In the article “Making false statements out of ignorance is still ignorance,” which appeared in the April 4th edition of
The Spectator
, I was specifically referenced, with the author writing: “One student had the gall to read a subsection of FERPA that he felt was particularly salient. This student attempted to lecture a former international lawyer and Editor-in-Chief of the
Yale Law Review
on a legal matter. How conceited must you be to think that you know better?”
“Gall” is a strong designation and one I aim to refute. During Student Assembly, the author — the body’s Mental Health Liaison — asked when the administration deems it appropriate to contact parents in regard to student mental health or general concerns with one’s behavior. President Wippman responded to this question: “There is a federal statute, FERPA, which addresses certain instances in which the college can notify parents about a student’s academic record.” He went on to say that “we don’t think that automatically referring any academic issue to the parents would be the right step, nor would it be consistent with FERPA.”
This assessment is deceitful at best, and an outright lie at worst. If the author had listened to what I said at the Town Hall, he would know this. At the Town Hall, I stated: “Schools may disclose education records to parents if the student is claimed as a de- pendent for tax purposes.” That is not my opinion; this not anyone’s opinion, but a part of the text of FERPA — section 99.31. Given that the vast majority of students are indeed claimed by their par- ents or guardians as dependents, we do not have FERPA rights, once it is demonstrated that we are a dependent, meaning that the administration’s response is insufficient. Students deserve to know when our parents will be contacted. Students deserve to know that our parents will be contacted in times of crisis.
As an undergraduate, rather than a former Editor-in-Chief of the
Yale Law Review
, I may be wrong about all of this, but if I am, why have neither the administration, the Registrar, nor the compliance office released an answer consistent with the law? Transparency is supposed to be a priority; why is this information not publicly available?
Last week’s article does not dispute my central claim — that FERPA does not apply to the majority of Hamilton students. It is strange to write an article ostensibly about false statements with- out actually proving that they are false. Even more importantly, why does the author so closely examine the truth value of the statements made by students while ignoring outright falsehoods perpetuated by the administration? There is no requirement that students be 100 percent accurate when discussing issues that affect them; the administration, however, should be held to a far higher standard.
Intentionally or not, when President Wippman answered my question at the Town Hall, his statement was not consistent with the text of the federal law he referred to. Why did the author of last week’s article not address this? The article should not only have addressed this inconsistency but should have granted more leeway to students as well. When students speak out in support of increased resources for mental health, why deride them as “more interested in ignorance than the pursuit of truth”? Would it be appropriate to say the same to a veteran who got PTSD statistics wrong or a student of color who gave outdated police shooting statistics?
What I saw at the Town Hall last week was the very best of Hamilton College and its students. Students came together to confront real and serious issues that harm themselves and their friends. There is a mental health crisis on this campus — demand for counseling center services has never been higher — and we have to grapple with that. The campus community has to understand why so many are struggling to find resources that can help them have the best possible experience. People are angry, rightfully so, at an administration that seemingly turns a blind eye to student concern. President Wippman may well eat with students in Commons or attend events like Hogwarts at Hamilton, but if this school and its policies do not change in response to student pressure then this is not enough. It is not enough to say we brought in a team from Duke. It is not enough to point to laws that do not explain school practices. It is not enough to attend these Town Hall’s if real change is not actualized. Last week’s article makes all of this less likely, repressing the very discourse it claims to promote.
