And @ronya, I think it's very problematic to conflate the Salaita case (where you had UIUC revoke an offer in a rather unprecedented manner because of donor influences, and then tried to hide behind incredibly weak "civility" arguments to defend their indefensible conduct) and McAdams, where the dean has spelled out in detail why his conduct was unbecoming of a tenured professor and how it undermines the mission of the university with regards to the development of graduate students into teachers. Which is why the argument that Marquette's actions are an attack on academic freedom are so weak - you have to ignore that Abbote also has certain expectations when it comes to academic freedom, most importantly having an environment where she can develop her skills as a teacher without one of her superiors creating a hostile environment.
My point is that "that's problematic" is hardly tenable as a code of conduct with regards to social media - it is tantamount to acknowledging that administrations will make rules up as they go along according to donor or political influences. Therefore: faculty associations will probably attempt to clarify what should or should not be regarded as inappropriate behaviour worthy of revoking assorted professional achievements, be it tenure, editorial membership, honorary degrees, or grant awards.
The arguments put forth by administrations are hardly constructed along self-evidently correct or incorrect principles - in the Salaita case, the regents argued that Salaita's tweets would create a hostile environment for hypothetical Zionist students, even though no such actually-existing students could be identified. In the McAdams case, the dean argued that McAdams is responsible by proxy for third-party threats against the student instructor, even though no links to the parties issuing threats could be shown. To be frank, both of these seem to fall in gray areas to me. They do not seem to map well onto defamation or harassment law, either.
As mentioned previously in the thread, the professor violated both FERPA and (likely) Title IX along with the school's confidentiality agreement he signed on hire AND was in violation of their accreditation authority. And all of that is before faculty policy comes into play.
The first three (FERPA, Title IX, and the confidentiality) are things that can have both criminal and civil litigation taken against him should the student or institution wish to pursue, and absolutely provide adequate legal grounds for termination.
I thought the sum total of FERPA enforcement was the school loosing federal funding.
Against the school, yes. Violators (depending on context/intent) can be taken to court on similar grounds to other forms harassment, defamation, or identity theft. That may be a state thing, but it's happened a few times in my region.
Political affiliation and gender (regardless of name) are protected classes for GTA under FERPA.
You know what the sad thing about FERPA compliance is? For profit schools which often have some shady shit going on with them, are almost always on top of that shit. Getting information out of my state school was easy as shit, I barely had to prove who I was. Getting my transcripts from the for profit school I went to was like filling out paperwork for a bank loan.
I'm only 1 data point, but the later seamed the way to go.
And @ronya, I think it's very problematic to conflate the Salaita case (where you had UIUC revoke an offer in a rather unprecedented manner because of donor influences, and then tried to hide behind incredibly weak "civility" arguments to defend their indefensible conduct) and McAdams, where the dean has spelled out in detail why his conduct was unbecoming of a tenured professor and how it undermines the mission of the university with regards to the development of graduate students into teachers. Which is why the argument that Marquette's actions are an attack on academic freedom are so weak - you have to ignore that Abbote also has certain expectations when it comes to academic freedom, most importantly having an environment where she can develop her skills as a teacher without one of her superiors creating a hostile environment.
My point is that "that's problematic" is hardly tenable as a code of conduct with regards to social media - it is tantamount to acknowledging that administrations will make rules up as they go along according to donor or political influences. Therefore: faculty associations will probably attempt to clarify what should or should not be regarded as inappropriate behaviour worthy of revoking assorted professional achievements, be it tenure, editorial membership, honorary degrees, or grant awards.
The arguments put forth by administrations are hardly constructed along self-evidently correct or incorrect principles - in the Salaita case, the regents argued that Salaita's tweets would create a hostile environment for hypothetical Zionist students, even though no such actually-existing students could be identified. In the McAdams case, the dean argued that McAdams is responsible by proxy for third-party threats against the student instructor, even though no links to the parties issuing threats could be shown. To be frank, both of these seem to fall in gray areas to me. They do not seem to map well onto defamation or harassment law, either.
As mentioned previously in the thread, the professor violated both FERPA and (likely) Title IX along with the school's confidentiality agreement he signed on hire AND was in violation of their accreditation authority. And all of that is before faculty policy comes into play.
