Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

University student records : privacy and research access Isaac, Glen E. 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A3 I82.pdf [ 11.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096661.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096661-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096661-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096661-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096661-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096661-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096661-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096661-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096661.ris

Full Text

UNIVERSITY STUDENT RECORDS: PRIVACY AND RESEARCH ACCESS By GLEN E. ISAAC B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHIVAL STUDIES in THE FACULTY OF ARTS Administered by School of L i b r a r y , A r c h i v a l and Information S t u d i e s and Department of H i s t o r y We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH AUGUST 1986 (c) Glen E. Isaac COLUMBIA « 0 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department or by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Sc.lmol of Arc/)ll/^ ^ / - / £ / Y x r y cKnd^-±-nfo r/W^i'lo^j The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date Auoo.rf c Z J (9U i i ABSTRACT This thesis examines the l e g a l , e t h i c a l , and procedural issues faced by Canadian unive r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s who seek to develop sound p o l i c i e s for research access to student records. The study begins by reviewing the basic types of student records created by u n i v e r s i t y administrative o f f i c e s - - i n c l u d i n g academic, personnel, f i n a n c i a l , medical, and counselling f i l e s — a s well as some of the current and potential uses of the records by researchers. The thesis then turns to a study of the "right to privacy" i t s e l f , and explores how the privacy concerns of the subjects of personal records have been been addressed in government studies and in Canadian law. The exi s t i n g records p o l i c i e s of Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s and various e t h i c a l statements of both university administrators and researchers are also examined. In t h i s manner, the complex problem of balancing privacy rights with research needs i s viewed from the perspective of the subjects, creators, and users of student records. The study concludes by reviewing the choices open to a r c h i v i s t s with regards to the formulation of access p o l i c i e s . Several opposing views of privacy are evaluated in order to i d e n t i f y those views which can be supported by a r c h i v i s t s and those which cannot. The argument i s made that a r c h i v i s t s need to construct a s o l i d t h e o r e t i c a l framework for their access p o l i c i e s by analyzing c a r e f u l l y such factors as the ends to be i i i served by the p r o t e c t i o n of p r i v a c y , the types of r e s e a r c h access to be provided to student f i l e s , and the nature of the u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e environment. I t i s contended t h a t such an a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s a need f o r p o l i c i e s c o n s i s t i n g of graduated s e t s of access r e s t r i c t i o n s - - p o l i c i e s which are s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e and s e n s i t i v e to guard a g a i n s t unwar-ranted i n v a s i o n s of student p r i v a c y while s t i l l p e r m i t t i n g a broad range of r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s to be conducted. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS •••.«. v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER II STUDENT RECORDS: NATURE, RESEARCH VALUE, AND ARCHIVAL PRESERVATION 7 The Nature of the Records 7 The Research Value of Student Records 21 A r c h i v a l P r e s e r v a t i o n : Current P r a c t i c e s 35 CHAPTER I I I THE CONCEPTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS OF PRIVACY .49 CHAPTER IV PRIVACY AND STUDENT RECORDS: THE ADMINISTRATIVE VIEWPOINT 92 CHAPTER V PRIVACY, RESEARCHERS, AND ARCHIVISTS .130 P r i v a c y and the Research Community. . . . . . . .130 The Response of A r c h i v i s t s 149 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION. . . .174 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 203 < APPENDIX 1. . . 220 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to express my g r a t i t u d e to T e r r y Eastwood who, d e s p i t e a busy schedule, was always w i l l i n g to provide a d v i c e or c r i t i c i s m whenever e i t h e r was requested. A debt i s a l s o owed to my classmates i n the M.A.S. Program, and s p e c i a l thanks are due to David B u l l o c k , C h r i s t o p h e r Hives, and Robin K e i r s t e a d , whose ideas and comments c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to my e d u c a t i o n . F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my parents, Maryann and E r n i e Isaak, and R i t a Kuhn f o r t h e i r support and t h e i r p a t i e n c e . 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Few tasks are of such c e n t r a l importance to the a r c h i v a l p r o f e s s i o n as t h a t of f i n d i n g a p p r o p r i a t e means of b a l a n c i n g i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y with s o c i e t y ' s need f o r i n f o r m a t i o n . Canadian a r c h i v i s t s , along with t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n other western c o u n t r i e s , have been faced i n recent decades with a va s t growth i n the amount of pers o n a l r e c o r d s maintained by both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e s e c t o r s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and a corresp o n d i n g i n c r e a s e i n p u b l i c concern over the p o t e n t i a l f o r misuse of these r e c o r d s . P u b l i c concern has i n tu r n l e d l e g i s l a t o r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s to develop r e c o r d s p o l i c i e s r e g u l a t i n g access to any records r e f e r r i n g to s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , such p o l i c i e s are o f t e n d r a f t e d without c o n s u l t i n g a r c h i v i s t s and may s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t the use of pe r s o n a l records by r e s e a r c h e r s at a time when r e s e a r c h demand f o r such records i s mounting. A r c h i v i s t s have a c l e a r i n t e r e s t i n f o r e s t a l l i n g the implementation of o v e r l y -r e s t r i c t i v e access p o l i c i e s not onl y so that they may provide r e s e a r c h access to the l a r g e bodies of p e r s o n a l records c u r r e n t l y s t o r e d i n a r c h i v e s but a l s o so t h a t they may preserve and make a c c e s s i b l e v a l u a b l e new s e r i e s of records c o n t a i n i n g p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . As y e t , a r c h i v a l s e r v i c e s have not been extended to some of Canada's most important 2 i n s t i t u t i o n s i n c l u d i n g many c o u r t s , h o s p i t a l s and s c h o o l s , and hence v i t a l areas of Canadian l i f e remain in a d e q u a t e l y documented. E f f o r t s to e s t a b l i s h a r c h i v a l programs f o r such i n s t i t u t i o n s are o f t e n hindered by the f e a r s of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s that the p r o v i s i o n of r e s e a r c h access to l e g a l , p a t i e n t , or student records w i l l r e s u l t In u n j u s t i f i a b l e i n v a s i o n s of p r i v a c y . S i m i l a r l y , e x i s t i n g a r c h i v e s may i d e n t i f y c e r t a i n s e r i e s of p e r s o n a l records as having c o n t i n u i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a l value and yet be unable to o b t a i n the s e r i e s due to the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y concerns of the r e c o r d s ' c r e a t o r s . There i s thus a p r e s s i n g need f o r Canadian a r c h i v i s t s i n g e n e r a l to demonstrate to t h e i r sponsoring i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t access r e s t r i c t i o n s can be implemented which both guard a g a i n s t unwarranted i n v a s i o n s of p r i v a c y and a l l o w s o c i e t y to b e n e f i t from r e s e a r c h uses of p e r s o n a l r e c o r d s . I t can be argued, moreover, t h a t the need to provide a d m i n i s t r a t o r s with sound access p o l i c y suggestions i s p a r t i c u l a r l y acute f o r Canadian u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s . While the Canadian f e d e r a l government, prompted by the l o b b y i n g e f f o r t s of r e s e a r c h e r s and a r c h i v i s t s , has a l r e a d y implemented records access p o l i c i e s designed to balance p r i v a c y r i g h t s with r e s e a r c h needs, f e d e r a l p r i v a c y l e g i s l a t i o n does not cover the record-keeping p r a c t i c e s of u n i v e r s i t i e s . Instead, i n d i v i d u a l u n i v e r s i t i e s are l a r g e l y f r e e to d e v i s e t h e i r own p o l i c i e s f o r p r o t e c t i n g the p r i v a c y of the students who pass through them. The a b i l i t y of u n i v e r s i t i e s to develop unique student records p o l i c i e s has both negative and p o s i t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a r c h i v i s t s . Although the records of 3 u n i v e r s i t y students have not r e c e i v e d heavy r e s e a r c h use i n the past, such r e c o r d s have p o t e n t i a l value f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l programs as w e l l as the study of student l i f e i n g e n e r a l . I t i s t h e r e f o r e d i s t u r b i n g t h a t those student records p o l i c i e s which have been developed c o n t a i n few p r o v i s i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h uses of the r e c o r d s . Such p o l i c i e s t h r e a t e n to prevent u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s from m a i n t a i n i n g a comprehensive and a c c e s s i b l e r e c o r d of t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s — o n e which al l o w s s c h o l a r s to study the a c t i v i t i e s not onl y of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and f a c u l t y but of students as w e l l . On the other hand, s i n c e many Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s have as yet not developed student r e c o r d s p o l i c i e s and s i n c e , o u t s i d e of Quebec, p o l i c y r e g u l a t i o n s are not enshrined i n l e g i s l a t i o n , a r c h i v i s t s have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o promote the implementation of w e l l - c o n s i d e r e d access g u i d e l i n e s . I t w i l l thus be u s e f u l to examine i n d e t a i l the i s s u e s i n v o l v e d i n d e v e l o p i n g g u i d e l i n e s f o r the d i s c l o s u r e of student records to r e s e a r c h e r s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , although there i s a vast body of l i t e r a t u r e on the t o p i c of p r i v a c y , o n l y a sm a l l p o r t i o n of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e addresses the p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t between p r i v a c y r i g h t s and r e s e a r c h needs. In a d d i t i o n , those d i s c u s s i o n s of r e s e a r c h uses of personal records which do e x i s t are s c a t t e r e d among a d i v e r s e a r r a y of sources and o f t e n r e f e r o n l y to government r e c o r d s . A r c h i -v i s t s themselves have o n l y begun to p u b l i s h a r t i c l e s a n a l y z i n g the l e g a l , e t h i c a l , and p r o c e d u r a l problems inherent i n p r o v i d i n g r e s e a r c h access to the pers o n a l records under t h e i r custody. Furthermore, most of the a v a i l a b l e English-language 4 a r c h i v a l l i t e r a t u r e on p r i v a c y c o n c e n t r a t e s on the American scene. Thus, while there are a few American a r t i c l e s d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y with p o t e n t i a l r e s e a r c h uses of u n i v e r s i t y student records and methods f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g such r e s e a r c h , no e q u i v a l e n t s t u d i e s have been produced i n Canada. The Canadian a r c h i v a l l i t e r a t u r e does not even i n d i c a t e which s e r i e s of student records are c u r r e n t l y s t o r e d i n u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s and which access r e s t r i c t i o n s are p r e s e n t l y i n p l a c e . T h i s t h e s i s t h e r e f o r e seeks to b r i n g together the b a s i c types of i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d