UA enters notification debate

The Undergraduate Assembly addressed a controversial issue last night, debating whether or not the University should report information about students' drinking infractions and criminal activity to their parents. The UA looked at the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and its implications for current Penn students. The act allows the disclosure of student offenses if the student involved provided written consent. However, two modifications were made in October of 1998 that allow parents to be notified without student consent if alcohol violations or "crime of violence or non-forcible sexual offense" are involved. Penn has not implemented either of these changes directly into its student conduct policy. Last night, UA members unanimously recommended that the University not release student offenders' names or crimes without the sentence of punishment attached to them. At the same time, members raised several different objections to the releasing of information related to student perpetrators. The UA first discussed the issue last November in a forum attended by Michele Goldfarb, director of the Office of Student Conduct, and Binyamin Appelbaum, former executive editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian. Appelbaum said that such records should be made public, while Goldfarb remained staunchly opposed to the release of such information, insisting that it remain confidential. Appelbaum was again present at the UA general meeting last night. At the onset of discussion, chairman Michael Bassik said that "The goal is to pass a statement [regarding Penn's policy on FERPA]." The UA recommendation will go to a higher, non-UA committee that has the final say. The committees formed last night will each examine smaller components of the larger issue for presentation and voting next week. Appelbaum told the UA that under FERPA, a student perpetrator's offense, evidence surrounding the incident and punishment can be released as well as the student's name. Appelbaum advocated the release of all information permitted under FERPA. "Only a very small part of this issue has to do with the release of names," Appelbaum said. When UA members questioned whether students' privacy would be protected, Appelbaum replied that while protecting students' privacy is important, so is having the system open to scrutiny. "I do believe there's a balance that can be struck," he said. Bassik also noted that the release of information about student perpetrators will allow for evaluation of the OSC -- which would provide the parents with the information permitted by FERPA -- and its disciplinary actions. "It's about knowing whether the Office of Student Conduct is doing their job," Bassik said. Also, Appelbaum claimed that the release of such information will provide students with knowledge of the number of rapes and other violent crimes committed on Penn's campus, which he said was important for students to know. Bassik and Appelbaum also spoke for Goldfarb, who wasn't present. "The opinion of Michele is that there's already a lot of pressure on students to come forward and speak candidly about their mistakes," Bassik said. Explaining Goldfarb's view further, Bassik said, "We should not equate the OSC to the same level of scrutiny and professionalism as the American legal system." One committee was formed to write in favor of releasing crimes and attached sentences of punishment, and a second formed to write against it. A third committee was formed to write in favor of releasing evidence pertaining to a crime, while the fourth committee was assigned the task of writing against the release of such information. The Assembly expects to vote on the committee reports next week. Bassik said these proposals will assist the UA in reaching a decisive vote on the FERPA issue.