FERPA and Mathur

This morning’s Inside Higher Ed (Vigilante Justice on Plagiarism) reports that an instructor in Texas has been fired for publicly humiliating students who plagiarized in his course:

On [Loye Young’s] syllabus at Texas A&M International University this fall, he wrote: “No form of dishonesty is acceptable. I will promptly and publicly fail and humiliate anyone caught lying, cheating, or stealing. That includes academic dishonesty, copyright violations, software piracy, or any other form of dishonesty.”

…. Young, who owns a computer business in Laredo and doesn’t depend on a teaching job for his livelihood, thinks humiliation is part of the justice system. He noted in an interview Wednesday that “there’s a reason that trials are in public.”

When he caught six students in his management information systems course cheating, he wrote about it on his course blog …, naming the students and telling the world that he had caught them and that they would receive an F for the course and be reported to university officials.
…
When university administrators realized that Young had followed through on his threat to fail and publicly humiliate the students, they put the failing grades on hold — the cases are now being referred to an honors council for consideration and the F’s may or may not stand. But action against Young was quick: He was fired. The university says he violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal law known widely as the Buckley Amendment or FERPA, which generally bars the release of educational records about students without their permission….

Gosh, this reminds me of the career of our own Raghu P. Mathur, who, as you know, started his illustrious acadamic career as a chemistry instructor at Irvine Valley College. When the "chair" model was instituted in the mid-80s, Mathur immediately seized that role and would not let go of it.

The following is from Dissent 16 (1/11/99):

Dissent has been provided a photocopy of a memo sent by then-president (of IVC) Dan Larios to then-chair [of the School of Physical Sciences an Technologies] Raghu P. Mathur in May of 1996. ... As the following memo makes clear, President Larios ... could not abide Mathur’s conduct:

TO: Raghu Mathur....

DATE : May 14, 1996

SUBJECT: School Chair Election

By a vote of the faculty of the School of Physical Sciences and Technologies you have been recommended to serve another two year term as School Chair. As you know, the recommendation of your school has been forwarded to me for approval. It is the purpose of this memo to explain to you that I have some serious reservations about your leadership as School Chair.

As an administrator of Irvine Valley College, you have been repeatedly directed by me to resolve administrative matters within the administrative structure of the college. During the past year you have circumvented processes established by the Instructional Council and Board Policy, you have appealed directly to the Chancellor and board members when clearly directed not to and have generally operated in a spirit of bad faith which has undermined both the IVC governance model and has discredited your nominal support of it. I have spoken to you repeatedly about these issues and stated to you on March 29, 1996, that I have lost trust and confidence in your ability to lead your school.

I am giving you the 1996-97 academic year to regain my trust and confidence in your leadership ability. During this year you will be evaluated quarterly by the Office of Instruction. If at anytime you do not conduct yourself within established and agreed upon laws, policies, and procedures, I will exercise my right to remove you as School Chair.

It is in the best interest of the faculty, staff, and students of Irvine Valley College that you work within established administrative and governance structures of IVC and the Saddleback Community College District. Implicit in your accepting the nomination and election as School Chair is an expectation that in so doing, you are a willing participant in the governance model endorsed by IVC. In addition, I would expect you to realize that all recommendations for School Chair are forwarded to me for final approval. If, in good faith and in practice, you do not support the governance model you will be removed from your position as School Chair.

I am hopeful that in the future you will become a positive, contributing member of IVC’s administrative team. If I can be of any help in this process do not hesitate to call upon me.

DL/bw

I should provide some context. By early 1996, Larios had become fed up with Mathur for reasons cited in the memo among others. He was determined, therefore, to decline Mathur’s re-appointment as chair of his school. True to form, Raghu got wind of this and lobbied the board. As a result, Larios was told that he was not to pull the plug on Raghu. So Larios did what he thought he could get away with—re-appointing Mathur for one year on a probationary basis.

There was a “final straw” that precipitated Larios’ [desire] not to re-appoint Mathur as chair.

Dissent has been shown a copy of a letter, dated March 18, 1996, from the district’s attorney, Spencer Covert, to Dan Larios, President of IVC. The letter indicates that, in the opinion of Covert’s firm, Raghu Mathur acted improperly when he distributed a document to the Board of Trustees and others—a document that contained a student’s transcripts. Covert explains that the matter falls under the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) and that Mathur’s action thus violated district policy (5619), which refers to FERPA.

Recently, I have learned that, in violating FERPA as he did, Mathur placed the district in serious jeopardy of litigation. Further, it appears that, back in 1996, in an attempt to protect the district, administrators never told the student in question that her rights had been violated by Mathur.