i n order to present u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s with informed access p o l i c y s u g g e s t i o n s . To t h i s end, the t h e s i s begins by reviewing the major types of student records produced by u n i v e r s i t i e s . The r e s u l t s of a survey of the student records h o l d i n g s of Canadian u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s and the e x i s t i n g student records p o l i c i e s are a l s o p r o v i d e d . The term u n i v e r s i t y i s used l o o s e l y so as to i n c l u d e a l l l a r g e post-secondary e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . However, the study does not d i s c u s s the p o l i c y i s s u e s f a c i n g u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s i n Quebec, s i n c e t h a t province has a unique l e g a l t r a d i t i o n and has r e c e n t l y passed l e g i s l a t i o n r e g u l a t i n g the record-keeping p r a c t i c e s of i t s p u b l i c i n s t i t u -t i o n s . Furthermore, because an a r c h i v e ' s primary o b l i g a t i o n i s to maintain the records of i t s sponsoring i n s t i t u t i o n , the term student records i s intended to cover records r e f e r r i n g to i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s , which are c r e a t e d or r e c e i v e d by a u n i v e r s i t y ' s o f f i c e r s or employees i n the course of t h e i r o f f i c i a l d u t i e s . A c c o r d i n g l y , records produced by student-run campus o r g a n i z a t i o n s , r e c o r d s c r e a t e d by i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s , 5 and student i n f o r m a t i o n compiled by u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d r e s e a r -chers r e c e i v e minimal a t t e n t i o n , d e s p i t e t h e i r p o t e n t i a l r e s e a r c h v a l u e . Indeed, while t h i s study does examine some of the e x i s t i n g and p o t e n t i a l r e s e a r c h uses of student r e c o r d s , i t s primary focus i s not on a p p r a i s a l but r a t h e r on the development of p o l i c i e s t h a t w i l l provide adequate r e s e a r c h access to whichever records are preserved. With regards to the development of access g u i d e l i n e s , a b a s i c u n d e r l y i n g assumption of t h i s study i s t h a t s u c c e s s f u l p o l i c y making i n an area as complex and c o n t e n t i o u s as t h a t of b a l a n c i n g i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s with s o c i e t y ' s needs r e q u i r e s a thorough understanding of the concerns of those p a r t i e s a f f e c t e d by the p o l i c i e s . In other words, i t i s necessary to examine the views of the u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who c r e a t e student r e c o r d s , the r e s e a r c h e r s who d e s i r e to use them, and the students whose l i v e s are to be s t u d i e d . Although exten-s i v e surveys of student p r i v a c y concerns have not been conducted, i t i s p o s s i b l e to determine the predominant concerns of r e c o r d s u b j e c t s i n g e n e r a l by reviewing the manner i n which those concerns have been addressed i n government p r i v a c y s t u d i e s and i n Canadian law. The views of u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s with r e s p e c t to p r i v a c y are r e f l e c t e d both i n e x i s t i n g u n i v e r s i t y records p o l i c i e s and i n the e t h i c a l statements of the p r o f e s s i o n a l groups which c r e a t e student r e c o r d s . S i m i l a r l y , the a t t i t u d e s of r e s e a r c h e r s towards p r i v a c y are apparent i n t h e i r e t h i c a l g u i d e l i n e s f o r the use of p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n as w e l l as i n t h e i r responses to g u i d e l i n e s produced by government age n c i e s . A review of the 6 g e n e r a l p r i v a c y l i t e r a t u r e and the s p e c i f i c comments of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and r e s e a r c h e r s w i l l serve to i d e n t i f y the v a r i o u s s t r a t e g i e s proposed f o r p r o t e c t i n g r e c o r d s u b j e c t p r i v a c y and the l e g a l or e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s behind these s t r a t e g i e s . I t w i l l a l s o i l l u s t r a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the nature of the proposed access p o l i c i e s and the proponents' conceptions of the nature of p r i v a c y i t s e l f . T h i s study contends i n f a c t t h a t i t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r a r c h i v i s t s to examine c a r e f u l l y the intended goals of t h e i r access p o l i c i e s . What ends are to be served by the p r o t e c t i o n of student p r i v a c y and what types of r e s e a r c h access to student records are to be provided? Once the o b j e c t i v e s of a records p o l i c y are e s t a b l i s h e d , i t i s p o s s i b l e to analyze the v a r i o u s safeguards presented i n the p r i v a c y l i t e r a t u r e as w e l l as the access r e s t r i c t i o n s t r a d i t i o n a l l y employed by a r c h i -v i s t s , i n order to determine which combination of access g u i d e l i n e s w i l l both promote the d e s i r e d p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e s and be s u i t a b l e f o r use i n the u n i v e r s i t y environment. Indeed, while the focus of the t h e s i s i s on the f o r m u l a t i o n of access p o l i c i e s f o r student r e c o r d s , many of the concepts and i s s u e s d i s c u s s e d w i l l have relevance f o r any a r c h i v a l attempt to open pe r s o n a l r ecords to r e s e a r c h e r s . 7 CHAPTER II STUDENT RECORDS: NATURE, RESEARCH VALUE, AND ARCHIVAL PRESERVATION The Nature of the Records In order t o d i s c u s s the development of access p o l i c i e s f o r student r e c o r d s i t w i l l be u s e f u l to examine some of the major types of i n f o r m a t i o n contained i n such r e c o r d s . Due to the shortage of r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e sources d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y with the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s and re c o r d s of Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l speak i n terms of the North American u n i v e r s i t y , and w i l l draw h e a v i l y from American source m a t e r i a l . 1 Although i t c l e a r l y w i l l not be p o s s i b l e to c r e a t e a comprehensive i n v e n t o r y of a l l types of student r e c o r d s , an i n d i c a t i o n can be given of the b a s i c s e r i e s of student r e c o r d s as w e l l as some of the b a s i c f e a t u r e s of the u n i v e r s i t y bureaucracy which d i s t i n g u i s h i t from other l a r g e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . P a r t i c u l a r emphasis w i l l be placed on the f a c t t h a t student records do o f t e n c o n t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d to be s e n s i t i v e , and on the f a c t t h a t because the records are maintained throughout the campus, they come under the c o n t r o l of many d i f f e r e n t p r o f e s -s i o n a l groups, many of whom--as a subsequent chapter w i l l explore--have t h e i r own e t h i c a l standards f o r the r e l e a s e of perso n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . 8 As a c l a s s , student records encompass a broad range. The r e c o r d s can range from s i n g l e sheet summaries of a student's academic and b i o g r a p h i c a l h i s t o r y to t h i c k d o s s i e r s c o n t a i n i n g s u b j e c t i v e n a r r a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s of a student's c h a r a c t e r and academic performance. To a l a r g e degree, the d i v e r s i t y of the r e c o r d s stems from the nature of the u n i v e r -s i t y i t s e l f . American s o c i o l o g i s t Burton R. C l a r k d e s c r i b e s the u n i v e r s i t y as p a r t bureaucracy, p a r t community, p a r t p r o f e s s i o n , part p o l i t y , . . . a heterogeneous s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n whose d i v e r s e p a r t s pursue t h e i r work with the a i d of ever l a r g e r more complex s e t s of r e c o r d s . 2 Thus, while some student r e c o r d s are uniform i n content, c o n t a i n i n g mainly the "hard" and r e a d i l y q u a n t i f i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n needed by l a r g e c e n t r a l o f f i c e s , other records c r e a t e d by s m a l l e r o f f i c e s or i n d i v i d u a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s may f o l l o w independent record-keeping standards or no s e t standards at a l l . To add to the complexity, North American u n i v e r s i t i e s vary w i d e l y i n terms of e d u c a t i o n a l philosophy, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , and s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d . Any d i s c u s -s i o n of u n i v e r s i t y student records must t h e r e f o r e of n e c e s s i t y speak i n g e n e r a l t e r m s . 3 There are c e r t a i n primary c e n t r a l student records which are somewhat uniform among u n i v e r s i t i e s . C l e a r l y , each i n s t i t u t i o n must document the entrance of students i n t o the i n s t i t u t i o n as w e l l as t h e i r progress through "a broad but h i g h l y s t a n d a r d i z e d s e t of i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs. 1"* To begin with, the u n i v e r s i t y r e q u i r e s i n f o r m a t i o n to a r r i v e a t an admissions d e c i s i o n and to document the movement of students 9 from secondary to post-secondary e d u c a t i o n . 3 P r o f e s s i o n a l s c h o o l s and graduate departments w i t h i n u n i v e r s i t i e s a l s o r e q u i r e admissions i n f o r m a t i o n . Undergraduate admissions records may be compiled by a separate admissions o f f i c e or by admissions s t a f f working w i t h i n a r e g i s t r a r ' s or student r e c o r d s o f f i c e . The types of i n f o r m a t i o n needed n a t u r a l l y vary a c c o r d i n g to the admissions p o l i c i e s of each p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n , but i n g e n e r a l , records w i l l be c r e a t e d based on in f o r m a t i o n gathered from both the student and the student's secondary s c h o o l , as w e l l as on i n f o r m a t i o n compiled at the u n i v e r s i t y d u r i n g the admissions p r o c e s s . The b a s i c document r e c e i v e d from the a p p l i c a n t ' s secondary s c h o o l i s the t r a n s c r i p t of p r i o r academic work c o n t a i n i n g r e l a t i v e l y hard, o b j e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n such as courses taken, grades, c l a s s ranks, s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s c o r e s , and so on. However, the u n i v e r s i t y may a l s o seek a d d i t i o n a l records and may ask p r i n c i p a l s , t e a c h e r s , and school coun-s e l l o r s f o r l e t t e r s of recommendation and e v a l u a t i o n s of a student's academic competence and p e r s o n a l i t y . The student commonly f i l e s a s t a n d a r d i z e d admissions a p p l i c a t i o n with h i s or her high s c h o o l c o u n s e l l o r on which w i l l be entered the sc h o o l ' s a p p r a i s a l of the student's s u i t a b i l i t y f o r post-secondary e d u c a t i o n . e Some of the i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from secondary s c h o o l s can be h i g h l y s e n s i t i v e . The forms s u p p l i e d to secondary s c h o o l s by one American u n i v e r s i t y , which are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of those used i n the past by many i n s t i t u t i o n s , ask the s c h o o l s ' p r i n c i p a l s to rank each student a p p l i c a n t a c c o r d i n g to a l i s t of c h a r a c t e r t r a i t s , to judge the amount 10 of r e s p e c t accorded to each student by peers and f a c u l t y , and to assess each student's i n t e g r i t y . The same u n i v e r s i t y asks teachers to assess such f a c t o r s as the student's emotional s t a b i l i t y and sense of s e l f - w o r t h . ^ As a 1971 American survey r e v e a l e d , high s c h o o l c o u n s e l l o r s have o f t e n provided u n i v e r s i t i e s with i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the " p e r s o n a l i t y or behaviour d i s t u r b a n c e s " of students, i n c l u d i n g "emotional breakdowns," sexual a c t i v i t i e s and d i s c i p l i n e problems. 3 F i n a l l y , the r ecords r e c e i v e d from secondary schools may i n c l u d e medical information." 