Students discuss notification policy at UA forum

Administrators explained the new regulations at the sparsely attended Logan Hall session. The Undergraduate Assembly's public forum on the University's newly proposed notification policy last night drew a small number of students to Logan Hall for a discussion and question-and-answer session. Under the policy, the Office of Student Conduct could notify parents after "serious and repeated conduct" on the part of a student that causes injury to him- or herself, others or property, OSC Director Michele Goldfarb said. Despite efforts made by organizers to publicize the forum, the 1 1/2-hour event drew no more than 25 attendees -- including several administrators and approximately a dozen members of the UA. However, UA organizers remained undeterred by the low turnout, noting that the meeting produced significant discussion between students and administrators, whom they found to be receptive. "The turnout was decent? but the discussion was very productive," said UA Chairperson Michael Silver, a College senior. "The administrators were very nice to show up." UA Treasurer Michael Bassik said he was disappointed with the low turnout but believed that the event was a success nonetheless. "I was extremely satisfied with the result of the forum," he said, adding that he would "be the first to admit that it seemed like a regular UA meeting." The forum began with Goldfarb and College of Arts and Sciences Dean Richard Beeman explaining the history of the federal laws protecting students' privacy and allowing colleges to notify parents of certain types of disciplinary situations. At issue was the 1974 Buckley Amendment, which most universities have interpreted to mean that the government could remove funding from any institution which discloses students' academic or disciplinary records without their consent, Goldfarb said. Congress passed a revision to the legislation last October which, among other things, allowed limited disclosure of disciplinary records to the parents of students at the discretion of each college or university, she explained. A proposed set of guidelines to determine when parental notification would be appropriate at Penn was presented to University President Judith Rodin and Provost Robert Barchi last week by a committee headed by Beeman. Beeman and Goldfarb offered information about the proposed policy and answered questions from students about its details. "Parental notification is used only to protect the health and well-being of our students," Beeman said. Noting the proposed policy's lack of rigid guidelines to determine when parents would be notified of their children's conduct, Beeman said such rigidity would make the policy ineffective. "These really are matters of judgment," he said. The only harsh criticism of the proposed policy during the question period came from College sophomore Yoni Rosenzweig, a representative of Penn's student chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The policy is peremptory [and] non-provoked," he told Beeman and Goldfarb. Rosenzweig said his group felt the policy should be much more narrow and follow specific guidelines to protect the privacy of students. He added that the proposed policy would cover areas that should be handled by groups like the police. Goldfarb responded that the most important element of any notification policy is a "balance" between privacy and protecting students, and that each person would "locate the balance point in a slightly different way." "Too clear a policy would actually run the risk of being more abusive," she said. Other students asked questions about how the proposed policy would be implemented, what types of conduct would be covered by the policy and whether students would be told before notification of their parents. After the question period, students offered their brief opinions on how the proposed policy could be improved. Wharton senior and Social Planning and Events Committee Chairperson Jonathan Herrman, for example, suggested that "there needs to be more of a specification of policy" and that administrators should "explain what 'serious' means." And College freshman Jeb Winton criticized the recommendations, calling them "vague" and suggesting that it allows administrators to freely interpret the policy.