Does Ohio St misuse the law to protect itself?
A law professor, in the link below, proclaims Ohio as “national champions” in perfecting the (mis)use of laws about student privacy to protect its own public image. While more qualified people than me can judge the merits of the professor’s legal arguments, the paper should interest many people here. To me, it provides a damning portrayal of hypocrisy, self-serving interpretations, attempts to conceal events from the public, twisting student privacy concepts, as well as caring more for misbehaving coaches than student athletes.
-hypocrisy
Eg claiming that student privacy precludes the release of information about the Clarret academic cheating scandal while at the same time violating the privacy of students making the accusations—for instance, “lambasting” the teaching assistant who made the allegations—saying she was “mentally and psychologically unstable”.
-self serving legal interpretations and attempts to conceal information from the public
eg selectively releasing information about student athletes’s accomplishments, while prohibiting the release of information that could harm the school, such as student parking ticket records--which are public at many other schools. Thus, the public and the media, which often drives investigations, can never know about NCAA violations that have previously been “exposed by simple parking tickets”
-twisting the concept of student privacy to serve their own agenda
Eg dubiously classifying as “education records” emails about the trading of sports memorabilia for tattoos and marijuana”. If these were “education records,” they would reveal a much clearer violation of student privacy---sending “education records” from the football coach (Tressel) to someone not affiliated with the university (Sarniak).”
-caring more for misbehaving coaches than student athletes.
Eg Ohio St quickly disassociated itself from Terrelle Pryor.”yet it ”reassociated itself with former Coach Tressel, allowing him to retire rather than resign.” (thereby forgiving a $250,000 fine, giving him $52,000 pay with 250 hours of unpaid vacation and sick time as well as insurance).
“It’s hard to believe.. that Ohio state cares about its student athletes when it continues to reward the misbehavior of its coach while simultaneously dissociating itself from the coach’s athlete.”
"Schools like Ohio State seemingly care less about their athletes than they do their own legacies."
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=meg_p…
inb4delete
Is the question asked unfair, given the arguments it provides?
To me, the question the law professor raises deserves discussion, not deletion.
I was under the impression that this was consensus here already. Perhaps the guy meant that the answer is obvious (yes), and so no discussion is needed.
that has not been discussed here.
But thanks for the clarification of inb4. I did not realize exactly what that meant.
Why do people put up with Gene Smith?
We have no choice
Is that because of Gee?
I can't think of anyone more perfectly suited for the job there.
Gene is like Tom Hagen. He's a great peacetime AD, but he's no Sicilian. He's done a lot of things right in terms of creating revenue streams for the university (just look at how much the athletics department has put into the university's general fund over the past few years), restructured the capital debt from all of the '90s athletic construction, and leveraged the athletics department as a tool for university wide development; instead of just having donors give to the football program, they now get turned over to the main development folks to see whether they'd like to support the university's academic program. He also helped reform SASSO (the academic support folks for student athletes) by getting them out of athletics and into academic affairs, where they belong.
And I hope the Ohio court system feels the same way, especially if there was anything relevent that wan't disclosed.
Correct me if I am wrong. But to my knowledge, the Oh St Supreme court justices are publicly elected and about half of them are are Oh St grads. Certainly, they may be honorable people. I have no reason to think otherwise. But if they are elected, are they not subject to public pressure in Ohio?
I wonder if the case could go to the Supreme Court?
I wonder if the delay in judging the case will blunt the impact of the information if it is ever released?
However, this is my thinking on the topic:
My (future) degree is in Policy Analysis, so I have had a lot of classroom time devoted to studying the impact of interest groups on public policy, which we could apply to court decisions, especially when those decisions are political in some way. I can assure you that no judge is going to be elected or tossed out of a seat on the Ohio Supreme Court based on a FERPA decision affecting OSU football. The amount of money and influence groups like the NRA, AARP, unions of all kinds, entrenched party interests, ect. will throw at a campaign dwarfs the interest in OSU football. Imagine this, if you will...you have a candidate running for the highest court in your state who shares your beliefs on gun control, abortion, healthcare, ect. Are you really going to vote against him or her because a decision he made negatively impacted your favorite football team?
In Ohio? Probably.
Oh young grasshopper do you have a lot to learn. Adults make plenty of rash decisions based on petty differences. You won't learn that from your textbooks but you will see soon enough.
The guy who gave Troy Smith a $500 handshake was a political candidate.
Tressel and the former AD Geiger appeared at political party fundraisers, no doubt at the behest of candidates, who frequently attempted to associate themselves with OhSt football.
I would hope that the justices are above such politics.