3 I f a student i s a c c e p t a b l e to the u n i v e r s i t y , he or she i s sent the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s admissions a p p l i c a t i o n form which commonly requests a broad range of i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d to the student's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , work h i s t o r y , f a m i l y background, hobbies and i n t e r e s t s , need f o r f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e , and perhaps, race and r e l i g i o n . 1 0 The student may be asked to submit one or more essays on t o p i c s such as h i s or her m o t i v a t i o n f o r a t t e n d i n g u n i v e r s i t y or a s i g n i f i c a n t past e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e . 1 1 Students, e s p e c i a l l y a p p l i c a n t s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l or graduate s c h o o l , may a l s o be requested to provide the names of r e f e r e e s who w i l l submit c o n f i d e n t i a l l e t t e r s of recommendation, and the student may be r e q u i r e d to pass entrance and medical e x a m i n a t i o n s . 1 : 2 When a student i s admitted to a u n i v e r s i t y , some or a l l of the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the admissions f i l e i s t r a n s f e r r e d to the r e g i s t r a r ' s or student records o f f i c e where the b a s i c academic r e c o r d of the student begins to accumulate. To those i n i t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n forms and s u p p o r t i n g documents which have been t r a n s f e r r e d from the admissions f i l e , the r e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e adds f i r s t the r e g i s t r a t i o n c o n t r a c t and course s e l e c t i o n forms, and then a s e r i e s of " t r a n s i t o r y r e c o r d s . M 1 3 The l a t t e r r e c o r d s c e n t r e on s h o r t - t e r m performance e v a l u a -t i o n s of students r e c e i v e d by the r e g i s t r a r from i n d i v i d u a l p r o f e s s o r s and departments. T r a n s i t o r y r e c o r d s are used " f o r input to and r e v i s i o n of the permanent academic r e c o r d , " from which the o f f i c i a l academic t r a n s c r i p t i s produced upon the student's graduation. 1** Current standards as e s t a b l i s h e d by the American Asso-c i a t i o n of C o l l e g i a t e R e g i s t r a r s and Admissions O f f i c e r s (AACRAO) s t i p u l a t e t h a t the data elements entered i n the student's academic records should i n c l u d e such items as: student i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , p r e v i o u s e d u c a t i o n , area of study, r e c o r d of work pursued ( i n c l u d i n g dates of attendance, c r e d i t and grades r e c e i v e d , and n a r r a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s of the q u a l i t y of the student's performance), honours and awards, and t e r m i n a t i o n s t a t u s ( g r a d u a t i o n , suspension or d i s m i s s a l ) . 1 5 5 Because r e g i s t r a r s ' o f f i c e s must r e c e i v e and maintain vast amounts of data, most of the data elements contained i n the academic records are s t a n d a r d i z e d , s y s t e m a t i c a l l y accumulated, and r e a d i l y q u a n t i f i a b l e . The s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of these records allows the modern r e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e to serve as the c e n t r e of an academic i n f o r m a t i o n system by p r e p a r i n g s t a t i s -t i c a l r e p o r t s on enrollment p a t t e r n s , student c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , degrees r e c e i v e d and other matters u s e f u l f o r academic p l a n n i n g . 1 S Much of the i n f o r m a t i o n contained i n permanent academic 12 records i s t h e r e f o r e r e l a t i v e l y o b j e c t i v e and p r e d i c t a b l e . For reasons of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , the AACRAO recommends t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n s keep the academic r e c o r d separate from u n i v e r s i t y d i s c i p l i n a r y r e c o rds and from what i t terms the student personnel r e c o r d , which c o n s t i t u t e s a r e c o r d of the student's p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , f a m i l y and e d u c a t i o n a l background, i n t e r e s t s , and a c t i v i t i e s . 1 7 . Although the trend i n the record-keeping p r a c t i c e s of r e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e s i s towards the r e d u c t i o n of nonstandard, nonacademic i n f o r m a t i o n , the past record-keeping p r a c t i c e s of r e g i s t r a r s have v a r i e d widely. Some o f f i c e s have maintained o n l y the o f f i c i a l academic re c o r d while others have c r e a t e d comprehensive student f o l d e r s c o n t a i n i n g nonacademic admissions i n f o r m a t i o n , records docu-menting the student's e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s , d i s c i p l i n a r y m a t e r i a l s , and a v a r i e t y of other r e c o r d s , i n c l u d i n g those h o l d i n g medical and f i n a n c i a l i n f o r m a t i o n . 1 0 Although the " o f f i c i a l " student records held by the admissions and r e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e are o f t e n the onl y student records covered by a u n i v e r s i t y records p o l i c y , they a c t u a l l y r e p r e s e n t o n l y a p o r t i o n of the academic student records maintained on the campus. In a t y p i c a l l a r g e u n i v e r s i t y , i n d i v i d u a l p r o f e s s o r s work w i t h i n departments which are each headed by a departmental chairman. Departments are grouped i n t o f a c u l t i e s (or s c h o o l s ) — a r t s , law, e n g i n e e r i n g — e a c h of which are headed by a dean. Deans o f t e n r e p o r t to a v i c e -p r e s i d e n t f o r academic a f f a i r s who i n t u r n r e p o r t s to the u n i v e r s i t y p r e s i d e n t . The u n i v e r s i t y as a whole i s commonly governed by a senate c o n s i s t i n g p r i m a r i l y of u n i v e r s i t y 13 f a c u l t y members and by a board of governors c o n s i s t i n g of academic and community representatives. 1® Much more so than i n other types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as business or government agencie s , power and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y are d i f f u s e d . 3 8 0 Thus, each dean, departmental chairman, and f a c u l t y member c r e a t e s separate f i l e s , many of which c o n t a i n student records supplementing or c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the records held i n the r e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e . 2 1 Moreover, as Burton C l a r k notes, " f i l e s do not simply t r a i l a u t h o r i t y , but a f f e c t i t . " 2 3 Thus, the demands f o r autonomy by separate s c h o o l s , departments, and f a c u l t y members lead t o o p p o s i t i o n to the demands of c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s or deans f o r uniform record-keeping and i n f o r m a t i o n r e p o r t i n g . There may be few g u i d e l i n e s or common p r a c t i c e s with regard to the format and content of student records maintained below the l e v e l of the dean's o f f i c e . 2 3 In the modern dean's o f f i c e , there are probably few d e t a i l e d r e c o rds on i n d i v i d u a l students, although f i l e s may be kept on unusual or " d e v i a n t " s t u d e n t s . The o f f i c e s of deans of p r o f e s s i o n a l s c h o o l s may c o n t a i n more e x t e n s i v e f i l e s s i n c e the record-keeping p r a c t i c e s of the d i f f e r e n t schools v a r y g r e a t l y and can i n c l u d e the d e t a i l e d n a r r a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of a student's s k i l l s and l e v e l of competence both p r i o r to admittance (through l e t t e r s of r e f e r e n c e ) and d u r i n g the course of the s c h o o l year (through the use of f a c u l t y e v a l u a -t i o n forms). 2"* The f a c u l t y e v a l u a t i o n forms can i n c l u d e assessments of the p e r s o n a l i t y , a t t i t u d e , and p h y s i c a l appearance of i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s , as was r e v e a l e d by a 1969 survey of American l i b r a r y s c h o o l s . 2 3 14 The student records maintained by o f f i c e s of depart-mental chairmen a l s o v a r y widely. Some records used f o r r e p o r t i n g student progress to c e n t r a l o f f i c e s are uniform i n content while the content of others cannot be p r e d i c t e d . In a d d i t i o n to n a r r a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s , the chairman's o f f i c e may c o n t a i n undergraduate grade i n f o r m a t i o n as w e l l as admissions, f i n a n c i a l a i d , s c h o l a r s h i p , and other i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g to graduate s t u d e n t s . ^ Even more d i v e r s e and d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s found i n records maintained by i n d i v i d u a l p r o f e s s o r s . F a c u l t y papers can i n c l u d e " c l a s s papers, correspondence, p e r s o n a l e v a l u a -t i o n s , and l e t t e r s of recommendation." 2 7 . The s p e c i f i c types of i n f o r m a t i o n contained i n such records o f t e n r e f l e c t the p e r s o n a l i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l f a c u l t y members as w e l l as the nature of the u n i v e r s i t y . As Burton Clark observes, i n sm a l l e r i n s t i t u t i o n s which seek to avoid coldness and f o r m a l i t y i n r e l a t i o n s between p r o f e s s o r s and students, f a c u l t y members can c r e a t e "[student] d o s s i e r s s t u f f e d with p e r s o n a l comment about academic, p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . " 2 1 3 A f t e r one l i s t s the academic and personnel f o l d e r s maintained w i t h i n the admissions and r e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e s and w i t h i n the f a c u l t i e s , one has s t i l l surveyed o n l y part of a u n i v e r s i t y ' s student r e c o r d s . In a d d i t i o n to o f f e r i n g courses of i n s t r u c t i o n , u n i v e r s i t i e s t y p i c a l l y o f f e r a range of f i n a n c i a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l , and p h y s i c a l support s e r v i c e s . These "student personnel s e r v i c e s " tend to be completely separate from the academic programs of the u n i v e r s i t y , having 15 autonomous or semi-autonomous record-keeping systems governed by the standards of the p r o f e s s i o n a l groups p r o v i d i n g the s e r v i c e s . 2 3 I t i s d i f f i c u l t to c o n s t r u c t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e adminis-t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e f o r student personnel s e r v i c e s s i n c e the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of these s e r v i c e s d i f f e r s from u n i v e r s i t y to u n i v e r s i t y a c c o r d i n g to each i n s t i t u t i o n ' s s i z e and h i s t o r y . In g e n e r a l , however, smal l to medium s i z e d i n s t i t u t i o n s may have t h e i r v a r i o u s student a f f a i r s o f f i c e s r e p o r t to a "dean of s t u d e n t s " while i n l a r g e r i n s t i t u t i o n s such o f f i c e s may r e p o r t to a " v i c e - p r e s i d e n t of student a f f a i r s . " In a d d i t i o n to c o o r d i n a t i n g and s u p e r v i s i n g the o p e r a t i o n s of the v a r i o u s s e r v i c e o f f i c e s , the o f f i c e of the dean of students may take an a c t i v e i n t e r e s t i n the a c t i v i t i e s of i n d i v i d u a l students and may t h e r e f o r e maintain comprehensive student personnel f i l e s c o n t a i n i n g r e c o r d s of a student's achievements, involvement i n campus o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s , a n d - - e s p e c i a l l y i n past d e c a d e s — d i s c i p l i n a r y p r o b l e m s . 3 0 Records p e r t a i n i n g to d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s taken by u n i v e r s i t i e s a g a i n s t students c o n s t i t u t e one of the most c o n t r o v e r s i a l and s e n s i t i v e c l a s s e s of student r e c o r d s . U n t i l the 1960s u n i v e r s i t i e s were o f t e n seen as s t a n d i n g in. l o c o  parent i s and thus were i n v o l v e d i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of student l i f e both i n s i d e and o u t s i d e the academic realm. Students who v i o l a t e d i n s t i t u t i o n a l r u l e s p r o h i b i t i n g such a c t i v i t i e s as " d r i n k i n g , gambling, hazing, v i o l a t i o n s of hours, c h e a t i n g . . . [and] p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s m " could be s u b j e c t e d to p u n i t i v e s a n c t i o n s ranging from l o s s of p r i v i l e g e s to e x p u l s i o n . 