Comment on Kathleen Theis's post:
Your reflection raises an interesting tension the module surfaced: that FERPA protections are not uniformly applied across individuals and circumstances. Your observation that alumni records are not protected while requests for a former president's records typically still require consent shows how multiple layers of consideration shape disclosure decisions in practice.
Your phrase about leaning toward caution when it comes to privacy rights captures sound institutional wisdom. Even when FERPA technically permits a release — or no longer applies because a student has separated from the institution — additional considerations, such as state laws, institutional ethics, and reputational concerns, may justify a more restrictive approach. The MAY versus MUST distinction that the module emphasized gives institutions exactly this kind of discretion.
The alumni distinction stood out to me as well. Records created after a student leaves an institution generally fall outside the scope of FERPA, but records that existed during attendance remain protected indefinitely. This nuance often surprises institutional staff, who may assume that graduation removes all FERPA obligations.
Your point about subjectivity in law application is honest and worth acknowledging. While FERPA establishes clear principles, institutional judgment shapes how those principles get applied in real situations. This is why disciplined documentation, consistent practice, and a culture of caution matter so much.
In my context as College Director at an Early College Center, your principle of caution feels especially important. Our students are young, often navigating their first college experience, and their families are deeply invested. Treating their privacy with extra care builds trust that supports their entire academic journey.
Thank you for highlighting these nuances.
With Benevolence, Shannon
