Beef Wellington wrote:

---

When a student is disciplined for academic reasons the university does not release that information to the public. Those instances are private. It's not even proper to post student grades by social security number lest the student's privacy be violated. Why in the name of heaven should the privacy of a student athlete be violated by announcing to the world the name, rank, and serial number of the violator? Is a student any all fired different just because he is a jock? The media needs to realize that academics is not "show business" where a different set of rules seems to apply between the press and the entertainers.

---

Your logic here is fuzzy, BW. When a student athlete has academic issues, those are private and are usually not reported unless the student athlete is declared ineligible to compete in his or her sport in accordance with NCAA guidelines.

However, McCaleb (to use the most recent incident) is involved in a legal entanglement, and legal entanglements are public record. When a student athlete at a publicly supported university becomes involved in such an incident, the public will find out about it, whether through an athletics department communique or through the police blotter.

Jeff Bower has a responsibility to protect the university and his program first and individuals second. Apparently, Bower has taken it upon himself to protect some players above others AND to protect some players over other players. In so doing, Bower has failed the university, himself, and his players.

This issue would be a non-issue had Bower clearly defined levels of punishment that were appropriate for team rules and legal violations and stuck to them. He has "played it by ear" to the point that the perception of the USM football program has become shrouded in a fog that smells like sewage.

For instance, take the Hi-Hat incident earlier this year. Bower had a rule that the Hi-Hat was off limits to players because of past problems at that establishment. at least four players were disciplined for their attendance at the Hi-Hat. Of the four, two were dismissed from the team and two were suspended for 1 game. The two who were dismissed remain dismissed. The two who were suspended had their suspensions lifted and never missed a snap. Noteworthy is that the two "suspendees" included the player who is arguably USM's best athlete. Also noteworthy is that two other players quit the team because of what they felt was Bower's inequitable approach to discipline. This is just a recent example of an eyebrow-raising decision by Bower. One might also reference the difference in treatment that Naton Stewart and Dustin Almond received after being arrested for DUI.

The bottom line is that academics are protected but legal run-ins and non-academic team rules violations are not. Had Bower cultivated a system in ahich equivalent violations were dealt with in reasonably equivalent modes, then questions would not be asked to the level they currently are.

MLP needs to take a closer look at FERPA. S/he also needs to spend a little more time studying academic case law. The bulk of those cases involve discipline & not academics.

From www.ed.gov:

*********************************************************************
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

FERPA gives parents certain rights with respect to their children's education records. These rights transfer to the student when he or she reaches the age of 18 or attends a school beyond the high school level. Students to whom the rights have transferred are "eligible students."

*

Parents or eligible students have the right to inspect and review the student's education records maintained by the school. Schools are not required to provide copies of records unless, for reasons such as great distance, it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records. Schools may charge a fee for copies.
*

Parents or eligible students have the right to request that a school correct records which they believe to be inaccurate or misleading. If the school decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student then has the right to a formal hearing. After the hearing, if the school still decides not to amend the record, the parent or eligible student has the right to place a statement with the record setting forth his or her view about the contested information.
*

Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record. However, FERPA allows schools to disclose those records, without consent, to the following parties or under the following conditions (34 CFR § 99.31):
o School officials with legitimate educational interest;
o Other schools to which a student is transferring;
o Specified officials for audit or evaluation purposes;
o Appropriate parties in connection with financial aid to a student;
o Organizations conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the school;
o Accrediting organizations;
o To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena;
o Appropriate officials in cases of health and safety emergencies; and
o State and local authorities, within a juvenile justice system, pursuant to specific State law.

Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them. Schools must notify parents and eligible students annually of their rights under FERPA. The actual means of notification (special letter, inclusion in a PTA bulletin, student handbook, or newspaper article) is left to the discretion of each school.
********************************************************************

Now I want Invictus to explain what FERPA has to do with disclosing a student athlete's punishment. FERPA was designed to protect academic and identification data, not to shield batterers and drunk drivers from discipline.

My contention remains that if McCaleb had been benched for at least one game that this would be a non-issue. Disclosure would be beside the point, anyway; Bower wouldn't have to make any disclosure, because the public could put 2 and 2 together.

You are still avoiding the issue that Bower appears to have a double standard in discipline. Historically, Bower has been seen as a disciplinarian and his discipline has paid off in terms of success (winning and losing). Now it seems that Bower's decline in discipline has had the reverse effect.

My Little Pony engaged in selective reading & wrote:

---

Now I want Invictus to explain what FERPA has to do with disclosing a student athlete's punishment. FERPA was designed to protect academic and identification data, not to shield batterers and drunk drivers from discipline.

---

Citing from the same information that YOU provided:

Generally, schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record.

If you want to see McCaleb's "criminal record," go to the HPD. If you want to find out what disciplinary actions USM may have taken in advance of any actions taken by a court of law, you will have to get his or his parents' permission. In fact, depending on how it was written up by HPD, McCaleb's offense may not be "reportable" under the Campus Crime & Security Act. ("Assault" is technically reportable, but many departments don't classify a simple domestic that way & the moment HPD became involved USM has no choice in how the offense will be later classified.)

BTW, I didn't know McCaleb was a drunk driver (or a "batterer" for that matter). I'll wait until it goes to court -- if it goes to court -- to make a judgement. You'd be well advised to do the same, unless you're one of those who'd like to put another "S" in the U.S.A.