3 1 In 16 recent years, however, d i s c i p l i n a r y r e c o rds beyond parking t i c k e t s are r a r e f o r most students i n l a r g e i n s t i t u t i o n s . Because u n i v e r s i t y d i s c i p l i n a r y d u t i e s have i n t h i s c e n t u r y been e x e r c i s e d f i r s t by u n i v e r s i t y p r e s i d e n t s and f a c u l t y committees, then f o r many decades by deans of students, and f i n a l l y i n recent years by v a r i o u s j u d i c i a l bodies, d i s c i -p l i n a r y f i l e s can be found i n many records s e r i e s . Such f i l e s can i n c l u d e "records of charges, evidence, o p i n i o n s , a c t i o n s taken, and follow-up r e p o r t s , t r a n s c r i p t s and a p p e a l s . " 3 2 One of the l a r g e s t and most h e a v i l y used of the s e r v i c e o f f i c e s commonly r e p o r t i n g to the dean of students or c h i e f student a f f a i r s o f f i c e r i s the f i n a n c i a l a i d s o f f i c e which may adm i n i s t e r student loans, g r a n t s , s c h o l a r s h i p s , awards, and employment programs. In the course of i t s d u t i e s , the f i n a n c i a l a i d s o f f i c e r e c e i v e s a vast number of c o n f i d e n t i a l r e c o r d s . A p p l i c a t i o n forms used i n student loans programs, f o r example, r e q u i r e students to provide i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e i r work h i s t o r y , l i v i n g expenses, r e s i d e n c y , and a v a i l a b l e income. In g e n e r a l , the f i n a n c i a l a i d o f f i c e r e q u i r e s i n f o r m a t i o n on the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of students i n order to c o r r e l a t e those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with the type and amount of a i d dispensed, thereby producing i n f o r m a t i o n f o r pla n n i n g and budgeting p u r p o s e s . 3 3 Information s t o r e d i n f i n a n c i a l a i d f i l e s may be shared with the u n i v e r s i t y bursar or other o f f i c e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t u i t i o n payments, as w e l l as with the u n i v e r s i t y housing o f f i c e . Another b a s i c program operated on most u n i v e r s i t y campuses i s t h a t of h e a l t h s e r v i c e s . A comprehensive program 17 might i n c l u d e the p r o v i s i o n of pre-admissions medical examina-t i o n s , emergency medical treatment, p s y c h i a t r i c care, h e a l t h -r e l a t e d e d u c a t i o n a l and c o u n s e l l i n g s e r v i c e s , and other h e a l t h care s e r v i c e s as w e l l as the p r o v i s i o n of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e s e a r c h on the s p e c i f i c h e a l t h problems of the young. 3* Obviously, a l l such a c t i v i t i e s can r e s u l t i n the c r e a t i o n of records which w i l l u s u a l l y be c o n s i d e r e d c o n f i d e n t i a l by the medical s t a f f t h a t c o n t r o l them. The cumulative p a t i e n t records c r e a t e d by l a r g e campus h e a l t h care i n s t i t u t i o n s are t y p i c a l l y kept separate from other student r e c o r d s , but some h e a l t h i n f o r m a t i o n i n c l u d i n g , as a 1969 survey demonstrated, c e r t a i n p s y c h i a t r i c i n f o r m a t i o n , has i n the past o f t e n been given to c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s of the u n i v e r s i t y . 3 = 5 As w e l l , small i n s t i t u t i o n s with minimal h e a l t h s e r v i c e s have o f t e n combined student h e a l t h records with the academic and personnel f i l e s held by c e n t r a l o f f i c e s . 3 S In a d d i t i o n to attempting to meet at l e a s t some of the p h y s i c a l and mental h e a l t h needs of s t u d e n t s , most u n i v e r -s i t i e s provide g e n e r a l c o u n s e l l i n g s e r v i c e s . P r o f e s s i o n a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s working w i t h i n a separate c o u n s e l l i n g o f f i c e r e s p o n s i b l e to the c h i e f student personnel o f f i c e may o f f e r a wide range of e d u c a t i o n a l , v o c a t i o n a l , and p e r s o n a l programs. Aptitude and c a r e e r preference t e s t s are o f t e n provided. C o u n s e l l o r s may d i s c u s s personal problems of students i n such s e n s i t i v e areas as sexual a c t i v i t y and drug use. The coun-s e l l i n g o f f i c e w i l l thus c o n t a i n c l i e n t f o l d e r s h o l d i n g "personal data sheets, i n t e r v i e w summaries, t e s t r e s u l t s , . . . n o t a t i o n s about r e f e r r a l s or other s p e c i f i c a c t i o n taken, and 18 any correspondence p e r t a i n i n g to the c l i e n t . " 3 7 " The f i n a n c i a l a i d s o f f i c e may counsel students on money management, while the h e a l t h s e r v i c e s o f f i c e may provide c o u n s e l l i n g and e d u c a t i o n i n the areas of c o n t r a c e p t i o n , pregnancy, and drug u s e . 3 e F i n a l l y , students n e a r i n g the completion of t h e i r s t u d i e s may e l e c t to use the s e r v i c e s of yet another student a f f a i r s agency, the placement o f f i c e . T h i s o f f i c e a s s i s t s students i n c a r e e r p l a n n i n g and job s o l i c i t a t i o n , and serves as a r e p o s i t o r y f o r i n f o r m a t i o n that can be used by students throughout t h e i r c a r e e r s . For each student r e g i s t e r i n g with the placement o f f i c e t here w i l l be a f i l e which may i n c l u d e b i o g r a p h i c a l data, e d u c a t i o n a l and v o c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , correspondence, and most i m p o r t a n t l y , l e t t e r s of r e f e r e n c e . 3 3 There i s thus a broad and o f t e n c o n f u s i n g range of student records which may be a c q u i r e d or c r e a t e d by academic and s e r v i c e o f f i c e s w i t h i n u n i v e r s i t i e s . Even a f t e r students have l e f t an i n s t i t u t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f they are wealthy or prominent members of s o c i e t y , records about them may be maintained and updated i n an alumni o f f i c e . ' * 0 Again, i t should be s t r e s s e d t h a t the nature of the records c r e a t e d about a student, as w e l l as the manner i n which these records are maintained, v a r i e s widely both a c c o r d i n g to the nature of the student and the nature of the u n i v e r s i t y . A student who has r e c e i v e d many awards and d i s t i n c t i o n s and has been a c t i v e i n e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s w i l l c l e a r l y have a l a r g e r s e t of f i l e s than a l e s s a c t i v e student. Some students w i l l become "mere s t a t i s t i c s , " while the e x p e r i e n c e s , a c t i v i t i e s , 19 a n d p r o b l e m s o f o t h e r s w i l l b e r e c o r d e d i n d e t a i l . F u r t h e r -m o r e , w h e r e a s a l a r g e i n s t i t u t i o n m a y o f t e n o f f e r s o m e o r a l l o f t h e s e p a r a t e s t u d e n t p e r s o n n e l s e r v i c e s d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , e a c h w i t h s e m i - a u t o n o m o u s r e c o r d s s y s t e m s , a s m a l l i n s t i t u t i o n m a y m a i n t a i n a s t u d e n t ' s f i n a n c i a l , h e a l t h , c o u n s e l l i n g , a n d a l u m n i r e c o r d s i n t h e r e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e a l o n g w i t h t h e o f f i c i a l a c a d e m i c r e c o r d s . " * 1 I t s h o u l d a l s o b e n o t e d t h a t e v e n i n m a n y l a r g e i n s t i t u -t i o n s t h e t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s e s t a b l i s h i n g s e p a r a t e r e c o r d s s y s t e m s h a s b e e n s o m e w h a t o f f s e t i n r e c e n t y e a r s b y a d v a n c e s i n t h e u s e o f c o m p u t e r s i n s t u d e n t r e c o r d - k e e p i n g . Some u n i v e r s i t i e s a c t u a l l y b e g a n u s i n g p u n c h e d - c a r d m a c h i n e s t o a i d i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f a d m i s s i o n s a n d r e g i s t r a t i o n d a t a a s e a r l y a s t h e 1 9 3 0 s , a n d b y t h e 1 9 6 0 s t h e u s e o f c o m p u t e r s i n b a s i c s t u d e n t r e c o r d - k e e p i n g w a s s p r e a d i n g a m o n g a d m i s s i o n s , r e g i s t r a r s ' , a n d f i n a n c i a l a i d o f f i c e s . C o m p u t e r a p p l i c a t i o n s i n t h i s l a t t e r p e r i o d c o n s i s t e d o f t h e f r e q u e n t p r o c e s s i n g o f p u n c h e d - c a r d s i n b a t c h e s u s i n g l a r g e m a i n f r a m e m a c h i n e s . I n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d b a s i c a l l y o n l y b e p r o c e s s e d o r a c c e s s e d i n a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n b y o n e u s e r a t a t i m e . O v e r t h e n e x t t w o d e c a d e s , h o w e v e r , t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m o r e e f f i c i e n t m a i n f r a m e c o m p u t e r s a n d o t h e r a d v a n c e s i n c o m p u t e r t e c h n o l o g y l e d f i r s t t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n b a t c h e s f r o m r e m o t e t e r m i n a l s a n d t h e n t o t h e a b i l i t y t o a l l o w m a n y u s e r s t o e n t e r , p r o c e s s , a n d r e t r i e v e i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m s e v e r a l r e m o t e l o c a t i o n s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f o n l i n e d i s t r i b u t e d i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m s , r e c e n t y e a r s h a v e s e e n t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f s o p h i s t i c a t e d d a t a b a s e m a n a g e m e n t s o f t w a r e which allows i n d i v i d u a l s with r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e computer e x p e r t i s e to s t o r e , manipulate, and r e t r i e v e l a r g e bodies of information.'* 2 These l a t t e r two developments have permitted some l a r g e u n i v e r s i t i e s to develop " i n t e g r a t e d " or "comprehen-s i v e " student records systems, although the more common p a t t e r n seems to have been the c r e a t i o n of separate automated systems i n the v a r i o u s c e n t r a l campus o f f i c e s . In an i n t e g r a t e d system a master student data f i l e i s c r e a t e d c o n t a i n i n g most of the student i n f o r m a t i o n used by c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s . Much of the student i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d by the r e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e w i l l be the same as that used by the admissions, f i n a n c e , housing, and alumni o f f i c e s . In a t o t a l l y i n t e g r a t e d system these o f f i c e s would use remote access t e r m i n a l s to share a c e n t r a l data f i l e i n s t e a d of m a i n t a i n i n g separate f i l e s f o r each o f f i c e . " * 3 While i t must be r e c o g n i z e d t h a t most of the u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e s m a i n t a i n i n g student records are not i n c l u d e d i n even the most comprehensive of the e x i s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n systems, i t i s s t i l l t r u e t h a t when a l l or, more commonly, some of the major a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s share an automated student data f i l e , c e n t r a l c o n t r o l i s e s t a b l i s h e d over l a r g e numbers of student records and the p o t e n t i a l f o r s u b j e c t i n g these records to s i n g l e r a t i o n a l access schemes may i n c r e a s e . In a d d i t i o n , the c u r r e n t a v a i l a b i l i t y of v e r s a t i l e microcomputers with accompanying database management programs has meant that even those u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e s m a i n t a i n i n g autonomous records systems have the a b i l i t y to automate t h e i r f i l e s . " * " * Thus, at l e a s t some of the major s e r i e s of student records are i n many 21 u n i v e r s i t i e s becoming both l e s s voluminous and more e a s i l y manipulated, and t h i s f a c t , as w i l l be seen, i s s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a r c h i v i s t s . The Research Value of Student Records I t has been demonstrated that u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s and employees r e c e i v e and c r e a t e a d i v e r s e range of records p e r t a i n i n g to i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s . The f a c t t h a t these r e c o r d s are o f t e n both voluminous, a n d — b y usual s t a n d a r d s — s e n s i t i v e , means that a r c h i v i s t s who wish to ensure t h e i r p r e s e r v a t i o n w i l l need to provide a d m i n i s t r a t o r s with evidence of t h e i r long-term v a l u e . American a r c h i v i s t s have i n f a c t given some a t t e n t i o n i n t h e i r l i t e r a t u r e to the qu e s t i o n of the p r e s e r v a t i o n and r e s e a r c h use of student r e c o r d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e 1974 when the passage of the American F e d e r a l E d u c a t i o n a l Rights and P r i v a c y Act placed r e s t r i c t i o n s on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of student records to t h i r d p a r t i e s . " * 5 3 Both s i n g l y and as a group, a r c h i v i s t s have s t r e s s e d t hat there i s a need to ensure t h a t student records w i l l be a v a i l a b l e f o r f u t u r e a c c e s s . 