Ruling lets stand open recrods ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court threw another log on the fiery debate over opening universities' disciplinary records by letting stand an Ohio ruling forcing a school to provide detailed information on internal judicial proceedings to its student newspaper. In a decision last Monday, the court without comment chose not to hear an appeal by Miami University of Oxford, Ohio, in a case over privacy requirements for disciplinary records. As a result, the university will have to divulge records containing information on the location and nature of incidents handled by the school's internal judicial system. Other details, such as punishments handed out and the age and gender of the victims and assailants, will also be made public. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act -- known as the "Buckley Amendment" -- is the federal law that keeps "education records" confidential, traditionally protecting disciplinary records from being publicly available. Because the case is based on Ohio law, it will not directly affect universities in other states. Several legal experts, however, said the Supreme Court decision still sets a precedent. "Someone would probably cite this and say the Supreme Court has not taken issue" with the Ohio court decision, according to Daniel Carter, vice president of Security on Campus Inc. The King of Prussia, Pa.-based group has been fighting to open school disciplinary records. Miami University's student newspaper, The Miami Student, touched off the legal battle in 1996 when it asked to see the school's disciplinary records -- but not students' names or other identifying information. Newspaper editors said a state open-records law mandates that universities open their disciplinary records to the public. In a July 1997 ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court sided with the newspaper and rejected the university's argument that the records were educational and thus protected by federal law. Michele Goldfarb, who oversees Penn's student disciplinary system, criticized the Supreme Court decision, but said the ruling does not mean that the issue has been settled. Miami University officials face the conflicting pressures of a court decision ordering them to release confidential records and a federal law saying the records are educational and thus must be kept confidential, Goldfarb said. Goldfarb also stressed the difficulty of maintaining students' privacy -- and universities' internal disciplinary processes -- while at the same time demonstrating an understanding for "all the very real interests that are involved." "I think we need to put our collective heads together and think about under what circumstances, if any, disclosure of disciplinary records is supportable," Goldfarb wrote in a recent e-mail to disciplinary officers at other universities. Ohio is not the first state to tackle the issue of students' privacy versus the community's right to know. In a 1993 case, Georgia's Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary records and hearings at the University of Georgia must be available to the public. In an interview last month, University of Georgia Office of Judicial Programs Director Peter Brown said the ruling has had a negative impact on his office. "I think it's had a chilling effect on witnesses wanting to come forward to testify," Brown said. "And in major cases, more time and energy is spent trying to deal with the media atmosphere that becomes almost circus-like." The U.S. Congress will also tackle the issue when it convenes next month. A bill before the House of Representatives would open schools' internal disciplinary processes.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.