Privacy vs. security

In the days following the Virginia Tech shootings, the media began to piece together the horrific details of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. We learned that the gunman, Cho Seung-hui, suffered from psychological issues and had been admitted to a mental health unit in 2005. One question loomed, though. If college authorities had disclosed information about his mental condition to state officials, could the tragedy have \nbeen prevented? \nSince the release of a federal report in June 2007 that detailed confusion over privacy laws, government agencies have begun taking a stab at this contentious issue. Last week, the Federal Education Department proposed loosening restrictions on the release of confidential student information. Specifically, the department is seeking to ease certain privacy rules, which were created as a function of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. This move attempts to make it easier for college administrators to disclose confidential information about students without the fear of legal liability. \nGovernment officials claim that college administrators have usually tended to err on the side of caution in order to protect sensitive information about students. However, with the recent spate of school shootings, officials support easing restrictions in order to facilitate the exchange of student records. \nThere is no denying that the laws concerning privacy of mentally ill students contain gaps and discrepancies, and it’s understandable that administrators concerned about safety are also worried about liability when it comes to notifying authorities about suspicious behavior or persons. However, an adequate solution to this should not amount to easing laws that were crafted to protect students. Indeed, several regulations attempt to deal with the complex ethical issues surrounding such cases. For example, under a “health and safety” exception, colleges can disclose information about a student in order to protect the student or others from imminent injury, provided the student does not consent to interventions. It would seem logical to conclude, then, that the focus should be less on easing regulations and more on merely clarifying existing laws. Furthermore, the confusion over specific portions of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act should compel the federal government to educate campus administrators, state officials and counselors on the finer points of the act. \nOne must also consider the effect that all this has on mentally ill individuals. In our society, mental illness already carries a great stigma, and this prevents individuals from seeking the treatment they need. For example, a 2007 University of Michigan study found that while the incidence of mental illness on college campuses was steadily rising, more than half of students with significant symptoms of anxiety or depression did not seek help. Elaborate privacy laws, by design, encourage students to seek out professional help. Proposals that aim to weaken these laws can make some individuals wary of seeking help in the first place.\nLaws must strike a healthy balance between public safety and students’ privacy. While we support the disclosure of confidential information in the face of imminent danger, we must also protect the rights of students. Easing privacy laws wouldn’t do much to make us physically safer, but it would open us up to a new type of danger.