Cornell Gives Up On Student Privacy

[gprime]

This caught my attention mostly because Cornell was among the schools I was planning to send a transfer application to, for Fall 2008. But now, I'm not so sure. Read the story (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/01/01/cornell-cuts-suicide-rate-in-half/), and you may see why:




After years in which many colleges have said privacy rules prevent them from interceding with troubled students, Cornell is taking the opposite tack.
Its “alert team” of administrators, campus police and counselors meets weekly to compare notes on signs of student emotional problems. People across campus, from librarians to handymen, are trained to recognize potentially dangerous behavior. And starting this year, Cornell is taking advantage of a rarely used legal exception to student-privacy rights: It is assuming students are dependents of their parents, allowing the school to inform parents of concerns without students’ permission.


Now, I certainly do so the reasoning behind it (like the near doubling of counseling center in 7 years), but it pisses me off for two reasons. First, this type of watching infringes upon the privacy rights of students, and may ultimately get them falsely flagged, or caught doing something illegal but trivial (ex: underaged drinking). Second, to continue to treat the students, who by virtue of getting into an Ivy League are at least reasonably competent and responsible, as though they are not mature enough to be treated like the adults the law recognizes them as being, leaves me wondering how they really prepare students for life and help them grow as independent individuals.

Offering counseling services is great, so I'm not about to take issue with that. But I don't see the rising number as being an issue. It may just be that people are becoming increasingly comfortable seeking help, or are better informed about counseling services. There is no reason to be an alarmist and assume the worst. And, even if the worst is true, most of these people do not have serious issues, as in the type where they pose grave danger to themselves or (more importantly) others. This system will probably produce more false positives than anything else, likely exposing the school to a lawsuit, and the student body in general into conflict with the administration.

What say you?

[ZombieBabe]

As a parent, I think it is a fabulous idea. If I'm going to spend all the moolah to send my kid to college, I like that I can rest a little easier knowing that there's an extra pair of eyes watching over my child's mental health. By the time my older son goes off to college, tuition is probably going to be a couple hundred THOUSAND by then. College is a stressful time, and some kids crack under the pressure. If my kid were to kill himself and no one ever sat down with him for a few minutes to know that something was wrong, I'd be PISSED. "I paid you HOW MUCH to educate and house my child and NO ONE noticed that anything was wrong?" Fuck that noise. I'd want to know.

I think you're making too big a deal out of it, man. If my understanding of the article is correct, all this means is that teachers, etc. observe what they see around campus. If someone seems a little withdrawn or agitated, it is brought up at their meeting, maybe a couple of counseling sessions and perhaps call the parents. There doesn't seem to be anything too intrusive. It's not like they're making mandatory daily searches of your anal cavity or something. Just some purposeful observation.

Think about this: if a system like this would have been in place at VA Tech, the shootings may never have happened.

[Rotten Apple]

I only have a problem with this part.
"Cornell is taking advantage of a rarely used legal exception to student-privacy rights: It is assuming students are dependents of their parents"

I was on my own financially as soon as I turned 18. I paid for my own school and living expenses. If they would have assumed this about me, they would have been WRONG.

But again, I think there is no harm in watching out for strange behavior. I don't think they would be actively seeking it out, I think they just wouldn't ignore it when it is noticed.

[gprime]

I think you're making too big a deal out of it, man. If my understanding of the article is correct, all this means is that teachers, etc. observe what they see around campus. If someone seems a little withdrawn or agitated, it is brought up at their meeting, maybe a couple of counseling sessions and perhaps call the parents.

But see, that is exactly the problem. Withdrawn? So if a person is reserved, meek, a loner, or misanthropic they have issues that need counseling? Because frankly, those fall within the gammut of normality, so long as they have no violent aspirations. Or how about agitated? If I'm on edge, because I have a major exam coming up, or because I have a critical interview for an internship, would I get flagged? It sounds like that could happen quite easily. There was no need for intervention, and truth be told, it probably only would add to my (or anybody else's) heartache in that situation.




Think about this: if a system like this would have been in place at VA Tech, the shootings may never have happened.

It's easy to deal in hypotheticals, because they can neither be proven or disproven. One could also say that if we'd not fought in the Gulf War, there would have been 9/11. The question really is, when the ends are uncertain, what means are we willing to take? I'm not convinced that this, at least as described, qualifies as a reasonable effort, given the large number of problems it will likely cause for students who are falsely flagged.