The first three (FERPA, Title IX, and the confidentiality) are things that can have both criminal and civil litigation taken against him should the student or institution wish to pursue, and absolutely provide adequate legal grounds for termination.
Can you find the section of FERPA you are saying they violated?
Every spot I am seeing is phrased like this:
(1) No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section) of students without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization, other than to the following—
Section 5
(5)
(A) For the purposes of this section the term “directory information” relating to a student includes the following: 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 by the student.
(B) Any educational agency or institution making public directory information shall give public notice of the categories of information which it has designated as such information with respect to each student attending the institution or agency and shall allow a reasonable period of time after such notice has been given for a parent to inform the institution or agency that any or all of the information designated should not be released without the parent’s prior consent.
(6) For the purposes of this section, the term “student” includes any person with respect to whom an educational agency or institution maintains education records or personally identifiable information, but does not include a person who has not been in attendance at such agency or institution.
It seems like most school would have a set of those fields be in a group of 'standard directory information we can release at will' unless the student contacts them to designate it as protected. Which is why they can publish a dean's list for example, without needing to collect waivers from every student on it.
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political afiliation, residency, and a bunch more are "Personally Identifiable Information" which I've mentioned multiple times in this thread are the nature of the violation. Photographic resemblance also is a "grey area" stipulation that is considered non-directory information. Being a GTA does not waive these, at least at my institution and state.
Gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political afiliation, residency, and a bunch more are "Personally Identifiable Information" which I've mentioned multiple times in this thread are the nature of the violation. Photographic resemblance also is a "grey area" stipulation that is considered non-directory information. Being a GTA does not waive these, at least at my institution and state.
So, No but trust you they broke the law somehow?
Okay, let's try this the other way: What in here do you think violated FERPA?
A student we know was in a philosophy class (“Theory of Ethics”), and the instructor (one Cheryl Abbate) was attempting to apply a philosophical text to modern political controversies. So far so good.
She listed some issues on the board, and came to “gay rights.” She then airily said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”
The student, a conservative who disagrees with some of the gay lobby’s notions of “gay rights” (such as gay marriage) approached her after class and told her he thought the issue deserved to be discussed. Indeed, he told Abbate that if she dismisses an entire argument because of her personal views, that sets a terrible precedent for the class.
The student argued against gay marriage and gay adoption, and for a while, Abbate made some plausible arguments to the student — pointing out that single people can adopt a child, so why not a gay couple? She even asked the student for research showing that children of gay parents do worse than children of straight, married parents. The student said he would provide it.
So far, this is the sort of argument that ought to happen in academia.
But then things deteriorated.
Certain Opinions Banned
Abbate explained that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions” and then went on to ask “do you know if anyone in your class is homosexual?” And further “don’t you think it would be offensive to them” if some student raised his hand and challenged gay marriage? The point being, apparently that any gay classmates should not be subjected to hearing any disagreement with their presumed policy views.
Then things deteriorated further as the student said that it was his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”
She further said she would “take offense” if the student said that women can’t serve in particular roles. And she added that somebody who is homosexual would experience similar offense if somebody opposed gay marriage in class.
She went on “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.” She then invited the student to drop the class.
Which the student is doing.
Shutting People Up
Abbate, of course, was just using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed “offensive” and need to be shut up.
As Charles Krauthammer explained:
The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.
The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.
To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.
Of course, only certain groups have the privilege of shutting up debate. Things thought to be “offensive” to gays, blacks, women and so on must be stifled. Further, it’s not considered necessary to actually find out what the group really thinks. “Women” are supposed to feel warred upon when somebody opposes abortion, but in he real world men and women are equally likely to oppose abortion.
The same is true of Obama’s contraception mandate.
But in the politically correct world of academia, one is supposed to assume that all victim groups think the same way as leftist professors.
The “Offended” Card
Groups not favored by leftist professors, of course, can be freely attacked, and their views (or supposed views) ridiculed. Christians and Muslims are not allowed to be “offended” by pro-gay comments.
(Muslims are a protected victim group in lots of other ways, but not this one.)
And it is a free fire zone where straight white males are concerned.
