A student is advocating for the Explain the Asterisk campaign, which would require colleges to document when a student has been kicked out for sexual or domestic violence or stalking, as opposed to plagiarism or cheating. Currently most schools just note that the student was dismissed for a rules infraction, citing FERPA.
Student privacy rights and the right to face your accuser seem to be destined to collide as a result of the new Title IX Guidance from Betsy Devos. New rules are in the comment period currently. This article is a great starting point.
This Citizen Truth article criticizes a recent California Court of Appeals rejection of a challenge to a 2016 California state law that requires every child to be vaccinated before they are admitted to public school.
The article raises privacy concerns. They note that public school attendance is compulsory. They also note that before students can attend, they would have to disclose confidential medical records.
This article summarizes the Federal Trade Commission oversight hearing of November, 2018. Comprehensive privacy law is discussed, among other topics.
The article quotes Amelia Vance, the director of education policy at the Future of Privacy Forum, “To be clear we are talking about the government actively seeking out children’s social media accounts, both public and private, and combining this information with existing law enforcement or social services records to profile which students are threats… Privacy guardrails must be drawn so parents and students can be sure their rights are protected.”
Should society expect there to be a balance between giving up privacy and identifying threats? Or, is the cost of student privacy too high of a price to identify potential threats?
The article references the story of an autistic teen who dropped out of school after being identified as a threat. He was subject to increased surveillance and monitoring, and officials would not explain to him why we was a threat.
Should society accept the fact that some students may be incorrectly identified as a threat and face lifelong harms as a result of that misidentification? Is that an acceptable tradeoff for potential security gains?