4 6 I t i s a tenet of f a i t h i n the a r c h i v a l p r o f e s s i o n that the primary duty of an a r c h i v e s i s to preserve the s i g n i f i c a n t records of i t s spon-s o r i n g i n s t i t u t i o n , and a r c h i v i s t s such as N i c h o l a s Burkel have s t a t e d that f o r u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s such records i n c l u d e those r e l a t i n g to students."* 7" Other a r c h i v i s t s have attempted to d e s c r i b e i n some d e t a i l the p o t e n t i a l uses of these r e c o r d s , c i t i n g examples of p r o j e c t s which have u t i l i z e d the records of t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n s . " * e Perhaps the s t r o n g e s t 22 g e n e r a l statement on the c o n t i n u i n g value of student records i s the one approved i n 1977 by the S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t ' s C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s Committee: From both a r e s e a r c h and an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e standpoint i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher l e a r n i n g have a s p e c i a l o b l i g a t i o n to preserve the records of i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s , student o r g a n i z a t i o n s and campus l i f e . Student r e c o r d s are e s s e n t i a l t o an understanding of the e d u c a t i o n a l process over time. The impact of higher education i n America and the changing l i f e s t y l e s and experiences of c o l l e g e students can be s t u d i e d and evaluated o n l y i f i n s t i - t u t i o n a l f i l e s are maintained and made a v a i l a b l e f o r re s e a r c h use."**3 [ I t a l i c s mine] The a r c h i v a l p r o f e s s i o n has thus argued t h a t student records merit a r c h i v a l p r e s e r v a t i o n , although e x i s t i n g statements may be i n s u f f i c i e n t to convince many u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t even some of the p r o f e s s i o n ' s own members. Among the s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h values a t t r i b u t e d to student r e c o r d s , perhaps the most obvious i s that f o r biographers, t r a d i t i o n a l h i s t o r i a n s , and g e n e a l o g i s t s . C l i f f o r d Shipton, w r i t i n g i n 1965 as the u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t of Harvard, s t a t e d t h a t the student f o l d e r (which at Harvard i s a c o m p i l a t i o n of the student f i l e s of as many as two dozen u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e s ) w i l l a f t e r one hundred years become "the most f r e q u e n t l y c o n s u l t e d [ f o l d e r ] of the a r c h i v e s . ' " 3 0 A subsequent Harvard a r c h i v i s t , H a r l e y Holden, has s t r e s s e d the proven value to s c h o l a r s of l e t t e r s of r e f e r e n c e w r i t t e n by teachers, parents, and p r o f e s s o r s . 5 5 1 Academic t r a n s c r i p t s and alumni biograph-i c a l f i l e s have a l s o been c i t e d by a r c h i v i s t s at Harvard and elsewhere as being u s e f u l to b i o g r a p h e r s . 5 5 2 C e r t a i n l y an i n s t i t u t i o n of Harvard's prominence has produced many graduates whose re c o r d s are of i n t e r e s t to s c h o l a r s , but at 23 many i n s t i t u t i o n s i t would be d o u b t f u l whether demand by f u t u r e biographers or t r a d i t i o n a l h i s t o r i a n s alone would be s u f f i c i e n t to j u s t i f y p r e s e r v i n g l a r g e numbers of student f i l e s . A s t r o n g e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the r e t e n t i o n of at l e a s t a p o r t i o n of an i n s t i t u t i o n ' s student records i s perhaps provided by r e c e n t developments i n the h i s t o r y of higher e d u c a t i o n . U n t i l approximately the middle of the 1960s, h i s t o r i c a l s t u d i e s of American post-secondary education tended with some exce p t i o n s to be l i m i t e d i n scope, c o n s i s t i n g l a r g e l y of l a u d a t o r y n a r r a t i v e accounts of i n t e l l e c t u a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e developments w i t h i n s i n g l e i n s t i t u t i o n s . As s e v e r a l commentators have observed, however, the p e r i o d between the l a t e 1960s and middle 1970s witnessed, i n the words of h i s t o r i a n David B. P o t t s , "a new wave of q u a n t i t a -t i v e l y based s c h o l a r s h i p on the s o c i a l h i s t o r y of American c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s with s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e to s t u -d e n t s . " 5 5 3 H i s t o r i a n s began to look at groups of i n s t i t u t i o n s and ask broad q u e s t i o n s about higher education i n a p a r t i c u l a r era or r e g i o n . The b e t t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l h i s t o r i e s began to c o n t a i n demographic s t u d i e s of students and a number of s c h o l a r s undertook s t u d i e s f o c u s i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y on the l i f e of the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y student. T h e l a t t e r s t u d i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the e x t e n s i v e use of records r e l a t i n g to i n d i v i d u a l students. = 5"* The appearance of these s t u d i e s and of subsequent works which re-examined the h i s t o r y of p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s from the p e r s p e c t i v e of the student i n s t e a d of the u n i v e r s i t y p r e s i d e n t have l e d h i s t o r i a n s and 24 a r c h i v i s t s t o c a l l on the American a r c h i v a l p r o f e s s i o n t o p r e s e r v e b e t t e r d o c u m e n t a t i o n on the l i f e of s t u d e n t s . = = A l t h o u g h works i n the h i s t o r y of Canadian p o s t - s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n s t i l l appear t o c o n s i s t p r i m a r i l y of the p r o d u c t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l h i s t o r i e s , 5 S G i n t e r e s t i n the u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t i s i n c r e a s i n g among Canadian h i s t o r i a n s as w e l l . At the 1985 Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Conference s e v e r a l papers were p r e s e n t e d on the t o p i c "Student L i f e i n Canadian U n i v e r s i t i e s . P r o f e s s o r P a u l A x e l r o d of York U n i v e r s i t y , f o r i n s t a n c e , p r e s e n t e d a f a s c i n a t i n g s t u d y e n t i t l e d " C l a s s , C u l t u r e , and Canadian Youth: Student L i f e a t D a l h o u s i e U n i v e r s i t y i n the 1930s." T h i s paper demonstrated t h a t d e s p i t e the f i n a n c i a l c r i s e s of the D e p r e s s i o n y e a r s , D a l h o u s i e c o n t i n u e d t o p l a y a r o l e i n the r e g e n e r a t i o n of middle c l a s s s o c i e t y by p r o v i d i n g s t u d e n t s of "modest back-ground" w i t h a means of e n t r y i n t o the p r o f e s s i o n s . P r o f e s s o r A x e l r o d u t i l i z e s a broad range of p r i m a r y and sec o n d a r y m a t e r i a l . P a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g i s h i s use of s t u d e n t r e g i s t r a t i o n r e c o r d s as a means of d e t e r m i n i n g the s e x , c l a s s background, and r e l i g i o n of s t u d e n t s . I t i s perhaps s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t even i n a p i o n e e r i n g work such as A x e l r o d ' s , the use of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t u d e n t r e c o r d s — as opposed t o the use of i n t e r v i e w s , s u r v e y d a t a , and news-p a p e r s — i s r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d . S i m i l a r l y , a r e v i e w of the new s t u d e n t h i s t o r i e s c i t e d by David P o t t s = Q r e v e a l s t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the s t u d e n t - r e l a t e d r e c o r d s used by s o c i a l h i s t o r i a n s have been e i t h e r p u b l i s h e d r e c o r d s such as u n i v e r s i t y c a l e n d a r s , s t u d e n t newspapers, and c l a s s books, or 25 student manuscripts and the records of student o r g a n i z a t i o n s . I t i s much more d i f f i c u l t to f i n d examples of s t u d i e s u t i l i z i n g r e c o r ds produced by u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e s . There ar e , however, some works reviewed i n the a r c h i v a l l i t e r a t u r e which have drawn on the i n f o r m a t i o n contained i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e student r e c o r d s . A prominent example i s h i s t o r i a n David F. Allmendinger J r . ' s Paupers and S c h o l a r s ;  The T r a n s f o r m a t i o n of Student L i f e i n Nineteenth-Century New  England. In Allmendinger*s study, i n f o r m a t i o n on the s o c i a l background of students contained i n r e g i s t r a r s ' o f f i c e r e c o rds and i n f o r m a t i o n on the c a r e e r s of graduates contained i n alumni o f f i c e f i l e s are l i n k e d as p a r t of an e f f o r t to study the manner i n which higher education a f f e c t e d s o c i a l m o b i l i t y . 5 5 9 Records of a p p l i c a n t i n t e r v i e w s are used to document changing r e l i g i o u s views. Academic and d i s c i p l i n a r y r e c o r ds held i n u n i v e r s i t y r e g i s t r a r s ' o f f i c e s , and u n i v e r s i t y f i n a n c i a l r e c o rds p e r t a i n i n g to i n d i v i d u a l students are a l s o c i t e d i n t h i s v o l u m e . e o A f u r t h e r example of the use of student records i s found i n the work of Marcia G. Synnott who has s t u d i e d the admissions p o l i c i e s of Harvard, Yale, and P r i n c e t o n i n the 1920s and 1930s. Among the records used by Synott i n order to determine the r a c i a l and r e l i g i o u s background of students were admission a p p l i c a t i o n forms, freshman dormitory forms, and dean's o f f i c e f i l e s . There were many a d d i t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i l e s r e l a t i n g to i n d i v i d u a l students which Synott f e l t would be h i g h l y u s e f u l but which were u n a v a i l a b l e due to s t r i c t u n i v e r s i t y c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y r e g u l a t i o n s . S 1 D i f f i c u l t i e s i n o b t a i n i n g permission to 2 6 c o n s u l t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t u d e n t r e c o r d s a s w e l l a s d i f f i c u l t i e s i n s i m p l y l o c a t i n g d e s i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n i n r e c o r d s s p r e a d t h r o u g h o u t t h e u n i v e r s i t y campus may i n f a c t be p a r t i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e l o w n u m b e r s o f h i s t o r i a n s who h a v e f o l l o w e d t h e l e a d o f s c h o l a r s s u c h a s A x e l r o d , A l l e m a n d i n g e r , a n d S y n n o t t i n u t i l i z i n g s u c h r e c o r d s . I n a d d i t i o n t o i d e n t i f y i n g e x i s t i n g h i s t o r i c a l w o r k s w h i c h d r a w on u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t r e c o r d s , t h e a r c h i v a l l i t e r a -t u r e e x p l o r e s p o t e n t i a l u s e s o f s t u d e n t r e c o r d s b y h i s t o r i a n s , a s w e l l a s u s e s o f t h e r e c o r d s b y n o n h i s t o r i a n s . F o r i n s t a n c e , H a r l e y H o l d e n h a s d i s c u s s e d t h e e x t e n s i v e a m o u n t o f m e d i c a l r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d a t H a r v a r d u s i n g s t u d e n t r e c o r d s . S u c h r e s e a r c h i n c l u d e s t h e u s e o f a d m i s s i o n s r e c o r d s i n l o n g e v i t y s t u d i e s a n d t h e u s e o f m e d i c a l a n d a c a d e m i c r e c o r d s f o r s t u d i e s o f e a r l y p r e c u r s o r s o f h e a r t d i s e a s e i n c h r o n i c a l l y i l l f o r m e r s t u d e n t s . H o l d e n a r g u e s t h a t " t h e p o t e n t i a l v a l u e o f s t u d e n t r e c o r d s f o r f u t u r e [ m e