Student Seeks Redress
The student first complained to the office of the Dean of Arts & Sciences, and talked to an Associate Dean, one Suzanne Foster. Foster sent the student to the Chair of the Philosophy Department, saying that department chairs usually handle such cases. The chair, Nancy Show, pretty much blew off the issue.
Interestingly, both Snow and Foster have been involved in cases of politically correct attacks on free expression at Marquette.
Foster took offense when one of her colleagues referred to a dinner which happened to involve only female faculty as a “girls night out.” He was reprimanded by then department chair James South for “sexism,” but the reprimand was overturned by Marquette.
Snow, in a class on the “Philosophy of Crime and Punishment” tried to shut up a student who offered a response, from the perspective of police, to Snow’s comments about supposed “racial profiling.” The student said talk about racial profiling makes life hard for cops, since it may make minorities hostile and uncooperative.
Show tried to silence him, claiming “this is a diverse class.” This was an apparent reference to two black students in the class, who were, Snow assumed, likely offended on hearing that.
The majority of the class, contacted by The Marquette Warrior, felt the comments were reasonable and relevant, but Snow insisted that the student write an apology to the black students.
So how is a student to get vindication from University officials who hold the same intolerant views as Abbate?
Conclusion
Thus the student is dropping the class, and will have to take another Philosophy class in the future.
But this student is rather outspoken and assertive about his beliefs. That puts him among a small minority of Marquette students. How many students, especially in politically correct departments like Philosophy, simply stifle their disagreement, or worse yet get indoctrinated into the views of the instructor, since those are the only ideas allowed, and no alternative views are aired?
Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university. And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited February 2015
The only way anything previously mentioned as Personally Identifiable Information can be disclosed by a university official (under any circumstances, personal or private is if it has been de-identified or with direct consent of the student:
Records and information are de-identified once all personally identifiable information has been removed including but not limited to any information that, alone or in combination is linkable to a specific student that a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.
In this case gender, personal likeness, and political affiliation are provided about the student without being de-identified (and with specific purpose to bring harm). Specifically through the 2008 amendments on biological elements:
The amendments also changed the definition of "personally identifiable information" to include a definition for "biometric record." Under the regulations, biometric information includes "fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting."
At my institution (and all institutions that receive federal funding of any kind) we ~also~ have a confidentiality agreement which is (by my understanding from national conferences on the subject) fairly universal in application to all major universities since the establishment of FERPA which specifically requires employees to withhold "The contents of discussions and conversations by Departmental personnel concerning privileged, personal or confidential cases" due to FERPA implications. FERPA, like Title IX, is interpreted extremely broadly in student protections.
It's also for this reason that student/teacher relationships are nearly impossible without a mountain of paperwork (including when the couple is previously married before employment or teaching, and even when they are in unrelated departments).
The only way anything previously mentioned as Personally Identifiable Information can be disclosed by a university official (under any circumstances, personal or private is if it has been de-identified or with direct consent of the student:
Records and information are de-identified once all personally identifiable information has been removed including but not limited to any information that, alone or in combination is linkable to a specific student that a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.
In this case gender, personal likeness, and political affiliation are provided about the student without being de-identified (and with specific purpose to bring harm). Specifically through the 2008 amendments on biological elements:
The amendments also changed the definition of "personally identifiable information" to include a definition for "biometric record." Under the regulations, biometric information includes "fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting."
At my institution (and all institutions that receive federal funding of any kind) we ~also~ have a confidentiality agreement which is (by my understanding from national conferences on the subject) fairly universal in application to all major universities since the establishment of FERPA which specifically requires employees to withhold "The contents of discussions and conversations by Departmental personnel concerning privileged, personal or confidential cases" due to FERPA implications. FERPA, like Title IX, is interpreted extremely broadly in student protections.
It's also for this reason that student/teacher relationships are nearly impossible without a mountain of paperwork (including when the couple is previously married before employment or teaching, and even when they are in unrelated departments).
What are you quoting from? Because it directly contradicts the part about directory information from the USC.
Also where in the blog post were gender, personal likeness, or political affiliation disclosed(liberal is not an affiliation)?
Also I'm not sure what relevance bio-metric records have here.
The blog post also includes information about the grievance process by the student, which surely is not supposed to be made public as I imagine it would fall under the general confidentiality agreement that most schools have.
