The matter of privacy> Does Buckley Amendment help student-athletes?

loading...

Thumb through the media guides provided by the University of Maine to publicize its sports teams and you can learn a lot about a student-athlete.

Height, weight, date of birth, hometown, names of parents, and major course of study are all right there for the world to see.

On three occasions last year UMaine released the names and teams of student-athletes found in violation of NCAA eligibility rules.

Information about student-athletes flows like a river from UMaine.

It flowed, that is, until UMaine officials discovered last month they had been misinterpreting an NCAA rule for several years, causing at least nine current student-athletes to be ruled ineligible for one or more games. When it came to this topic, UMaine abruptly reduced its information flow to a trickle.

Who are the affected student-athletes, the university was asked by the media?

Can’t tell you, came the reply.

What teams do these student-athletes play for, came the media query?

Can’t tell you, came the response.

“We did not reveal the names of the students because the federal `Buckley Amendment’ prohibits us from doing so,” was the explanation offered by UMaine President Fred Hutchinson in a recent speech to the Maine Press Association.

Hutchinson’s explanation, though meant to answer questions, raised more.

Just what is considered public information about student-athletes, anyway? What information is private? Who determines the difference? What is this Buckley Amendment? And what is the media’s responsibility when faced with the Buckley Amendment?

To answer those questions it is necessary to understand the Buckley Amendment and why it was created.

To benefit students

Congressional Quarterly describes the amendment as a “clarification of the student records disclosure law necessitated by the ambiguities surrounding the language of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974.”

Former Sen. James L. Buckley, R-N.Y., authored the original FERP Act that made it possible for students to inspect their personal files.

Buckley added his amendment in late 1974 after educational institutions complained about the law’s inexact language. As originally written, the institutions claimed, too much confidential material could be released and fall into the hands of third parties.

Buckley’s amendment was supposed to tighten the loopholes by specifying what types of information could and could not be released. Some loopholes were tightened. But the language still left room for interpretation.

An example: At the same time the Buckley Amendment “denies federal funds to any educational institution or agency that permits the release of a student’s records without parental consent to anyone but another school official or to comply with a court order,” it permits the educational institution “to release directory information.”

Directory information includes students’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, and major fields of study.

Since the law’s author could not have foreseen every possible circumstance involving student information, some areas were not specifically covered.

For instance, does NCAA eligibility fall under privileged student records, or is it directory information?

“That would depend on the individual circumstance that led to a problem with NCAA eligibility,” answered Vendean Vafiades, legal counsel for the UMaine System.

If lawyers always interpreted what does or doesn’t fall under the Buckley Amendment there would probably be fewer questions about the law’s application. They don’t. Buckley Amendment judgments are routinely made by school officials.

“The law was written so administrators and non-lawyers could use it and understand it,” said Vafiades, who was not consulted prior to UMaine’s most recent Buckley Amendment judgment dealing with the nine athletes. However, she agreed with the interpretation.

According to UMaine Public Affairs Director John Diamond, a group of public affairs staffers headed by Diamond determined that nine UMaine student-athletes fell under the Buckley Amendment.

“We felt it was clear-cut. We were dealing with academic progress, which is covered by Buckley. We deal with it a lot. I would estimate half a dozen times a month and not just in athletics,” said Diamond, a former Maine state representative who has written laws himself.

Everyone not covered

Asked about the difference between the three occasions last year when the names of student-athletes with NCAA eligibility problems were released, and last month’s incident when the names of the student-athletes were kept private under the Buckley Amendment, Diamond referred to specifics in the amendment.

One case last year, involving UM hockey player Cal Ingraham, dealt with a student-athlete’s certification, not his academic progress, according to Diamond. It was judged certification does not come under the Buckley Amendment.

The second case involved UM hockey freshman Jeff Tory, who was found ineligible based on his Canadian high school transcript. Diamond said although he was not involved in the Tory case – the information was released by former UM athletic director Mike Ploszek – Diamond believes Tory’s transcript from a non-federally funded institution would not come under Buckley jurisdiction.

The third case, in which five UM graduate students were found to be taking inadequate course loads to be eligible, could not have been released without identifying the student-athletes involved. “Their enrollment status meant they would be identified anyway,” said Diamond.

According to Diamond, the most recent case involving at least nine student-athletes, “clearly deals with students’ academic performance and progress. The other cases had extenuating circumstances. Because of those circumstances we felt Buckley did not provide the protection it would in other situations.”

If you’re looking for consistent judgment of what falls under Buckley from college to college, forget it. The University of Maryland has interpreted it differently than Maine, at least differently than Maine’s most recent interpretation.

“We’ve gone to our lawyers about it,” said Herb Hartnett, sports information director at Maryland. “What they’ve basically said is it is open to many interpretations.”

On Sept. 2, Hartnett’s office released to the media the names of three Maryland football players the institution had declared academically ineligible. The reason Maryland named names? To prevent the media from becoming intrusive.

“We’re in a competitive newspaper market. If we’ve got a football player not on the field, we know questions are going to be asked. Given that situation we release the names but give as little information as possible after that,” Hartnett said, noting Maryland has used this disclosure policy for several years and has never had a student-athlete complain.

Problems for the media

The problems that can arise when the media bumps up against the Buckley Amendment became apparent during UMaine’s most recent eligibility situation.

Though it didn’t name names, Diamond’s group did release the number of student-athletes and the number of teams affected by the NCAA violation. The media responded by trying to learn which student-athletes were missing from which teams and why.

Some shoddy journalism resulted in injured UMaine football player Brendon Parker of Haverhill, Mass., being incorrectly reported in two newspapers as a possible victim of Maine’s NCAA violation. The error was painful for Parker.

“Back home my mother was confronted at a football game by my high school coach,” said Parker, a third-year elementary education major who blames the media for the mistake. “He asked her why I was ineligible. She didn’t know what was going on. The whole town was wondering.”

While there is no excuse for shoddy journalism, Parker’s dilemma calls into question UMaine’s use of the Buckley Amendment. Wouldn’t it have been better for UMaine officials to emulate Maryland and identify ineligible student-athletes rather than to risk situations like Parker’s?

“How the media does its job is not our responsibility,” answered Diamond.

The debate over what should and should not be revealed about student-athlete records goes well beyond naming ineligible players.

Drake University Professor Jon Ericson is openly critical of the Buckley Amendment. He advocates universities publicly disclosing everything short of grades.

“Why do I have a right to know your major but I don’t have a right to know what courses you’re taking to complete that major?” asked Ericson, who calls the Buckley Amendment “poorly written” and advocates re-writing it. “If the public ever knew what goes on behind the shield of the Buckley Amendment, they would be shocked.”

From the student-athlete’s perspective, Maine’s Parker said he is uncomfortable with such full disclosure. He points out each student-athlete signs a waiver allowing the university to release directory information like height, weight, hometown, and major. Beyond that?

“I think it should be up to the individual to decide what they want to make public,” said Parker. “I think privacy is important.”