d i c a l ] r e s e a r c h i s i n c a l c u l a b l e . " * 2 The r e s e a r c h v a l u e o f s t u d e n t r e c o r d s i s a l s o s t r e s s e d a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s A r c h i v e s w h e r e t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f s t u d e n t r e c o r d s — i n c l u d i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e number o f t h e s t u d e n t p e r s o n n e l f i l e s h e l d b y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s — i s a m a j o r p r o g r a m e m p h a s i s . S 3 U n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t C h a r l e s E l s t o n n o t e s i n p a r t i c u l a r t h a t summary s h e e t s f r o m t h e s t u d e n t e m p l o y m e n t r e c o r d s p r o d u c e d b y t h e s t u d e n t a f f a i r s o f f i c e a r e r e t a i n e d i n o r d e r t o d o c u m e n t s t u d e n t e m p l o y m e n t p a t t e r n s . The A r c h i v e s h a s a l s o made e f f o r t s t o o b t a i n S e n a t e C o m m i t t e e d i s c i p l i n e r e c o r d s i n o r d e r t o p e r m i t f u t u r e s t u d e n t s , s c h o l a r s , a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o e v a l u a t e t h e a c t u a l o p e r a t i o n s 27 of the u n i v e r s i t y d i s c i p l i n a r y system over time. 6"* In t h i s r e g a r d , P o t t s has noted t h a t d i s c i p l i n a r y r e c o r d s documenting r u l e s v i o l a t i o n s and the i d e n t i t y of v i o l a t o r s "can be used to t e s t many assumptions about m i d d l e - c l a s s needs f o r and a t t i t u d e s toward higher e d u c a t i o n . " e = In a d d i t i o n , a major p r o j e c t of the A r c h i v e s has c o n s i s t e d of the c o m p i l a t i o n of p r e l i m i n a r y data sheets on approximately 2500 former black s t u d e n t s . T h i s p r o j e c t was undertaken to meet the demand f o r m i n o r i t y student i n f o r m a t i o n by " f a c u l t y , students and s t a f f with r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s i n the re c r u i t m e n t and r e t e n t i o n of s t u d e n t s , " as w e l l as i n other a r e a s . 6 6 F i n a l l y , E l s t o n c i t e s a s p e c i f i c example to support h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the p r e s e r -v a t i o n of student r e c o r d s i s j u s t i f i e d by e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h demand. He notes t h a t i n 1974 a d o c t o r a l candidate i n s o c i o l o g y , Joseph R. D e M a r t i n i , prepared a d i s s e r t a t i o n on the t o p i c of student p r o t e s t d u r i n g the years 1867-1894 and 1929-1942. Among the i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e student records used by DeMartini were student grade r e p o r t s , admissions r e c o r d s , alumni f i l e s , and l i s t s of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t s compiled by the dean of s t u d e n t s . 6 , 7 C l e a r l y h i s t o r i a n s are not the onl y s c h o l a r s p o t e n t i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n students both past and present. Indeed, a recent Canadian study has noted t h a t r e s e a r c h on v a r i o u s aspects of post-secondary e d u c a t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y undertaken by s c h o l a r s and students i n f a c u l t i e s of education, economics, psychology, and s o c i o l o g y as w e l l as h i s t o r y . True, the same study r e v e a l s t h a t d e s p i t e r e c e n t growth, the f i e l d of post-secondary education r e s e a r c h i s s t i l l underdeveloped. e , e In 28 t h i s regard another survey notes t h a t Canadian r e s e a r c h i n the s o c i o l o g y of e d u c a t i o n was a " f r a g i l e e n t e r p r i s e " u n t i l the e a r l y 1970s, and even i n recent years most r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d has centered on elementary and secondary s c h o o l s . s s In f a c t , i t appears that very few s t u d i e s of post-secondary e d u c a t i o n i n Canada have used noncurrent u n i v e r s i t y adminis-t r a t i v e r e c o r d s . During a 1981 survey of post-secondary education r e s e a r c h e r s , survey p a r t i c i p a n t s c r i t i c i z e d much c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h f o r i t s lack of p e r s p e c t i v e . More long-term s t u d i e s are needed to take the p l a c e of s h o r t - t e r m rushed s n a p s h o t s — d o n e once and never repeated.... The m a j o r i t y of s t u d i e s concentrate on the present, plus or minus a few y e a r s . Too few examine the past f o r i t s l e s s o n s . 7 - 0 N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t should o b v i o u s l y be encouraging to u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s i n post-secondary education are beginning to r e c o g n i z e the need to examine the past, and t h i s growing r e c o g n i t i o n may lead to a demand f o r u n i v e r s i t y r e c o r d s , i n c l u d i n g those r e l a t i n g to s t u d e n t s . General statements on the value of student records f o r s c h o l a r s as w e l l as some examples of a c t u a l and p o t e n t i a l uses of the records can thus be found i n the l i t e r a t u r e of the a r c h i v a l and r e s e a r c h communities. E x i s t i n g statements, however, do not not give a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of what amount and which types of records should be preserved f o r use by s c h o l a r s . I t i s even more d i f f i c u l t to determine to what extent the types of student records u s e f u l to f u t u r e s c h o l a r s would a l s o be u s e f u l to u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e r s f o r adminis-t r a t i v e , l e g a l , and p l a n n i n g purposes. C e r t a i n l y , there are b a s i c a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and l e g a l 29 reasons f o r the medium to long-term p r e s e r v a t i o n of many of the b a s i c s e r i e s of student records c r e a t e d by the admissions, r e g i s t r a r s ' , f i n a n c i a l a i d , placement, and alumni o f f i c e s . In d e s c r i b i n g a comprehensive, automated student records system, r e g i s t r a r David J . Eckholm s t a t e s : There i s a r e a l need to keep the student r e c o r d a c c e s s i b l e w e l l beyond the student's l a s t term of enrollment. There w i l l be grade changes, name changes, d e l i n q u e n t f e e s , t r a n s c r i p t r e q u e s t s , career c o u n s e l i n g , job placement, management s t u d i e s , and alumni s o l i c i t a t i o n . 7 , 1 Some s e r i e s of student r e c o r d s c l e a r l y need t o be preserved fo r many decades. The c e n t r a l student academic record o b v i o u s l y remains important to students throughout t h e i r l i f e t i m e s s i n c e i t helps d e f i n e t h e i r s t a t u s i n s o c i e t y . Records may a l s o have u n a n t i c i p a t e d l e g a l v a l u e s . Past students of Harvard, f o r i n s t a n c e , have used b i r t h date i n f o r m a t i o n contained i n admissions records to e s t a b l i s h proof of e l i g i b i l i t y f o r s o c i a l s e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s . Lawyers a c t i n g f o r Harvard U n i v e r s i t y i t s e l f have o f t e n used a r c h i v a l student records such as s c h o l a r s h i p f i l e s to j u s t i f y the past o p e r a t i o n a l procedures of the u n i v e r s i t y . 7 : 2 U n i v e r s i t i e s i n general have i n f a c t recognized the e v i d e n t i a l value of student records i n an age when the programs and use of p u b l i c funds by u n i v e r s i t i e s have come under i n c r e a s i n g l y vigorous s c r u t i n y . A U.S. f e d e r a l government committee has observed that the e n t i r e emphasis of u n i v e r s i t y student record-keeping i n recent years has s h i f t e d from e v a l u a t i n g and r e p o r t i n g student progress to s e r v i n g both as a means f o r j u s t i f y i n g the u n i v e r s i t y ' s a c t i o n s and budget, 30 and as a management t o o l . 7 " 3 Student i n f o r m a t i o n i s now widely p e r c e i v e d as an i n s t i t u t i o n a l resource. 7"* Information from and about students i s used f o r p r e p a r i n g s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t s f o r government agencie s , f o r e v a l u a t i n g programs, and f o r planni n g f u t u r e programs. The i n f o r m a t i o n used i n adminis-t r a t i v e r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s i s gathered both through the use of ex t e n s i v e student surveys and through the g a t h e r i n g of data d u r i n g the usual (or expanded) i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g e f f o r t s of u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s . Some of the l a r g e r u n i v e r s i t i e s have e s t a b l i s h e d o f f i c e s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s e a r c h to c o o r d i n a t e student surveys, prepare r e p o r t s , and analyze recorded i n f ormation. 7 - 5 5 In n e i t h e r the case of i n s t i t u t i o n a l uses of student i n f o r m a t i o n nor t h a t of s c h o l a r l y uses i s i t c l e a r which records are of most v a l u e . T h i s q u e s t i o n i s not a simple one and l i t t l e has been w r i t t e n on the t o p i c . I t may be p o s s i b l e f o r a r c h i v i s t s to work with i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s e a r c h e r s i n order to determine which data elements are p r e s e n t l y used' i n e v a l u -a t i o n s t u d i e s , and then examine past records f o r s i m i l a r data elements. In gen e r a l terms, much student i n f o r m a t i o n used f o r e v a l u a t i o n and pl a n n i n g analyzes student c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and enrollment p a t t e r n s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of students and t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l h i s t o r i e s are c o r r e l a t e d with t h e i r l e v e l of achievement i n p a r t i c u l a r u n i v e r s i t y programs. Much of the r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n i s found i n the b a s i c student records held by r e g i s t r a r s ' and admissions o f f i c e s . ^ ( I t has been observed as w e l l that the student records maintained by Canadian elementary and secondary schools r e p r e s e n t a 31 v a l u a b l e , a l b e i t underused, source of p l a n n i n g data. 7 7") If an i n s t i t u t i o n i s a l r e a d y producing d e t a i l e d student p r o f i l e s , enrollment r e p o r t s , and other s t a t i s t i c a l documents, i t may be asked whether the p r e s e r v a t i o n of these documents i s s u f f i c i e n t to meet f u t u r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and r e s e a r c h needs. As a subsequent chapter w i l l demonstrate, a r c h i v i s t s can l e g i t i m a t e l y argue that the r e t e n t i o n of o r i g i n a l , unaggre-gated i n f o r m a t i o n can be u s e f u l f o r answering f u t u r e questions unforeseen by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a t i s t i c i a n s and may be e s s e n t i a l f o r c e r t a i n academic s t u d i e s . However, a r c h i v i s t s h o l d i n g t h i s p o s i t i o n should be prepared to present s p e c i f i c examples of p o t e n t i a l uses of the o r i g i n a l student f i l e s , f o r i t appears t h a t u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s may be s k e p t i c a l of the c o n t i n u i n g r e s e a r c h value of these r e c o r d s . The g e n e r a l p e r c e p t i o n s of u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e g a r d i n g the long-term value of student r e c o r d s can be determined by examining e x i s t i n g r e t e n t i o n g u i d e l i n e s and p r a c t i c e s . Probably the most i n f l u e n t i a l r e t e n t i o n guide-l i n e s , at l e a s t f o r American u n i v e r s i t i e s , are those presented by the American A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g i a t e R e g i s t r a r s and Admissions O f f i c e r s i n i t s Guide fo r R e t e n t i o n and D i s p o s a l of  Student Records (1979). The AACRAO Guide does s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e t h at records r e t e n t i o n p o l i c i e s must address the a r c h i v a l value of records and c o r r e c t l y notes t h a t a sound p o l i c y w i l l "meet the academic, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , f i s c a l , l e g a l , h i s t o r i c a l , and r e s e a r c h requirements of the ( u n i v e r s i t y ] . " 7 6 3 The Guide, however, expresses a r e l a t i v e l y narrow conception of the types of r e c o r d s which possess h i s t o r i c a l and r e s e a r c h 32 values, stating that such records contain "information which may support a n a l y t i c a l or research e f f o r t s . " Among those considered in thi s group are enrollment records, demographic data, degrees awarded, and various s t a t i s t i c a l reports.7'"3' Thus, although a limited number of s t a t i s t i c a l documents are c l a s s i f i e d as permanent records, many other types of student records are not. Admissions documents, for example, including applications, l e t t e r s of reference, and medical records are not c l a s s i f i e d as permanent, although i t is noted that " e s s e n t i a l " admissions data w i l l be recorded on the permanent academic r e c o r d . 