He also posted to her blog, which has a picture. Not sure if that is a disclosure per se but it's certainly identifying info.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The only way anything previously mentioned as Personally Identifiable Information can be disclosed by a university official (under any circumstances, personal or private is if it has been de-identified or with direct consent of the student:
Records and information are de-identified once all personally identifiable information has been removed including but not limited to any information that, alone or in combination is linkable to a specific student that a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.
In this case gender, personal likeness, and political affiliation are provided about the student without being de-identified (and with specific purpose to bring harm). Specifically through the 2008 amendments on biological elements:
The amendments also changed the definition of "personally identifiable information" to include a definition for "biometric record." Under the regulations, biometric information includes "fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting."
At my institution (and all institutions that receive federal funding of any kind) we ~also~ have a confidentiality agreement which is (by my understanding from national conferences on the subject) fairly universal in application to all major universities since the establishment of FERPA which specifically requires employees to withhold "The contents of discussions and conversations by Departmental personnel concerning privileged, personal or confidential cases" due to FERPA implications. FERPA, like Title IX, is interpreted extremely broadly in student protections.
It's also for this reason that student/teacher relationships are nearly impossible without a mountain of paperwork (including when the couple is previously married before employment or teaching, and even when they are in unrelated departments).
What are you quoting from? Because it directly contradicts the part about directory information from the USC.
Also where in the blog post were gender, personal likeness, or political affiliation disclosed(liberal is not an affiliation)?
Also I'm not sure what relevance bio-metric records have here.
Facial photos are considered biometrics, and I'm quoting from the law itself.
The only way anything previously mentioned as Personally Identifiable Information can be disclosed by a university official (under any circumstances, personal or private is if it has been de-identified or with direct consent of the student:
Records and information are de-identified once all personally identifiable information has been removed including but not limited to any information that, alone or in combination is linkable to a specific student that a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.
In this case gender, personal likeness, and political affiliation are provided about the student without being de-identified (and with specific purpose to bring harm). Specifically through the 2008 amendments on biological elements:
The amendments also changed the definition of "personally identifiable information" to include a definition for "biometric record." Under the regulations, biometric information includes "fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting."
At my institution (and all institutions that receive federal funding of any kind) we ~also~ have a confidentiality agreement which is (by my understanding from national conferences on the subject) fairly universal in application to all major universities since the establishment of FERPA which specifically requires employees to withhold "The contents of discussions and conversations by Departmental personnel concerning privileged, personal or confidential cases" due to FERPA implications. FERPA, like Title IX, is interpreted extremely broadly in student protections.
It's also for this reason that student/teacher relationships are nearly impossible without a mountain of paperwork (including when the couple is previously married before employment or teaching, and even when they are in unrelated departments).
What are you quoting from? Because it directly contradicts the part about directory information from the USC.
Also where in the blog post were gender, personal likeness, or political affiliation disclosed(liberal is not an affiliation)?
Also I'm not sure what relevance bio-metric records have here.
Facial photos are considered biometrics, and I'm quoting from the law itself.
Which has fuck all to do with what?
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The video revealed all three. This isn't complicated?
it's still not information maintained by the institution, though, since McAdams appears to have acquired it from another student outside of his role as a professor
it's still not information maintained by the institution, though, since McAdams appears to have acquired it from another student outside of his role as a professor
FERPA doesn't require that the identifying info be "maintained by the institution" as far as I know
Not sure how "education records" is defined though
it's still not information maintained by the institution, though, since McAdams appears to have acquired it from another student outside of his role as a professor
FERPA doesn't require that the identifying info be "maintained by the institution" as far as I know
Not sure how "education records" is defined though
This is generally true.
For example, it is illegal for me as a teacher to record my students and then release it on the internet without the written consent of all those involved (and parents, if minors are involved). This is generally regarded as a mild 'grey' area, at the moment, with the prolific rise of smartphones and youtube. For example, no one is going to raise a stink about the school website posting a video from their students winning the ASCE Concrete Canoe competition. But, should a student complain, technically, the school has broken the letter of the law.
It's more that you don't see people taking schools to task over this, because most schools/individuals aren't targeting their students for harassment.
The video revealed all three. This isn't complicated?
The video the student made of the conversation? Was the video released? It's not on his blog post, nor is releasing it mentioned in MU's summary.