But why had Raghu distributed a student’s transcripts in the first place? What could lead him to do something so unseemly and unprofessional?

A detailed account of this sordid tale would be tedious, and so I will sketch only its chief elements. [The upshot: Mathur attempted to discredit VPI Terry Burgess regarding the latter’s decision to sign off—in appropriately, according Mathur—on a student’s petition to be allowed to forgo a lab requirement. Mathur could find no one at IVC willing to pursue the matter, and so he turned to the board. In the end, it became necessary for President Larios to send out a college-wide memo explaining that Burgess had in no sense acted improperly in signing the student’s petition.]

As indicated above, Mathur, hopeful of discrediting Burgess, also pursued the card signing matter with the Board of Trustees, once again circumventing established procedures. He sent the Board a document including a cover letter, the above-mentioned resolution, and a copy of the student’s transcripts, thereby violating the Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act and district policies.

At about this time, Larios, by then utterly fed up with Mathur, composed a letter of reprimand, reprinted below:

TO: Raghu Mathur....
FROM: Daniel L. Larios, President
DATE: March 26, 1996
SUBJECT: Letter of Reprimand

On February 14 and March 8,1996 you disseminated School of Physical Sciences and Technologies memoranda to the Chancellor, District Board of Trustees, Saddleback Community College District Faculty Association and the Irvine Valley College Academic Senate. In your role as an Irvine Valley College administrator you have not conducted yourself within established and agreed upon laws, policies, and procedures.

You have clearly violated the instructional Council’s Statement of Practice (Attachment #1) issued September 11, 1995. In addition, you and the full-time faculty members of the School of Physical Sciences and Technologies, as signatories of the aforementioned memorandum of March 8, have violated Saddleback Community College District Board Policy 5615 (Attachment #2) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (“FERPA”) by distributing confidential student records. FERPA regulates access to educational records of students and protects their rights in preventing the disclosure of personally identifiable information with certain limited exceptions, in the absence of student and/or parental written consent.

The Irvine Valley College Catalog, page 229, under the heading “Student Privacy Rights,” explicitly references FERPA and extends such protection to students of the District.

I am hereby directing you that this misbehavior cease and that you work within the established administrative and governance structures of Irvine Valley College and the Saddleback Community College District. As an administrator of Irvine Valley College, you have been repeatedly directed by me to resolve administrative matters within the administrative structure of the college. To continue to pursue college matters with the district Chancellor and Board of Trustees is contrary to the explicit direction I have given you and constitutes insubordination.

If you continue to persist in not observing established laws and Board of Trustees’ and college policies and procedures, I will be obligated to take formal disciplinary action against you.

A copy of this letter will be placed in your personnel file.

DLL/bw

This letter was never sent.

On March 29, Larios met with Mathur. The meeting was witnessed by an impartial administrator, who took notes. According to those notes, the following exchange occurred:

Larios: “I believe that a reprimand is in order because of the communication that you sent out to the board. It contained, without permission, a transcript of a student. You violated her rights under the Family Practice act and our own Board Rule 5619. But because of the meeting this morning I am not going to give you the letter I have prepared.”

Mathur: “It was a good meeting and I suggest that you tell Terry, and we can put it all behind us now because of the meeting.”

Larios: “You need to let go of focusing on Terry, Raghu. It is not healthy for you. Your school has to become a part of this college. You are going to have to change. Can I report to the Board on April 22nd that all of this is behind us?”

Mathur: “Yes, you can, but you have to tell Terry and Pam [Deegan] the same thing. I am willing to cooperate.”

Larios: “Your school depends on you for leadership and you have let them down. Will you put this behind you now? You have good people in your school and they depend on your leadership ability, which I have lost confidence in.”

As reported in Dissent XVI, Mathur learned of Larios’ intention to reject Mathur’s re-appointment as school chair, and so he scrambled to lobby the Board, telling them who knows what. (As you know, Mathur has a history of lying—even to Instructional Council, which formally censured him.) As a consequence, Larios was directed not to stand in the way of Mathur’s reappointment. In the end (May 14), Larios sent Mathur a somewhat toned down version of the above memo—the document reproduced in Dissent XVI.

In subsequent months, Mathur worked hard to rehabilitate his reputation, though his tactics remained unchanged. For instance, he contrived to have the faculty of his school send to Larios a memo “commending” him for all of his fine work.

The man’s shameless.

END

Later, of course, Mathur sued Burgess and me for violating his privacy by reporting the above. We countersued and won. Mathur was ordered to pay our attorney fees ($34,000).

Mathur then sued the district for not protecting him. The district settled and paid Mathur $40,000 (as I recall). Not long after, Mathur was appointed Chancellor.