Also, there may be a lot more political stigma associated with OhSt athletics now, so the value of being seen as a supporter may be more limited.
As far as fundraising, I'd bet every dollar I had that if Obama thought the PR hit he took was outweighed by the dollars gained, he would have the cast of Jersey Shore fundraising for him (same goes for Romney or any other politician you care to name, I'm not picking on Obama).
My point is that celebrities like Tressel, or someone from Jersey Shore can bring in big dollars for candidates by cashing in on their fame, but I don't believe that any are a viable political force.
As far as being stigmatized, you could very well be correct. I'm not from Ohio and don't have a good handle on their politics (but I am certain, in a general sense, about the priorities of their voting population, if they're anything like the other 49 states and federal elections).
Although the money celebrities raise is no doubt important, there may be more than meets the pocketbook. There is a "halo effect" that political candidates sometimes seek when they associate with celebrities (this effect receives support from neuroscientic studies which show the activation of particular brain regions which display celebrity pictures).
How do candidates exploit this effect? Consider the viral videos in the last presidential election, which appeared on you tube and other sites. Even when they provided no direct money for the candidates, they sometimes involved (or even created) celebrities, who tried to enhance the image of their candidate. Maybe you are right in suggesting that such methods are ineffective but to me, some of these videos were quite powerful. At the same time, I admit that, to really resolve the question we are discussing---about how effective such methods are in an election--we would have to review a lot of empirical studies. I would be shocked if such studies have not been done. A vast field is devoted to political psychology.
Wasn't their some discussion in Three and Out about how Rich Rod was dealing with the Governor of West Virginia and other high ranking officials?
why in the hell would you think they would be "honorable". nothing thats comes from that school is honorable.
I assume you're wondering if it would go to the U.S. Supreme Court? Doubtful; the public records law at issue is an Ohio statute, so I can't really imagine it going federal. Even if it does, I can't imagine SCOTUS caring.
As to the Ohio Supreme Court decision, they've been issuing a string of decisions for a few years now that have significantly limited access to public records. I expect they'll do the smae here.
I predict that, when all is said and done, Urban Meyer will be called "Tressel Without the Vest." All the pieces are in place for a repeat of scandal and shame because that school in Ohio still operates with a "win at any cost" mentality. And that will get you nailed every time.
You realize that football wise they are very different coaches, right? I would be kind of surprised if anyone calls him that.
I understood that. I suspect my point was too subtle for you. He is a football coach. Denigrating his character before he has ever coached a game at OSU is silly. At the end of the day, he coaches a game. Judging him on other metrics besides his performance coaching that game is like State or OSU fans criticizing Hoke for being fat. I know the objection can be made that the issues with Meyer are more substantial than excess body weight, but when you consider that allegations about Meyer have not been substantiated, I disagree. It’s absurd, and reflects negatively on us as fans. Because accusations about his character are unsubstantiated, what remains are assessments about football. Football wise, the coaches are not very similar.
I think you should stop posting on this thread
Why do you assume that your contingent of the fan base is representative of this board? It isn’t, not even close. There are plenty of people on here whose opinions I respect. It’s just that there is the occasional person like you. I like mgoblog a lot. It would be almost perfect if the Mlive crew stayed on Mlive (And the point about Meyer at Florida is an interesting one. One that I wouldn’t have minded discussing. For my part, I’m not sure how much of that “slimery” is real and how much is imagined. Maybe you know better than I do, which I allow. Regardless, your history responding to me makes it clear that you have no intention of engaging me in actual discussion, just trolling me.) With that, I’m done responding to this thread and I’m done battling with you. My point has been made, even if no one else agrees.
For what it's worth, I agree with you 100 percent.
You may have also added that being critical of the board is one of the best things for it, so long as the criticism is intelligent. Nothing you've said indicates to me that your criticism is/would be mindless.
I'm in your corner FWIW (0).
This isn't middle school. Owl has walked away. You don't need to hurl insults at his back.
I agree-Nothing but Rubish coming from the Owl.Whoo would've known a wise old owl not so wise.
I don't think that you know much about football at any level if you believe that the sole criteria of success for a coach is how he coaches a game. What the coach does outside the actual game probably will account for 90% or more of his or her success.
So, before you make so many pronouncements, perhaps you might want to consider whether oor not you have the slightest knowledge on which to base those pronouncements. I suppose it can be a big ego trip to think of oneself as "speaking unpopular truths to power," but it seems to me more like a simple case of pomposity.
No accusation have to be substantiated before Heinous Wagner can "predict that, when all is said and done, Urban Meyer will be called "Tressel Without the Vest."" He can predict whatever he wants, with or without substantiation.