Also, you are wrong about what facial-characteristics means.
As the 2008 amendment explicitly includes photographs in Directory Information.
Directory information means
information contained in an education
record of a student that would not
generally be considered harmful or an
invasion of privacy if disclosed.
(a) Directory information includes,
but is not limited to, the student’s name;
address; telephone listing; electronic
mail address; photograph; date and
place of birth; major field of study;
grade level; enrollment status (e.g.,
undergraduate or graduate, full-time or
part-time); dates of attendance;
participation in officially recognized
activities and sports; weight and height
of members of athletic teams; degrees,
honors and awards received; and the
most recent educational agency or
institution attended.
(b) Directory information does not
include a student’s—
(1) Social security number; or
(2) Student identification (ID)
number, except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Directory information includes a
student ID number, user ID, or other
unique personal identifier used by the
student for purposes of accessing or
communicating in electronic systems,
but only if the identifier cannot be used
to gain access to education records
except when used in conjunction with
one or more factors that authenticate the
user’s identity, such as a personal
identification number (PIN), password,
or other factor known or possessed only
by the authorized user.
Posts
I'm only 1 data point, but the later seamed the way to go.
I've seen it argued that he's angling for a nice right wing think tank sinecure here.
Can you find the section of FERPA you are saying they violated?
Every spot I am seeing is phrased like this:
(1) No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records (or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section) of students without the written consent of their parents to any individual, agency, or organization, other than to the following—
Section 5
(5)
(A) For the purposes of this section the term “directory information” relating to a student includes the following: 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 by the student.
(B) Any educational agency or institution making public directory information shall give public notice of the categories of information which it has designated as such information with respect to each student attending the institution or agency and shall allow a reasonable period of time after such notice has been given for a parent to inform the institution or agency that any or all of the information designated should not be released without the parent’s prior consent.
(6) For the purposes of this section, the term “student” includes any person with respect to whom an educational agency or institution maintains education records or personally identifiable information, but does not include a person who has not been in attendance at such agency or institution.
It seems like most school would have a set of those fields be in a group of 'standard directory information we can release at will' unless the student contacts them to designate it as protected. Which is why they can publish a dean's list for example, without needing to collect waivers from every student on it.
So, No but trust you they broke the law somehow?
Okay, let's try this the other way: What in here do you think violated FERPA?
In this case gender, personal likeness, and political affiliation are provided about the student without being de-identified (and with specific purpose to bring harm). Specifically through the 2008 amendments on biological elements:
At my institution (and all institutions that receive federal funding of any kind) we ~also~ have a confidentiality agreement which is (by my understanding from national conferences on the subject) fairly universal in application to all major universities since the establishment of FERPA which specifically requires employees to withhold "The contents of discussions and conversations by Departmental personnel concerning privileged, personal or confidential cases" due to FERPA implications. FERPA, like Title IX, is interpreted extremely broadly in student protections.
It's also for this reason that student/teacher relationships are nearly impossible without a mountain of paperwork (including when the couple is previously married before employment or teaching, and even when they are in unrelated departments).
What are you quoting from? Because it directly contradicts the part about directory information from the USC.
Also where in the blog post were gender, personal likeness, or political affiliation disclosed(liberal is not an affiliation)?
Also I'm not sure what relevance bio-metric records have here.
He also posted to her blog, which has a picture. Not sure if that is a disclosure per se but it's certainly identifying info.
Facial photos are considered biometrics, and I'm quoting from the law itself.
Which has fuck all to do with what?
FERPA doesn't require that the identifying info be "maintained by the institution" as far as I know
Not sure how "education records" is defined though
This is generally true.
For example, it is illegal for me as a teacher to record my students and then release it on the internet without the written consent of all those involved (and parents, if minors are involved). This is generally regarded as a mild 'grey' area, at the moment, with the prolific rise of smartphones and youtube. For example, no one is going to raise a stink about the school website posting a video from their students winning the ASCE Concrete Canoe competition. But, should a student complain, technically, the school has broken the letter of the law.
It's more that you don't see people taking schools to task over this, because most schools/individuals aren't targeting their students for harassment.
Also, you are wrong about what facial-characteristics means.
As the 2008 amendment explicitly includes photographs in Directory Information.