous educational agency or institution attended.

Emory can technically get away with revealing this information but it shouldn’t. Emory must recognize that protecting its students’ grades means protecting their reputations. Students’ grades are their own business.

Reflections on the Duke Lacrosse Case

MTC contributor KC Johnson first made waves with his stunning work on the Duke lacrosse case of 2006. His reporting, which revealed how the accused students were repeatedly denied their due process rights, first appeared on his blog and later in Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, the definitive account of the case that he co-authored with Stuart Taylor, Jr .  He’s now closing his blog, and offers his reflections on the meaning of the case:

Higher education is perhaps the only product in which Americans spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars without having any clear sense of what they are purchasing. Few parents, alumni, legislators, or prospective students spend much (if any) time exploring the scholarship or syllabi offered by professors at the school of their choice; they devote even less effort to understanding hiring patterns or pedagogical changes that have driven the contemporary academy to an ideological extreme on issues of race, class, and gender. At most, there seems to be a general—incorrect—impression that while colleges have the occasional “tenured radical” who lacks real influence on campus, most professors fall well within the ideological mainstream.

Read the whole thing here.

Why is Brandeis a Haven for Anti-Israel Rhetoric?

Just as a new conflict breaks out between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East, the professoriate’s bias against Israel is resurfacing in novel, ugly ways. The Washington Free Beacon has exposed an anti-Israel listserv at Brandeis University, where faculty members expressed concerns about Israelis harvesting organs, referred to the President of Brandeis and his wife as “Mein Leader und Frau,” and described “humanly decent” Israelis as “self-hating, Arab-loving Jews.” Though Brandeis’ communications director insisted that the viewpoints expressed on the listserv do not reflect the University’s views, she affirmed that “members of the community may hold many different opinions on a variety of topics and express them in ways that do not reflect the university’s official position on a given issue.”

But the listserv isn’t Brandeis’ only source of anti-Israel rhetoric. Brandeis’ Ethics Center has recently had a string of incidents revealing a systemic bias against Israel. The Center’s International Advisory Board chairman accused Israel in 2009 of crimes against humanity. A member of the Center’s board was removed because of ties to demonstrations praising suicide bombers. The Center also hosted Nelson Mandela’s grandsons at the school’s annual celebration of social justice, an event that featured one of them insisting, “When the American government supports the Israeli army in disputes over the land against Palestine. That is discrimination.” (sic)

This anti-Israel rhetoric is curious, given Brandeis’ historical identity as a haven for American Jews. Of course, Brandeis has the prerogative to allow the circulation of unpopular opinions, however loathsome, in the name of academic freedom. But the very real consequence of the anti-Israel bias in higher education is students’ adoption and expression of those same attitudes. This past Saturday, Boston police had to rescue pro-Israel counter-demonstrators from Palestinian sympathizers who shoved them while shouting “Jews back to Birkenau” and “Drop dead, you Zionazi whores.” A Boston Globe photo of the event featured many young people – many of them no doubt students – holding a “die-in” in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. I wonder how many of them attend one of the many liberal arts schools in the Boston area, and how many are taught by professors who aren’t too different from those frequenting the listserv at Brandeis.

At Swarthmore, “A Very Low Bar” to Deem Students a Rapist

Parents considering sending the child to Swarthmore College no longer can claim they weren’t warned.

The Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer had a lengthy and quite well-done article examining the increasing lawsuits filed by students accused of sexual assault who were victimized by a lack of due process in campus disciplinary proceedings. Most of the cases the article covers (Swartmore, Xavier, St. Joe’s—whose case despite the article’s suggestion still remains alive in federal court) will be familiar to Minding the Campus readers. But reporters Jeremy Roebuck and Susan Snyder obtained a remarkable quote from retired Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice Jane Greenspan, who Swarthmore hired to preside over its sexual assault disciplinary system.

Continue reading

An Amazing Diversity Plan at Madison

A remarkable article on the University of Wisconsin (Madison) appeared yesterday on the John William Pope Center site. In it, UW economics professor W. Lee Hansen writes about a comprehensive diversity plan prepared for the already diversity-obsessed campus. The report, thousands of words long,  is mostly eye-glazing diversity babble, filled with terms like “compositional diversity,” “critical mass,” “equity mindedness,” “deficit-mindedness,” “foundational differences,” “representational equity” and “excellence,” a previously normal noun that suffers the loss of all meaning when  printed within three words of any diversity term.

But Professor Hansen noticed one very important line in the report that the faculty senate must have missed when it approved this text: a call for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high-status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.” So “representational equity” means quotas at all levels. And let’s put that last one in caps: GRADES WILL BE GIVEN OUT BY RACE AND ETHNICITY.

Professor Hansen writes: “Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, ‘underrepresented racial/ethnic’ students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.

“At the very least, this means even greater expenditures on special tutoring for weaker targeted minority students. It is also likely to trigger a new outbreak of grade inflation, as professors find out that they can avoid trouble over ‘inequitable’ grade distributions by giving every student a high grade.”

So diversity, quotas and social transformation of the campus are more important than learning anything.  The faculty senate, professors, administrators and students who signed off on this are either OK with the plan, or haven’t been paying attention.