ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, March 5, 1997 TAG: 9703050063
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
MEGAPHONES metaphorically in hand, Virginia Tech officials last week trumpeted a new plan to counter the off-the-field troubles that so marred the Hokies' on-field football success this past season.
But one part of the plan is in sharp contrast to the fanfare that accompanied its unveiling - the decision to no longer announce suspensions from athletic teams. The plan as a whole won praise in many quarters, including here. But this aspect of it could cause Tech yet more headaches.
In the best of worlds, the plan's initiatives will prevent serious misbehavior from recurring. Mentoring and monitoring programs are to be set up. More care is to be taken in recruiting athletes who will represent the university. Disciplinary responsibility is put in the hands of Athletic Director Dave Braine instead of the coaches of individual sports. Specific standards of behavior, and a set of sanctions if they're violated, are established.
But if the plan does not prove fail-safe as a preventative, what happens?
Most of the recent problems have involved arrests or indictments of Tech football players within the regular criminal-justice system. Unlike the campus discipinary system, whose proceedings are closed, such arrests and indictments are matters of public record.
In other words, the fact that an athlete is formally accused of, say, assault is likely to become public knowledge sooner rather than later. But however wise and appropriate the university's response might be, Tech under its self-imposed gag rule would forfeit an opportunity to at least partially offset the negative publicity. Forfeited, too, would be an opportunity to satisfy the university's various constituents, in the campus community and beyond, that the situation is being sufficiently addressed.
In citing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act - better known as the Buckley Amendment - as the reason for no longer announcing suspensions from athletic teams, Tech officials seem to be behind the legal curve.
The intent of Congress was to protect the privacy of academic records, not disciplinary matters related to criminal activity. The amendment does not require the release of such information (though a bill now in Congress could have that effect). But according to Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, the courts have generally ruled that the amendment does not bar the release of such information. In any event, no college or university in the 23-year life of the amendment has lost federal funds for failing to comply with it.
Some of the concern ought to be about the university's own reputation. If problems recur, that reputation won't be enhanced by institutional silence.
LENGTH: Medium: 51 linesby CNB