Sun - November 2, 2003

Tennessee Attorney General's Opinion Will Unduly Restrict Campus Crime Information


An advisory opinion recently issued by Tennessee's Attorney General will unduly restrict the access of students and the media to information about crime at public colleges and universities.

Last week, Paul Summers, Tennessee's Attorney General issued an opinion, No. 03-139, that public colleges and universities in Tennessee aren't required to disclose the final results of student disciplinary proceedings where a student is found to have broken school rules in connection with an alleged crime of violence. Rather he held that a new law adopted earlier this year, Public Chapter 105, merely allows them to disclose this information, but does not require it. Under these circumstances most schools will likely continue to withhold this information from students and the media denying them information that both Congress and the Tennessee General Assembly pretty clearly intended for them to have access to.

When a college student is accused of a crime they may go through the criminal justice system just like any other citizen, however they may also be diverted into a secret system of justice on campus, or face solely the campus court system. It is often quicker, and easier for victims, or is at least presented as such, and is therefore an appealing option. This is especially true in the case of "sensitive" crimes such as sexual assault or hazing.

The downsides are that the harshest penalty that can be inflicted is expulsion, although it often isn't, and that other students don't know if a potentially dangerous student has been allowed to remain on campus. Congress intended to correct this in 1998 by amending student privacy laws to permit this type of disclosure, fully expecting that once no longer restricted it would become public. Nationally, however, this hasn't been the case. According to the Student Press Law Center fewer than 20% of schools release this type of information.

Other students aren't afforded information that they could use to help themselves make informed decisions about avoiding victimization (rapists for example are frequently allowed to remain on campus, or return after a short suspension without any other students knowing about it), or about how the whole campus court process works. There is no way to know if any type of students, or individual cases are treated differently than others.

Tennessee's public records act contains a blanket exception for student records, as it should. Unfortunately it is so broad that it includes criminal information too, and the new state law was intended to require the release of the records federal law now says states can release. Those records which federal law says can be released were written in as an exception to Tennessee's student records exception, meaning they should be public. Because the language was taken verbatim from the federal law, which is permissive, the AG is holding that it too is permissive rather than mandatory. Security On Campus, Inc. worked with the new law's sponsors and I know this isn't what they had in mind. One of them, Rep. Harry Brooks, has been quoted by the Associated Press as saying that they "were hoping that the language would be written in such a fashion that it becomes a public document."

He is also quoted as calling for a amendment so that "we can accomplish this information flow that is necessary to enhance the safety and protection of people on our campuses." This may certainly be necessary. It is also possible that a court could step in and rule that disclosure is mandatory, although until this somewhat expensive option happens schools will probably keep most of these records private, or release the records only occasionally. We certainly won't know if fairness is being employed, because they may release only when it is favorable to them, or when they have a grudge against the accused student. Only uniform disclosure is truly appropriate.

This situation will eventually be worked out, either in the legislature or the courts, but unfortunately until then students on Tennessee's college and university campuses will probably be denied information about campus crime that they should be entitled to.

Posted at 07:19 PM     Read More  


Mon - October 20, 2003

Colleges Can Fight Alcohol Abuse


The excessive use of alcohol, or binge drinking, often involving illegal underage drinking can be effectively combatted by colleges and universities.

Following the tragic death of his nephew Cameron, George Korda in his recent Knoxnews.com column "Dead for no good reason" asks "if there realistically is anything a school can do if a student engages in behavior that can result in danger or death." The answer is an emphatic yes that there is much a college or university, as well as parents and the community can do to prevent these types of tragedies.

Strong leadership from the school's President, and other respected authority figures, which makes it clear binge drinking and drug abuse will not be tolerated on campus or in the larger community is critical. Universities have to partner with the larger community to ensure that cheap beer isn't readily available to students - many of whom are underage, and that there is strong enforcement of liquor and drug laws. The leadership in words must be borne out by actions.

An honest educational campaign that shows students the true carnage of alcohol and other drug abuse is also needed. A recent Harvard study found that "social norming" campaigns in which students are told that "most" of their peers don't binge drink are a failure. Of course they are, they don't give students a real reason not to binge, and show no leadership whatsoever.

When weighted against the 1,400 college students who are killed in alcohol related accidents each year, and the 600,000 students assaulted by peers under the influence, it doesn't make any sense not to exhibit this leadership and we owe no less to our young people.

Posted at 12:56 AM     Read More  


Mon - October 13, 2003

The University of Tennessee Presidential Search


The public needs to take an active role in the search for the next UT President.

In the last five years a large amount of Tennessee tax payer dollars have been expended on searching for and paying two University of Tennessee presidents. Now we are searching for a third person to fill that role, and we can't afford to waste any more money.

Governor Bredesen has made it clear that this process will be a fully public one, but that alone won't be enough. UT alumni, such as myself, and other concerned citizens have to actually be engaged in the process. Certainly not full time, but when the amount of tax payer dollars wasted (counting searches and salaries paid to presidents who weren't able to fulfill their potential) is at risk of exceeding six figures we have to be concerned.

This lesson seems clear to the Trustees. At the meetings I have attended recently they, including Governor Bredesen who by virtue of his position serves as chair of the board, have become very engaged in the process. This is certainly very important, but alone won't be enough.

The chair of the search committee, trustee Andrea J. Loughry, promised on Friday that there would be a Presidential Search web site that would update the status of the search, and allow people to give their feedback. This is an excellent step. But in order to be meaningful, there has to be thoughtful input, and that input has to actually be incorporated in the search.

I'm confident that the Trustees, and other members of the Search, and Search Advisory Council, will welcome this input so I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage my fellow alumni and citizens to take advantage of this opportunity. UT is one of our state's most important assets and has certainly enriched our lives. Being involved in this process is at least as important as financial contributions, maybe more so, and is the least we can do.

Posted at 01:34 AM     Read More  

©