<br>Truth, justice and the need for full disclosure

Next week, the Undergraduate Assembly will vote on whether Penn should make public the results of disciplinary proceedings in which a student is found to have committed a violent or sexual offense. The UA's recommendation will be forwarded to a committee chaired by College Dean Richard Beeman and tasked by University President Judith Rodin to formulate a disclosure policy. When the UA speaks, it will speak with your voice and with mine. And because you and I are both potential victims, both potential offenders -- because we have friends who have been victimized by other students, and friends who have been disciplined by the Office of Student Conduct --it is important that the UA and Dean Beeman's committee hear from us. The need for the new policy arises from a 1998 adjustment to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which had previously prohibited the release of any student disciplinary records without written consent of the student. Under the revised law, the University can release up to four pieces of information about cases in which the OSC has found a student guilty of a violent or sexual offense: the perpetrator's name, the rule or rules that were violated, the essential evidence supporting the conclusion that an offense was committed and the nature of the penalties imposed. The single most important point to be made is that Penn does not have to release all four types of information. Particularly valid objections have been raised against the release of student names, over questions about the ability of the OSC to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and questions about whether public humiliation is a proper punishment for all of the offenses that fall under the statute. Furthermore, many note that the goals of Penn's disciplinary process are only partially punitive. The OSC also serves an intensively rehabilitative function that might well be compromised by the disclosure requirements, which would put alleged offenders on guard and limit their willingness to work with the office. Finally, particularly in cases of sexual misconduct, victims might well be reluctant to come forward for fear that releasing the assailant's name would jeopardize their own privacy. (It should be noted that the FERPA exception does not premit the release of victims' or witnesses' names.) That may well constitute a compelling case against the release of names, perhaps even against the release of evidence, which can lead to the same problems of identification in our small community. But the protection of student privacy can and must be balanced against the benefits of disclosure. That balance is to be found in the release of offenses and consequences -- what the nameless student did and how the OSC responded. Right now, after all, you probably don't know what the punishment is for slugging another student. And that's not only unfair, it's stupid. When man first figured out how to write a couple thousand years ago, laws were one of the first things he scratched onto stone. Even the earliest societies understood that men have the right to know the consequences of their actions. And they certainly understood that half the value of a given punishment is its deterrent effect. There's another kind of fairness at stake in the disclosure of offenses and consequences -- equality in punishment. As things stand at present, the only guarantee that all are equal before the law -- in this case, the rules and regulations of the University of Pennsylvania -- is the law's own commitment to equality. Given the propensity of even the most transparent of legal systems to sometimes allow things like celebrity and money to influence determinations of guilt and innocence, that's not much of a leg to stand on. And while, absent the disclosure of names, money and athletic prowess may remain factors in the assignment of consequences, the community will be able to judge whether the consequences for a given category of offense fall within a consistent range. That is good for the administrators meting out the punishments, it is good for the students receiving the punishments and it is good for you and me. This is my letter to the UA. You can send yours to ua@dolphin.upenn.edu, or directly to administrative committee member Michele Goldfarb, the director of the OSC, at goldfarm@pobox.upenn.edu.

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