Hopefully this is accurate.
I guess it also follows that we may never actually see the e-mail that Flood sent. If it mentioned Barnwell by name and his grade it seems like that would definitely be a FERPA violation.
Special BOG meeting called for Friday
- Thread starter mikemarc1
- Start date
Hopefully this is accurate.
I guess it also follows that we may never actually see the e-mail that Flood sent. If it mentioned Barnwell by name and his grade it seems like that would definitely be a FERPA violation.
That makes very little sense to me.
The act is about privacy. If you can't tie a name (or other legal identifier like SSN or Student ID) to a record, who's privacy is violated?
If I go to the Wall Street Journal and say, "i have a student athlete in my class who got an F" I'm violating the law?
Strictly speaking with respect to your scenario, no.
But that's not really the situation.
This situation has already identified publically Barnwell as the focus of an academic issue. To date none of the stories have provided any information other than "Flood emailed a professor inquiring about Barnwell's grade".
The AAUP has now said "Barwell failed the class".
I think it's a different thing, since there is no presumption of anonymity in their message.
only the subject individual can take legal action on a FERPA violation. It not like there's a Federal agency that enforces the law. Colleges violate FERPA all the time, usually when a parent of a college student calls to get information on their child's progress or conduct. The student must sign a waiver giving the school permission to release information to them.
No. But if you go the WSJ and say "The student you wrote about yesterday received an F", you are violating the law. Because even though you are not mentioning a name, you are still releasing personally identifiable information. FERPA clearly indicates the PII includes "any information that, alone or in combination is linkable to a specific student that a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty."
I believe that the AAUP-AFT resolution represents a FERPA violation. They clearly identify the student as the football player involved in the recent allegations that Flood contacted a faculty member prompting an investigation. There is zero ambiguity that they are referring to Barnwell, even though they don't mention his name. And they clearly released his grade.
I don't think you're wrong in spirit. But before others get all celebratory that the union violated the law, I think it's important to note that technically, they didn't.
And if people want to pursue that course, I think the issue centers on what expectation is there with the confidentiality of BOG Resolutions. If they are always published, the union clearly violated the spirit of the law, knowing it would make it to the media. And they should be called out for that. However, if there is an expectation that certain resolutions can be made private, and this one was leaked, I don't believe there is much that can be done about it.
And our group knew that he failed the course 2 weeks before the arrests (and indicated he would never play here again and were shouted down by several of the board demi-gods). So how long would it have taken for the media to get an "unnamed source" to confirm he failed?
[QUOTE="ruhudsonfan, post: 564195, member: 1296"
And if people want to pursue that course, I think the issue centers on what expectation is there with the confidentiality of BOG Resolutions. If they are always published, the union clearly violated the spirit of the law, knowing it would make it to the media. And they should be called out for that. However, if there is an expectation that certain resolutions can be made private, and this one was leaked, I don't believe there is much that can be done about it.
[/QUOTE]
This resolution wasn't leaked. The AAUP-AFT published it on their website. http://www.rutgersaaup.org/sites/de...legations-against-Coach-Kyle-Flood-9-9-15.pdf
And if people want to pursue that course, I think the issue centers on what expectation is there with the confidentiality of BOG Resolutions. If they are always published, the union clearly violated the spirit of the law, knowing it would make it to the media. And they should be called out for that. However, if there is an expectation that certain resolutions can be made private, and this one was leaked, I don't believe there is much that can be done about it.
[/QUOTE]
This resolution wasn't leaked. The AAUP-AFT published it on their website. http://www.rutgersaaup.org/sites/de...legations-against-Coach-Kyle-Flood-9-9-15.pdf
This resolution wasn't leaked. The AAUP-AFT published it on their website. http://www.rutgersaaup.org/sites/de...legations-against-Coach-Kyle-Flood-9-9-15.pdf[/QUOTE]
Well that sorta settles that. lol
Could the union argue they aren't even subject to FERPA? Are they technically part of the university? FERPA protections are between the institution and the student (or guardians pre 18 years of age or college).
Maybe AAUP is not subject to FERPA. But the individual faculty members who are part of AAUP are certainly subject to FERPA.
Since Barnwell must now be obtaining his legal services with a quantity discount - maybe he should initiate 'violation of privacy 'suits against AAUP, the instructor, the department chairman and others & put them through a comprehensive discovery process - including all email & cell phone files- which would likely expose tons of violative & inappropriate communications - any bets on whether communications with certain 'reporters' might show up?
And then there is this: PTLs are seeking a contract with management, a contract whose deadline seems to have come and gone without resolution. The union playing politics with the Flood situation as leverage? Note the line in the statement below: "Yes, PTLs deserve respect!"
