Legal Issues – With no golden rule, strong policy should guide
Not all risks can be effectively mitigated by detailed policy, but given the need for decentralized decision-making about the sharing of information and the apparent inaccessibility of privacy legislation to laypersons, the student-at-risk/catastrophic violence challenge is clearly one that should be addressed through the promulgation of good policy.
Here’s a key quote from the report:
The widespread perception is that information privacy laws make it difficult to respond effectively to troubled students. This perception is only partly correct. Privacy laws can block some attempts to share information, but even more often may cause holders of such information to default to the nondisclosure option—even when laws permit the option to disclose. Sometimes this is done out of ignorance of the law, and sometimes intentionally because it serves the purposes of the individual or organization to hide behind the privacy law. A narrow interpretation of the law is the least risky course, notwithstanding the harm that may be done to others if information is not shared.
Following this theme, the report runs through a number of disclosures in the Virginia Tech case that could have been made, were not, but would have been permitted under applicable state and federal privacy laws.
Similar to the situation in Ontario (where I practice), in Virginia there’s no single “golden rule” or simplifying model to help teachers, administrators and student volunteers figure out what information can be shared about a student at risk, with whom and under what circumstances. Rather, there are a number of different rules – disclosure “exceptions” to be slightly more precise. These exceptions apply indirectly to the scenarios that commonly confront individuals in university and college communities.
In Ontario, for example, when teachers learn of disturbing behavior in the course of teaching, the legality of reporting that behavior to a case management team is ordinarily governed by the “need to know” rule or exception – i.e. the report is lawful if “necessary and proper in the discharge of the institution’s functions.” While this language may allow a lawyer to interpret whether a disclosure is permissible based on a set of facts, without specific guidance on what to do when a student demonstrates objectively threatening behavior, how’s a teacher to know whether reporting the behavior is permissible?
Post-secondary educational institutions must have systems in place that encourage the exercise of sound judgement and due diligence. Enabling the reporting of information about certain student behaviors through policy so these systems can function on complete and valid information is critical to their effectiveness.
Policy Issues – Parental disclosures and safe harbour provisions
I’d like to identify two good policy issues raised by the report, one for consideration by schools and another for consideration by government.
Issue 1: Should post-secondary educational institutions pursue a policy of sharing information about adult students at risk with their parents?
Consistent with the United States Department of Education’s philosophy on parental involvement, the state report clearly favours information sharing with parents:
During his formative years, Cho’s parents worked with Fairfax County school officials, counselors, and outside mental health professionals to respond to episodes of unusual behavior. Cho’s parents told the panel that had they been aware of his behavioral problems and the concerns of Virginia Tech police and educators about these problems, they would again have become involved in seeking treatment.
I’m not sure what Canadian post-secondary institutions will want to do with this. Is it reasonable to assume that all parental relationships will be supportive? How will institutions know if there is a benefit to the disclosure? If the decision to share information with parents is discretionary, what factors should inform the exercise of discretion? To what extent should schools rely on a disclosure to parents as a complete discharge of their duty of care (assuming such a duty exists)?
Issue 2: Should governments enact new exemptions to allow for disclosures made in a good faith belief that they are necessary for protecting health and safety?
The state report recommends this type of “safe harbour” exemption as a means of cutting through the confusion about how existing and general privacy exemptions apply to the health and safety problem illustrated by Virginia Tech. It states:
Laws protecting good-faith disclosure for health, safety, and welfare can help combat any bias toward nondisclosure.
The current health and safety exemptions in Ontario’s public sector privacy and health privacy statutes are objective standards that are based on a “serious harm” threshold. Short of this relatively high threshold, disclosures are only permitted under other more general exemptions like the “need to know” exemption noted above (which applies only to internal disclosures) or the similarly-obscure “consistent purpose” or “law enforcement” exemptions. Would acceptance of the safe harbour proposal lead to an appropriate clarification of the law? Is it important that privacy legislation be made accessible to laypeople? Will this type of amendment harm the integrity of the legislation?
I’m just scratching the surface with these comments, but hope they provoke some good thought amongst those who are interested in this subject. It’s a sad one, but I like the privacy-related ideas that have been raised following the shootings because they are simple, compelling and important. Look for more posts on campus security and privacy in the future.