From the University of Maine student newspaper (Sept. 16, 2002):
Over the summer a policy was created concerning parental notification of students found in violation of alcohol and drug laws at UMaine. Parents and guardians will be notified of their student's behavior if it is determined that the student has committed a violation regarding alcohol or any other controlled substance and is under the age of 21....
"A student involved in and found in violating conditions of the [conduct] code as far as alcohol or drugs is subject to parental notification if they are under 21," David Fiacco, director of Judicial Affairs said Wednesday....
On the other hand, in 2005, when a fraternity upset with Fiacco because they were being disciplined for various offenses publicized, among other things, a "set of court documents and two newspaper articles discuss Fiacco’s conviction of Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI), where he had a blood alcohol content of .089 percent," Fiacco sued it for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
So let's see if I understand this: When a legally adult student is found through university administrative processes to have violated alcohol laws, his parents not only may but should be notified. But when someone discovers that a university administrator has pled guilty in court to violating drunk driving laws, notifying the public of this is supposedly tortious, and in Mr. Fiacco's view ought to lead to substantial damages liability (including punitive damages).
I realize that it's possible that Mr. Fiacco, despite his fairly high position within the university disciplinary system, was simply following orders back in 2002, and wasn't involved in actually creating the parent notification rule, or opposed it internally. Maybe. But is it too much to ask that a university administrator in charge of enforcing a system such as this tolerate student revelations of his alcohol infractions, just as students are supposed to tolerate his revelations of their alcohol infractions?
(Yes, I realize that the students tried to convey Fiacco's past to the public, and Fiacco's office has a policy of conveying it to the parents. But surely conveying something to parents can be highly embarrassing, and intrusive into the student's lives, especially given that the infractions may involve little threat to others, while Fiacco's infraction involved not just illegal possession of alcohol but drunk driving; and conveying the information to the public has the benefit of informing the public about the character of its public servants. I also realize that the university's motive is the students' own good and the fraternity's motive may have been retaliation, though it might also have been exposing someone who they thought was unfit for his job. But whatever the motive, the means strike me as pretty similar; and it seems particularly improper that an administrator who uses such means against students would try to use the legal system to punish students who use similar means against him.)
I don't quite understand how people can justify Fiacco's position from the perspective that SAE's actions were in retaliation--perhaps there is some legal standard here that I am not aware of. But I am concerned about a different aspect of SAE's action--a perverted attempt at anonymity.
If Fiacco's record was public and the statement against him perfectly legitimate--or, at least, accurate--why the covert action? Why not just come out and openly say that you don't think that Fiacco's fit to make the decisions? Guilty conscience? What is the need to funnel the information through an anonymous out-of-state agent? More importantly, how is revealing this information going to help SAE to escape punishment?
It's not revealing the information that is the cause of emotional distress--it's the mode of revealing this information. The mode of an underhanded, anonymous distribution of the information to specifically selected target certainly indicates an attempt to subvert the judicial/administrative process. If SAE's lawyer was involved not just in procuring the information but also in its distribution, did he not go beyond his obligation to zealously defend his client? Or is a smear campaign now a part of legitimate defense? Shouldn't the lawyer be sanctioned, even if Fiacco's suit is found to lack merit?
Maybe someday, Prof Volokh will serve on a disciplinary committee and will piss-off a trust-fund baby with deep pockets who will then dig up the dirt on his past, so we can all read about it in the LA Times.
But seriously, "priceless"? Unless I'm misreading the timeline, the policy was put in place in the Summer of 2002. The intimidation/retribution plan was put into action in the Spring BEFORE that.
Turn your question around: if Fiacco's record was public and the statement against him perfectly legitimate--or, at least, accurate--why does it matter who revealed the information?
Is it that or the financial interests of the parents?
Seems to me the motives of the university and the fratenity are pretty similar.
All that said, it seems to me that the fraternity members in this case behaved sophomorically (no surprise there) and Mr. Fiacco responded in an infantile and non-constructive manner (not appropriate or useful in one who deals regularly with college undergraduates).
Maybe they're afraid they'd be sued for "intentional infliction of emotional distress"?
About.com list of ages
Age of Majority on Wikipedia
Department of Defense PDF of age of majorities
My undergraduate institution had a similar policy, and although it did not have fraternities, I was an officer in the hall council of a residence hall that had the reputation of being the "animal house" hall on campus.