Read below or online at: http://www.rutgersaaup.org/news/staff/part-time-lecturer-faculty-negotiations-update
Part-Time Lecturer Faculty Negotiations Update
Submitted by Staff on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 10:16
Part-Time Lecturers working without a contract but organizing to win!
June 30, 2015 came and went without RU management moving in a positive direction to agree to improvements in Part-Time Lecturer faculty working conditions.
What working without a contract means:
1. RU management will not implement salary increases until we reach a tentative agreement that PTL members vote to ratify.
2. Basic rights and benefits continue, except there is no new money—yet. We will push for retroactive salary increases, as has been done successfully in the past.
3. We are organizing to win: Yes, PTLs deserve respect!
The RU management team continues to say No to PTLs:
The good news: This summer’s PTL social events and home visits have mobilized members and recruited new members. We have knocked on hundreds of doors and are building member knowledge and commitment for a vigorous contract campaign this fall. Full-time faculty will be standing in solidarity with us.
In short, we are preparing ourselves to demand the respect we deserve!
In Unity,
Teresa Politano, President
Rutgers PTLFC-AAUP-AFT
11 Stone Street
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Office phone: (732) 964-1000
Fax: (732) 964-1032
Read below or online at: http://www.rutgersaaup.org/news/staff/part-time-lecturer-faculty-negotiations-update
Part-Time Lecturer Faculty Negotiations Update
Submitted by Staff on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 10:16
Part-Time Lecturers working without a contract but organizing to win!
June 30, 2015 came and went without RU management moving in a positive direction to agree to improvements in Part-Time Lecturer faculty working conditions.
What working without a contract means:
1. RU management will not implement salary increases until we reach a tentative agreement that PTL members vote to ratify.
2. Basic rights and benefits continue, except there is no new money—yet. We will push for retroactive salary increases, as has been done successfully in the past.
3. We are organizing to win: Yes, PTLs deserve respect!
The RU management team continues to say No to PTLs:
- No to professional fractional appointments, instead of piece work
- No to increasing the PTL Professional Development Fund, except by a tiny amount
- No to improvements in the PTL Tuition Remission benefit
- No to our efforts to keep the parking fee at the current rate
The good news: This summer’s PTL social events and home visits have mobilized members and recruited new members. We have knocked on hundreds of doors and are building member knowledge and commitment for a vigorous contract campaign this fall. Full-time faculty will be standing in solidarity with us.
In short, we are preparing ourselves to demand the respect we deserve!
In Unity,
Teresa Politano, President
Rutgers PTLFC-AAUP-AFT
11 Stone Street
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Office phone: (732) 964-1000
Fax: (732) 964-1032
I wonder what percentage of faculty believe their salaries and benefits would increase if Rutgers wasn't spending so much money on the football team. Something tells me the majority of them don't realize that football actually is (or will soon be) making a profit. Might explain much of the disdain for athletics that many faculty members clearly exhibit.
Look, let me ask you this, how come everyone here knew actually who got that F and who that student was without them mentioning their name?
The point of these rules, is that you have to make it impossible to ID the student. The union failed this test since they could have only been referring to one possible student.
To me, it does not specify the player (although obvious). Maybe that makes it OK.
I took Theater Appreciation, and the prof allowed extra credit if you saw an extra play and wrote a paper on it. Of course 1994, but option was there to the entire class.
And I stood corrected after a few of Upstream's posts. On the surface, it looks like I'm wrong.
That said, I'd bet a sawbuck that the union will claim it is not part of the University insofar as FERPA rules are concerned. That would be my guess.
If not, then they drafted that resolution with the sole purpose of embarrassing the kid, Flood and the program. In that case, they should be made to pay--legally and politically.
I'm not supporting the union, if that isn't clear
On a related note, the union was also calling for Flood's email to be made public I believe. So, does that mean whenever a professor is involved in a disciplinary/legal matter such as a student claiming an unfair grade or investigation into inappropriate communication with a student, etc, any emails by the professor should be made public? Yea, good luck with that....
i would venture to say that there is an inherit difference between a student e-mailing a professor, et al, regarding a grade, and a coach doing as much, especially when a university has regulations in place about doing so much.
i get that so maybe using the student was a bad example, but disciplinary situations with professors happen all the time and involve profs doing something that violates policies, so I think the analogy still applies.
The university is liable for a FERPA violation, not the instructor, the AAUP or the department chair. There may be a special FERPA exception for student athletes. Just by announcing a student academically ineligible, the university is disclosing information to the public that the student did not do well enough in his studies the remain on the team. If the student were not an athlete that in itself would represent a FERPA violation.