3 0 It should be noted that the AACRAO's own surveys demon-strate that the records retention practices of i n s t i t u t i o n s do not necessarily correspond with the Association's guidelines. In 1978, a survey of 272 i n s t i t u t i o n s revealed that the following types of records were retained permanently: admissions applications (52%), admissions correspondence (20%), medical records (49%), l e t t e r s of recommendation (30%), residence forms (23%), d i s c i p l i n a r y action (22%), personal data r e g i s t r a t i o n (24%), and academic records (94%). A f u l l 20% of i n s t i t u t i o n s stated that they a c t u a l l y destroyed no records, despite the dictates of their records retention schedules. 3 1 A univer s i t y may thus maintain a wide array of noncurrent student records which at least p o t e n t i a l l y may be available to researchers either in the university archives or in the creating o f f i c e s . It i s evident, however, that there i s a divergence between the types of records which many administrators 33 p e r c e i v e as p o s s e s s i n g enduring value and those which r e s e a r c h e r s p e r c e i v e to be v a l u a b l e . I t i s a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t many of the student records i d e n t i f i e d by a r c h i v i s t s and r e s e a r c h e r s as having demonstrated or p o t e n t i a l r e s e a r c h value — i n c l u d i n g l e t t e r s of recommendation, d i s c i p l i n e r e c o r d s , admissions a p p l i c a t i o n s and medical f i l e s — c a n be and, as w i l l be seen, have been viewed as being among the most c o n f i d e n t i a l and s e n s i t i v e of a l l u n i v e r s i t y f i l e s . Again, t h e r e f o r e , a r c h i v i s t s who wish to preserve student records and make them a c c e s s i b l e w i l l need to work with u n i v e r s i t y admin-i s t r a t o r s and r e s e a r c h e r s i n order to analyze s y s t e m a t i c a l l y the c o n t i n u i n g u t i l i t y of these f i l e s . The degree to which a r c h i v i s t s w i l l be I n t e r e s t e d i n p r e s e r v i n g student records w i l l probably be r e l a t e d to t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l r o l e . I f the u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s i s to operate p r i m a r i l y as an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e r v i c e agency meeting the present I n f o r m a t i o n a l needs of the u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , then perhaps the r e t e n t i o n of s t a t i s t i c a l aggregations of student i n f o r m a t i o n would be s u f f i c i e n t . On the other hand i f , as most u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s argue, the a r c h i v e s has a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to serve s c h o l a r s h i p as w e l l , then more ex t e n s i v e e f f o r t s can be j u s t i f i e d . 6 3 = 2 Some would argue that because c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h uses of student records are probably minimal, c o s t l y and time-consuming e f f o r t s to preserve such r e c o r d s are not j u s t i f i a b l e . A r c h i v i s t s have, however, been exhorted to document more f u l l y the experiences of n o n - e l i t e groups i n s o c i e t y . 6 , 3 I t can be argued t h a t u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s have an o b l i g a t i o n to r e t a i n a p o r t i o n of the 34 records p e r t a i n i n g to students, along with the records of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and f a c u l t y members, even i f the former are not c u r r e n t l y used e x t e n s i v e l y by r e s e a r c h e r s . Then too, many a r c h i v i s t s f e e l t h a t they have a l e g i t i m a t e r o l e to p l a y i n a n t i c i p a t i n g and even prompting r e s e a r c h t r e n d s . A p p r a i s a l i s u s u a l l y a s u b j e c t i v e and d i f f i c u l t e x e r c i s e , p a r t i c u l a r l y when one i s d e a l i n g n e i t h e r with c l e a r l y v a l u a b l e p o l i c y f i l e s nor with c l e a r l y d i s p e n s a b l e housekeeping f i l e s but r a t h e r with those e x t e n s i v e s e r i e s of o p e r a t i o n a l r e cords r e l a t i n g to the s u b s t a n t i v e a c t i v i t i e s of an o r g a n i z a t i o n . In s p i t e of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n v o l v e d i n a n a l y z i n g l a r g e s e r i e s of o p e r a t i o n a l r e c o r d s , the a r c h i v a l l i t e r a t u r e now c o n t a i n s a number of a r t i c l e s documenting the r e s e a r c h value to h i s t o r i a n s and others of case f i l e s such as h e a l t h and w e l f a r e c l i e n t records. 3"* It i s recognized t h a t the p r e s e r v a t i o n of these records presents s e r i o u s problems to a r c h i v i s t s because of t h e i r volume and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , but commentators such as a r c h i v i s t Joseph R. Anderson and h i s t o r i a n Joy Parr contend that the p r e s e r v a t i o n of s o c i a l w elfare case f i l e s i s a p r o f e s s i o n a l c h a l l e n g e which should be accepted when at a l l p o s s i b l e . e s s S i m i l a r arguments c o u l d be made f o r student r e c o r d s . Furthermore, while there may be d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n as to the p o t e n t i a l r e s e a r c h value of student r e c o r d s , i t would c l e a r l y be d e s i r a b l e to remove unnecessary b a r r i e r s to t h e i r p r e s e r v a t i o n . That i s , i t would be unfortunate i f r e c o r d s of c o n t i n u i n g value were not preserved simply because p o l i c i e s had not been developed f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g l e g i t i m a t e r e s e a r c h uses of p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . 35 A r c h i v a l P r e s e r v a t i o n : Current P r a c t i c e s How then has the a r c h i v a l community responded to c a l l s from some of i t s members to preserve and make a v a i l a b l e u n i v e r s i t y student r e c o r d s ? Although s p e c i f i c accounts of the number of American u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s h o l d i n g e x t e n s i v e s e r i e s of student r e c o r d s are not r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , the a r c h i v a l l i t e r a t u r e does r e v e a l t h a t l a r g e - s c a l e student records programs are operated by the u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s of Harvard, the U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , the U n i v e r s i t y of Pen n s y l v a n i a , and o t h e r s . s e Indeed, a number of the l a r g e r American u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s were able to mount f u l l - s c a l e r e c o r ds management programs as e a r l y as the 1960s. However, due to i n s u f f i c i e n t funds, space, and s t a f f , the m a j o r i t y of i n s t i t u t i o n s have not been able to f o l l o w the lead of the l a r g e r u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s i n becoming e x t e n s i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n the management of t h e i r sponsoring i n s t i t u t i o n s ' records and hence, one su s p e c t s , w i l l not have become i n v o l v e d i n the sys t e m a t i c p r e s e r v a t i o n of the b a s i c s e r i e s of student r e c o r d s . 3 7 While there i s r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e i n the North American a r c h i v a l l i t e r a t u r e on the types of student records maintained i n American u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s , there i s even l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n on the hol d i n g s of u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s i n Canada. T h e r e f o r e , i n order to determine the scope of the student records p r e s e r v a t i o n programs of Canadian u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s and hence the types of records which would t y p i c a l l y be governed by e x i s t i n g or f u t u r e access p o l i c i e s , a 36 survey was conducted i n February, 1985. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were mailed to f o r t y - n i n e a r c h i v e s , t h i r t y - n i n e of which responded. The t e x t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e along with a summary of the responses i s provided i n Appendix The survey r e s u l t s r e v e a l that w e l l over h a l f of the responding i n s t i t u t i o n s are o f f i c i a l l y charged with the p r e s e r v a t i o n of at l e a s t some types of records p e r t a i n i n g to students and t h a t i n any case the m a j o r i t y preserve some such records on an i n f o r m a l b a s i s . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , the records r e c e i v i n g the most a t t e n t i o n are p u b l i s h e d student r e c o r d s ( s e c t i o n 3 ( I ) ) , records produced by student o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( s e c t i o n 3 ( H ) ( 2 ) ) , and to a l e s s e r degree, records produced by i n d i v i d u a l students ( s e c t i o n 3 ( I I ) ( 3 ) ( a - c ) ) . Presumably, the volume of many of these r e c o r d s e r i e s would not be unmanageable and any access r e s t r i c t i o n s c o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d through n e g o t i a t i o n s with the v a r i o u s donors without r e f e r r i n g to u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c i e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the survey a l s o r e v e a l s t h a t many i n s t i t u t i o n s a l s o preserve " o f f i c i a l " unpublished student records produced by u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e s and employees ( s e c t i o n 3 ( H ) ( 1 ) ) . Approximately h a l f of the a r c h i v e s a c q u i r e records from u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e s or bodies through a records management program (question 4). The agencies from which a r c h i v e s most commonly r e c e i v e records are the c e n t r a l governing bodies of the u n i v e r s i t y , the senate and board of governors. Many a r c h i v e s a l s o r e c e i v e r e c o r d s from c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s which would be accustomed to s h a r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , while the number of a r c h i v e s r e c e i v i n g r e c o rds 37 from such autonomy-conscious agencies as the h e a l t h s e r v i c e s and c o u n s e l l i n g o f f i c e s are minimal. Thus, whereas very few a r c h i v e s c o n t a i n medical and c o u n s e l l i n g r e c o r d s , many preserve student r e c o r d s p e r t a i n i n g to academic performance, admissions, f i n a n c i a l a i d , and senate d e l i b e r a t i o n s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the q u e s t i o n n a i r e n e g l e c t e d to s p e c i f y that the type of student records which the term " o f f i c i a l r e c o r d s " was intended to designate was records r e f e r r i n g to i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s . Consequently, some of the a r c h i v e s which re p o r t e d h o l d i n g a p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r y of records may a c t u a l l y hold o n l y p o l i c y papers and not case f i l e s . Many a r c h i v i s t s , however, s t a t e d e x p r e s s l y that t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s held r e c o r d s r e l a t i n g to i n d i v i d u a l students, i n c l u d i n g records considered to be s e n s i t i v e and c o n f i d e n t i a l . Records i d e n t i f i e d i n the w r i t t e n comments of respondents i n c l u d e d : academic r e c o r d s , departmental case f i l e s , d i s c i p l i n a r y case f i l e s , and l e t t e r s of recommendation. In one unusual case, an a r c h i v i s t r e p o r t e d t h a t p o l i c y d i s c u s s i o n s were underway to evaluate c o n f i d e n t i a l h e a l t h and c o u n s e l l i n g records f o r r e t e n t i o n . F i n a l l y , one a r c h i v i s t s t a t e d t h a t " i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g to students both i n d i v i d u a l l y and as a body i s s u r e l y an i n t e g r a l and i n d i v i s i b l e p a r t of the great bulk of a l l u n i v e r s i t y s e r i e s . " ( I t a l i c s mine.) Although the w r i t t e n comments of respondents as w e l l as enclosed u n i v e r s i t y p o l i c y statements i n d i c a t e d that i t i s common p r a c t i c e f o r r e g i s t r a r s to maintain permanent posses-s i o n of a l l primary academic student f i l e s , i t i s a l s o evident t h a t such f i l e s have o f t e n come under a r c h i v a l c o n t r o l i n the 38 past. Moreover, one a r c h i v i s t had r e c e n t l y been made r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the a p p r a i s a l and p r e s e r v a t i o n of r e g i s t r a r ' s r e c o r d s , two more p r e d i c t e d that they would r e c e i v e academic records i n the near f u t u r e , and s t i l l other a r c h i v i s t s s t a t e d that the q u e s t i o n of u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r student r e c o r d s was under review. A r c h i v i s t s who had attempted without success to a c q u i r e student records i d e n t i f i e d a range of problems. A common complaint was i n s u f f i c i e n t space, funds, and s t a f f . Although these problems are s e r i o u s , they l i e o u t s i d e the boundary of t h i s study. S u f f i c e i t to say t h a t such problems are by no means unique to u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s . When faced with inadequate storage space, a r c h i v i s t s i n g e n e r a l and p a r t i c u -l a r l y a r c h i v i s t s s eeking to a c c e s s i o n case f i l e s must u t i l i z e sampling and s e l e c t i v e r e t e n t i o n techniques even though such techniques are not well-developed at p r e s e n t . 