60% of stats are made up on the spot.
The idea that we know nothing of Urban Meyer's character until he has coached a game ot OSU is just ludricrous. That's equivalent to saying we know nothing about his coaching ability, his recruiting prowess, his command of the English language or his ability to walk upright. He's only been on the job for a few months and has already taken some hits for his recruiting practices. His reputation along with OSU's recent track record are rightly going to make people suspicious of their program.
So by that logic Tressel should only be judged for his on-field accomplishments...
*the threading is so out of whack, this was intended as a reply to Owl.
First of all, Clarett was kicked off after he won the national championship (same with Troy Smith, and they even fanangled Pryor into being allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl when he was already nailed for TatGate.) Secondly, upon learning that Tressel lied, Ohio's first response was to rush to Tressel's defense. When the proposed a punishment, it was a laughable two-game suspension and a slap-on-the-wrist fine. It was so bad that Tressel himself had to bump it up to 5. Even when it became painfully obvious to everyone the Tressel had to go, Ohio waived the fines and allowed Tressel to retire with a nice pension.
The ONLY reason Tressel was fired was they were advised that the NCAA would hammer them much worse if they didn't. Perhaps you've forgotten that Gee made his infamous joke about hoping Tressel didn't fire him after he was caught lying.
[Edit - meant as a reply to our OSU friend.]
They still fired him anyway, didn't they? We can talk semantics and pensions and all that jazz, but they still fired one of the best college football coaches of all time over the debacle. If anything, firing him after the NCAA said OSU would get a stiffer punishment proves that OSU doesn't have a win at all costs mentality. If they thought like that, they would have said F it, punish us for a few years, we will be as strong as ever afterward. Instead they fired their coach and took their medicine. Don't make an individual problem and institutional one. And Clarett didn't do anything wrong until after the National Championship game. Did you want OSU to preemtively punish him?
No, no, no, and a big pile of no. I respect a lot of your writing Jon but as much as M fans are letting our biases color our perception of this I think you're doing worse.
They didn't fire him. He retired. It may seem like semantics but this is a big deal in business and in politics and in college football too. Retiring doesn't end the association with the university. They were in a situation by that point where they had to get rid of him. At first they wanted to suspend him 2 games. Sweet spot, remember? Then it was let's suspend him as much as the kids. Only after the NCAA made it clear they were going to become a smoking crater if they didn't terminate him did Ohio State pull the plug on Tressel, and even then the program pushed to find the utter extremity of how easy they could go on him, going with retirement over firing for cause or even forced resignation.
It's a case example of the way Ohio State handled the whole ordeal, effectively I might add because considering how much could have happened ending up with one year under Fickell and then transitioning to Urban Meyer is the biggest victory against an NCAA investigation in modern history. The mere fact that they went for a win when the system is set up for the president to be on NCAA's side erases 100% of the institution's moral standing. You fought the law and won. This means the law lost. Those in favor of the law are upset about this you see.
This pattern of lawerly haggling over every inch demonstrated a clear lack of remorse. It's the same difference between the kid you have to force an apology out of versus a Georgie Washington confessing the cherry tree.
Michigans fans, you must realize, are in a unique position to criticize on this particular point because we're the school that commits seppuku on the barest mention of impropriety. Our athletic department's response to our two NCAA incidents was to analogically come crying to the parent to confess and beg punishment. I won't argue with you if you think our response is a bit silly; that it's a fair characterization of how Michigan handled PracticeGate and, more comparable to OSU's thing, the Fisher-Martin Scandal, I think is beyond argument.
Make no mistake, the biggest reason Ohio State got off as light as it did was that NCAA couldn't make its case against OSU's persistent legal wrangling, and was therefore put in a position where it would have to tyrannically lash out on flimsy ground like it did against USC, or be satisfied with what they could get. Nothing came out of the cars, not because Ohio State players weren't getting free cars, but because by putting the cars in the names of the kids' parents and then offering long test drives, they found a narrow legal loophole to excuse them. All NCAA had left were the parking tickets, which to any rational person proved they had the cars much longer than a "test drive," but because there was no paper trail it couldn't meet the standard of evidence.
The one big thing Ohio State knew could blow the doors off of much of their obfuscations and flimsy suppressoins was the testimony of Pryor, which so long as he was a player they could compel from him. So he left, after the draft, for the NFL, not because that's what he preferred to do, but because that's how he could stay friendly with Ohio State.