The fact is that Flood screwed up. The head football coach has no business asking an instructor to consider changing a failing grade if extra credit is done. Whether is was egregious violation of school policy or just a ignorant act of poor judgement is yet to be determined.
Unless I am mistaken, we really don't know exactly what Flood asked the instructor - and if we go by what was originally reported, it was specifically stated that Flood DID NOT ask for the grade to be changed - he was reported to have just asked if there "was anything that the student could do to improve his grade".
Yes , this may be dwelling on the technicalities - but that may be monumental in guaging the 'tone' and demeanor of Flood's contact - and yes, it probably was an inquiry that Flood probably should not have been made - - and yes, yes, yes we don't really know the exact wording of Flood's inquiry - - all the more reason that this has to be examined carefully & objectively.
If you mean, the University, and not the faculty member, is liable for paying any federal fines, that may be true. But I would assume that the University has policies to hold their employees accountable for upholding FERPA law. If a University employee violated FERPA requirements, there is probably some penalty ranging from slap on the wrist to termination.
You are making assumptions in this statement. Based on what has been reported, he asked if the student could still do anything to change the grade. We don't know if that meant extra course work, or if he was simply asking if the grade was final (i.e. if there was any regularly prescribed coursework that was incomplete or could still be done).
I cannot fathom why supposed fans of the program are constantly piling negative inferences on top of the known facts. The only possible explanation is that it fits another agenda.
So you contend that he didn't "screw up?"
We are lkely all in agreement that the policy is silly.
We can also agree that a 3 week investigation is sillier.
But why can't we agree that he screwed up? Of course he screwed up. We all deal with policies that are silly in our professional lives.
Because the last I heard he was responding to an email from the professor that he was copied on. If so, then I do not believe he violated the policy.
Like nearly everything else, it is unknown if this is true or not.
I don't agree that the policy is silly.
I don't think the policy is meaningful for a coach like Flood who in reality has very little influence within the University. But it is possible for a coach to be able to exert considerable influence, as we see at many other schools. At those schools, an email asking "Is there anything my player can do to improve his grade" is really pressure on the professor to find a way to improve the grade. While tenured faculty might say no, untenured faculty might feel that if they piss off the coach, it will limit their ability to get their contract renewed.
The key point is that your opportunity was given to the entire class before the grades were in. We don't know for sure but it seems that Flood asked for an extra opportunity for one student only after the grades were in.
Well, I guess 2 things.
I stopped short of saying I disagreed with that part of what CRuRah said. My issue was that he was putting additional speculative stuff on top of what we know about what happened. He was assuming Flood asked if the player could do "extra credit work." That infers that the coach was seeking special treatment for the athlete. Nowhere has that been supported. Based on what was reported, Flood only asked if the student could do "anything to improve his grade". That could simply be the same as asking if the grade was final, or if there was regularly prescribed coursework that could still be submitted. cRuRah also inferred the coach knew the grade was an F. Although it has since been divulged that the grade was an F, it hasn't been reported that Flood knew that (and if it was an F, and Barnwell needed a B to stay eligible, one has to wonder what Flood was trying to accomplish). I realize all of this is giving Flood a wide benefit of the doubt, but considering how he has conducted himself as our coach, hasn't he earned that from the fans? My underlying point is that I don't understand why fans and supporters seem to be the first to infer negatives that have not been reported anywhere based on pure speculation. Then we wonder why the nj.com shitheads do the same. Flood is no Bobby Petrino (who many of the agenda Flood haters wanted to see hired here) --
he has never shown any proclivity to want to skirt the rules. So why believe the worst of the man?
I did not contend he didn't screw up. I thought about it, but I stopped short of saying that. In reality, we don't even know at this point that he did screw up. There is an exception in the policy if the contact is not "initiated by the coach." We have not seen any evidence as to who initiated the contact. Based on the investigation, I think we must assume at this point that Flood initiated the contact, and did "screw up" and violate the policy. That said, based on his initial reaction that this was commonplace, I am wondering if this is a policy that was ever followed at RU, or if this was just something the faculty decided to start enforcing at this juncture for political reasons. I find it more than a little coincidental that Flood says this type of conduct was commonplace, and the fact that the part-time lecturers/faculty union have ongoing contract negotiations that have extended past a June deadline and decide to make an issue on the eve of the college football season.
Last edited:
Honest question, because it is exactly what I am arguing in this thread. Why does it "seem" that way to you?
Dumbest thing Flood did was put the question in writing. I know he tried to handle it through intermediaries first, but email is black and white. No plausible deniability