As such we were the target of several broad investigations into our (in retrospect) questionable practices regarding social gatherings. More than once individuals in the college judicial system would "write up" large numbers of students after the fact on vague evidence and then use the threat of parental notification in an attempt to force the students to roll over and admit who had planned a particular social gathering.
I don't disagree in principle with notifying parents, but I would say that that policy can be applied unjustly by school officials.
But in light of that, I don't see a rationale for finding that students engaging in a similar practice by publishing documents that are a matter of public records is an intentional tort.
also, although not strictly relevant, I recall a case from my first year torts class where it was held that colleges owe no duty to parents to "protect the morals of their children" regarding a student at the university of chicago who had become addicted to drugs and dropped out of college.
If schools aren't liable to the parents, the only rationale left for notifying parents is as a further negative consequences for the students, who at this point are adults fully capable of making their own decisions, good or bad.
Not every student at a university has bills paid by parents. I worked and took loans. An adult supporting himself does not need reports sent to parents.
If the parents have no financial skin in the game and the students are adults, what business of the parents is it if the students get into trouble?
I was personally in a situation where, as an adult student (23), paying my own way in college, an apartment complex that catered to students sent a letter to my parents complaining that I hadn't paid my rent. I was all of a day late (and the problem was fixed before my parents got the letter). Where had the complex gotten the parent's info? Emergency information form. They tried to tell me my parents had cosigned, but when instructed they pulled the lease and - oops. While I dont think the complex broke the law, it was truly obnoxious behavior and lost them a tenant, in the long run.
Let's move the situation to a private school, and fix the policy - when any student gets into trouble (with drugs,
alcohol or even cheating) the person who pays tuition is notified.
Fiacco is still a hypocrite.
Perhaps Professor Volokh is pointing out something else: how woefully a public university administrators understand the rights of their students as adults.
I went to a public university. I knew several people who had limited ties with their parents and were footing their own bills. It seems odd that people like this should have their parent or guardian* notified of a relatively minor infraction.
*-Does the term guardian even apply to a functioning adult?
Perhaps the University should take more seriously its responsiblity to teach the students. How about requiring a two-day refresher on Strunk &White every semester for the whole kit 'n' kaboodle: admin, faculty, staff, students, hockey coaches, et al.?
And how many of the SAE frat members have been arrested and brought up on felony charges for possession of stolen property?
I'm thinking that if they haven't been jailed for their crimes, then they're getting off pretty easy. It seems stupid to antagonize someone who is doing them a favor by balancing a felony crime with a punishment less than they would be facing if they weren't living in the university child care system.
I can't find anything on the site of the Bangor Daily News about it.
One of the previous posts mentioned that the stolen property consisted of road signs.
Given the circumstances they'd probably realistically plead guilty and get a fine, community service and a stern lecture from the judge about the dangers of stealing road signs. Unless, of course there were more serious consequences. (like someone dying in a car accident)
I think most people caught stealing road signs would be given similar punishments. Although to be fair, most people who would steal road signs are younger than 25.
This amendment was made in 1998; UMaine acted four years after the fact and other postsecondary institutions have similar policies, all in direct accordance with FERPA. UMaine didn't make the "distinction"; it's Federal law that makes the distinction and provides the ability for a postsecondary school to make the notification.
Hardly a legal issue at all.
3 points:
1. Although the U is described as notifying the parents or guardians it is really notifying the "Customer", the party or parties paying the bills or if on scholarship the expenditures over that. If the student is over 18 and is the sole guarantor of the expenses who else would get a notice? no one.
2. It is one thing to notify parents or guardians by confidential communication and quite another to publicize the activities of a private citizen. The second instance is, perhaps, not illegal but a very different amount of disclosure.
3. In either case the student or the administrator has the ability to sue if they wish. Such suit may by spurious but...
if your parent is paying for college, then he can request you sign some sort of release, so that the school can contact him in regards to grades, disciplinary thangs, etc.
otherwise, they shoulnd't be notified.
you can of course refuse, and your parents can of course refuse to pay for college
reminds me of the solomon amendment
And I certainly think the students have the right to disclose truthful information about (almost) anyone for (almost) any reason.
As to Fiacco's behavior, I'm holding my tongue.
whit: It's quite possible that some postsecondary institutions have enacted that very same concept. When searching for FERPA releases to use as a model for a postsecondary institute at which I used to teach, I found various vague notes regarding "other institutions may have an omnibus waiver; however, our school does not". The only thing that worries me about the unified waiver is the potential either for abuse in the case of one that is too broadly worded, or red tape in one that is too strictly worded.