There was nothing noble about accepting the final punishments. Right up until the end Smith and Gee were talking about no bowl suspension. And it is here that I mention while all of this would be fine and expected if this were an actual legal case, the NCAA's enforcement system isn't like the American legal system at all; it is a system based on the presidents of universities being their own toughest enforcers. There are no police; NCAA investigators make OSHA look comprehensive. The whole system breaks down if the university president takes on a position of zealous advocacy that an adversarial system demands. This is exaclty what Gee did.
You do not get any extra credit for not saying "screw you" to the NCAA after you're already cooked, just as you can't take time off a criminal sentence because the convict didn't flick off the judge on his way out of the courtroom.
On Clarett, again you're taking the "you can't prove anything except..." tact when no sane person can take his retraction seriously. You would have to demonstrate that the fake job and the tutors who did his schoolwork, and the money handshakes he claimed when he was mad at OSU didn't happen, even though it's since been cooborated by other players that such things very much went on. Yes he retracted, when he wanted Ohio State's backing to get drafted in the NFL, on advice from his agent who just happens to be the same agent now writing a book about all the impermissable benefits he personally gave out to players.
The reason the defense was so strong was that the institution itself was running the scandal, and thus had all of their ducks in order to fight off a challenge. This wasn't a company with a few bad employees, it was WaterGate: a stupid scandal that exploded into a regime-changing one because those in charge took a completely antagonistic approach to investigators and had zero sense of their own culpability. Except this time they actually got the tapes erased for good.
I should mention that these parallels are just that--equipment for tats is not breaking into a major party's headquarters, nor is lying to the NCAA while cleaning the books the same as using the FBI to cover it up. College football is a game, and like any other game it is used to play out the same themes as "real life," but with much less real consequences. What's the real consequence if one college football program gives its players free cars and tats and $100 handshakes and fake jobs? That team has higher retention of its players, can recruit better, and ultimately will win more games. Winning more games in college football is not cheating to win a presidential election, but through the game we can better understand how an institution can commit "real" evils. So you need not downcast your eyes in shame for Ohio State as you would if you were associated with a criminal. And furthermore I should say to the Michigan fans reading this that words like "scum" are uncalled for.
However in this game we play, Ohio State the institution is, inarguably, emphatically, and clearly, the bad guys. I would no more expect you, as an Ohio State fan, to agree with that as I would admit that saying so comes from no bias.
Even as children playing cops and robbers the robbers will take on the role more seriously than we might even be able to admit to years later. But think back on playing robber, and how you justified running and hiding from the cop, and maybe squirting him with a water gun. Remember how you thought to yourself that the cop is just as much of a bad guy, that your friend or brother playing the cop represents the man while you are a clever, Robin Hood-like robber for good. Remember how when you got caught and were led to "jail" in "handcuffs" that you looked for ways to scamper off and escape, but at the same time felt honor in coming quietly and holding your head high. This is the same concept, more complicated because adult morality is more complicated. Remember that, and what self-justification is like, and find value in our little game far beyond the ephemeral wins and fantasia of the pageantry and belonging.
And also remember that "Deep Throat" who brought the thing to light, and Hugh Sloan were treated like complete traitors, and yet history holds them in higher esteem than Woodward and Bernstein. Culpability is probably the hardest lesson anyone ever has to learn. Thank god we have college football to help with that.
when she hears "Hail to the Victors" [sic], and she "perks up" when she hears the opening notes of "the Notre Dame Fight Song" [sic]. It is The Victors and the Notre Dame Victory March, professor.
p.57.
It is an interesting article. Highly debatable; about 100% more chatty than what I'd expect in a regular law review article.
[Edit. - Domer. LLM from Our Lady of Northern Indiana. Where they are, uh, sort of immune from most FOIAs, and which eliminates more than half of the usual FERPA problems.]
It's the treatment of the grad assistant in your point #1 that pissed me off most.
You do not ever under any circumstances whatsoever release psychiatric information about an employee or student without their permission. At the very least, that should have been career-terminating for everyone involved.
according to the article, it was the department head that released this information.
Department heads can wreck the careers of young teaching assistants.
Truly disturbing.
although I'd guess he wasn't the only person involved in the decision.
HIPAA wasn't in force at the time and I have no idea what the applicable law would have been then, but under HIPAA knowingly releasing medical information with the intent of causing malicious harm gets you up to ten years in prison. Causing malicious harm to a whistleblower is just about the worst set of circumstances you could come up with, isn't it? Especially when the offense was committed by a superior.
I didn't follow college football much off the field back then, so I don't remember the grad assistant thing, but if it was when Clarett was in school HIPAA had already been around for several years.
I just looked it up to make sure: the law is older (1996) but it wasn't until 2005 that the DOJ issued a memorandum clarifying that it didn't just apply to health care providers but to other individuals as well.