6 3 , 3 Furthermore, with r e s p e c t to admissions and r e g i s t r a r ' s r e c o rds at l e a s t , r ecent years have seen a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the use of m i c r o f i l m by u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e s . 1 5 r o A l s o , while i t appears that no u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s has as yet r e c e i v e d student r e c o r d s i n machine-readable form, the i n c r e a s i n g use of computers should reduce the p h y s i c a l extent of many f u t u r e student records s e r i e s . In a d d i t i o n to s p e c i f y i n g inadequate r e s o u r c e s , the responses of at l e a s t a few a r c h i v i s t s expressed doubt r e g a r d i n g the r e s e a r c h value of student r e c o r d s . E v i d e n t l y , proponents of student records r e t e n t i o n face s c e p t i c i s m among t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s as w e l l as among a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . F i n a l l y , i t appears that some a r c h i v i s t s f e e l 39 that t h e i r u n i v e r s i t i e s have l a r g e l y r e s o l v e d the q u e s t i o n of the p r e s e r v a t i o n and a c c e s s i b i l i t y of student records by making these matters the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the r e g i s t r a r . As the f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n has demonstrated, however, Canadian u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s do o f t e n i n c l u d e a wide v a r i e t y of r e cords r e l a t i n g to i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s . While p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g access to such records w i l l be examined in d e t a i l i n a subsequent chapter, i t may be observed at t h i s p o i n t t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t number of survey respondents s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t the i s s u e of p r i v a c y and access to student records was one of great concern. One a r c h i v i s t s t a t e d : Research use of student records i s c u r r e n t l y very r e s t r i c t i v e and students have been a c t i v e l y advocating t h a t the A r c h i v e s should not house student records or provide any r e s e a r c h access to them. We need guide-l i n e s to a p p l y to the v a r i o u s kinds of i n f o r m a t i o n which we have a v a i l a b l e . The development of access g u i d e l i n e s f o r student records i s not a simple matter. Student records produced i n o f f i c e s a c r o s s u n i v e r s i t y campuses c o n t a i n a broad a r r a y of i n f o r m a t i o n i n c l u d i n g much which i s s u r p r i s i n g l y s u b j e c t i v e and--by usual s t a n d a r d s - - s e n s i t i v e . Yet, some of the very f e a t u r e s which make student records s e n s i t i v e - - t h e i r l e v e l of d e t a i l , f o r i n s t a n c e , and the manner i n which they r e f l e c t the b i a s e s of t h e i r c r e a t o r s — m a y make the records v a l u a b l e f o r r e s e a r c h purposes. I t should be r e c o g n i z e d , moreover, t h a t the f a c t t h a t a u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s may not have the resources to a c c e s s i o n student records does not mean that a r c h i v i s t s are precluded from attempting to ensure that such records are preserved and made a c c e s s i b l e . At l e a s t one respondent to the 4 0 1985 survey s t a t e d t h a t the u n i v e r s i t y r e g i s t r a r had sought h i s view on the development of a student records p o l i c y . Another a r c h i v i s t noted t h a t while no records management program e x i s t s at her u n i v e r s i t y , the a r c h i v e s does o f f e r a records management s e r v i c e to c e r t a i n u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e s . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , a r c h i v i s t s e i t h e r by working with a u n i v e r -s i t y ' s c e n t r a l policy-makers or by d e v e l o p i n g personal c o n t a c t s w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e s can i n f l u e n c e the op e r a t i o n s of any of the u n i v e r i t y ' s d i v e r s e records systems. The c h a l l e n g e , t h e r e f o r e , i s to i d e n t i f y the types of g u i d e l i n e s r e q u i r e d i n an e f f e c t i v e r e c o rds p o l i c y . NOTES *The shortage of Canadian sources should not be a s i g n i f i c a n t problem since at a certain general level the primary functions and a c t i v i t i e s of North American public u n i v e r s i t i e s at least, are s i m i l a r , although the pa r t i c u l a r organizational structure of individual i n s t i t u t i o n s varies according to each i n s t i t u t i o n ' s size and history. Indeed, when professor John M. C a r r o l l , who has surveyed the records-keeping practices of Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s , writes on the topic of u n i v e r s i t y records, he makes no d i s t i n c t i o n between the records of Canadian and American i n s t i t u t i o n s . John M. C a r r o l l , Confidential Information Sources: Public and Private (Los Angeles: Security World Publishing Co., 1975), pp. 209-233. ^Burton R. Clark, "The Dossier in Colleges and Univer-s i t i e s , " in On Record: F i l e s and Dossiers in American L i f e , ed. Stanton Wheeler (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969), p. 69. 3 R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, Student Records in Higher  Education: Recommendations for the Formulation and Implementa- tio n of Record-Keeping P o l i c i e s in Colleges and Un i v e r s i t i e s (n.p.: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973), p. 2. "*Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy in an Information Society, (Washington, D.C.: Government Prin t i n g O f f i c e , 1977), p. 404; Clark, "The Dossier," p. 69. ^John M. C a r r o l l and J. Ivan Williams, "The Privacy of Student Records--The Computing Point of View," paper presented at the Second Ontario Un i v e r s i t i e s Computing Conference, Ottawa, Ontario, 27-29 January 1971., p. 27; George D. Kuh, "Admissions," in College Student Personnel Services, ed. William T. Packwood (Springfield, I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1977), p. 6. e C a r r o l l , Confidential Sources, p. 219; C a r r o l l and Williams, "Privacy of Student Records," p. 29. ''John C. Hay, "The Mechanics of Admissions" in Handbook  of College and University Administration: Vol. 2 Academic, ed. Asa S. Knowles (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), pp. 3:63, 3:66. eRobert L. Noland, "Damaging Information and the College Application," Personnel and Guidance Journal 49 (March 1971): 544-54 . ^ C a r r o l l , Confidential Sources, pp. 211-12. t oKuh, "Admissions," p. 18. 42 1 1Hay / "Mechanics of Admissions," p. 3:60; E. Eugene Oliver, "Establishing Admissions P o l i c y , " in Admissions,  Academic Records and Registrar Services: A Handbook of P o l i c i e s and Procedures, eds. James C. Quann et a l . (San Frahsisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979), p. 38. 1 = tWilliam T. Packwood, "Health," in College Student  Personnel Services, ed. William T. Packwood (Springfield, I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1977), p. 300; C a r r o l l and Williams, "Privacy of Student Records," p. 29. 1 3Rosmary Shields, "Registration, Scheduling and Student Records," in Handbook of College and University Administra- t i o n : Vol. 2 Academic, ed. Asa S. Knowles (New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1970), p. 2:123; Paul L. Dressel, "Student Records: Uses and Abuses," College and University 47 ( F a l l 1971): 49. 1"*James C. Quann, "Organizing and Maintaining Academic Records," in Admissions, Academic Records and Registrar Ser- vices: A Handbook of P o l i c i e s and Procedures> eds. James C. Quann et a l . (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979), pp. 188, 190. 1 C 5American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions O f f i c e r s , "Academic Record and Transcript Guide," in Admissions, Academic Records and Registrar Services:  A Handbook of P o l i c i e s and Procedures, eds. James C. Quann et a l . (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979), pp. 363-64. l sQuann, "Academic Records," p. 8; American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions O f f i c e r s , Retention of  Records: A Guide for the Retention and and Disposal of Student  Records (Philadelphia: Drexel University Press for the AACRAO, 1979), p. 17. 1 7 rAmerican Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions O f f i c e r s , "Record and Transcript Guide," p. 362. 1 < 3George K. Brown, "Release of Student Records," in College Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies, eds. Laurine F i t z g e r a l d , Walter F. Johnson, and Willa Norris (Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1970), p. 139. ^ C a r r o l l , Confidential Sources, p. 222; A series of representative organizational charts can be found in F. Don James, "Academic Organization," in Handbook of College and  University Administration: Vol. 2 Academic, ed. Asa S. Knowles (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), pp. 6:12-6:17. 2°Charles Lindahl, "The Registrar and Administrative Relationships in Higher Education," College and University 41 (Winter 1966): 174. 2 1 C l a r k , "The Dossier," p. 76; C a r r o l l , Confidential  Sources, p. 23. 43 " C l a r k , "The D o s s i e r , " p. 76. a 3 R e p o r t of the P r i v a c y P r o t e c t i o n Study Commission, Personal P r i v a c y , p. 407; C l a r k , "The D o s s i e r , " p. 76. 2 " * I b i d . ; Rodolfo A l v a r e z and W i l b e r t E. Moore, "Informa-t i o n Flow w i t h i n the P r o f e s s i o n s : Some S e l e c t i v e Comparisons of Law, Medicine and Nursing," i n On Record: F i l e s and  D o s s i e r s i n American L i f e , ed. Stanton Wheeler (New York: R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1969), p. 104. 2 = s J e a n E. M i l l e r , " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Student Records," J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n f o r L i b r a r i a n s h i p 11 (Winter 1971): 223-29 . 2 6 C l a r k , "The D o s s i e r , " p. 83; Report of the Ad Hoc  Committee on P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y of Information at S t a n f o r d ( S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1972), p. 14. ^ T r e d e r i c k L. Honhart, "The S o l i c i t a t i o n , A p p r a i s a l , and A c q u i s i t i o n of F a c u l t y Papers," C o l l e g e and Research  L i b r a r i e s 44 (May 1983): 240. 2 a C l a r k , "The D o s s i e r , " p. 79. 2 * R e p o r t of the P r i v a c y P r o t e c t i o n Study Commission, Per s o n a l P r i v a c y , p. 405. =>°For an overview of the h i s t o r y of the student personnel movement see Robert H. Fenskee " H i s t o r i c a l Founda-t i o n s , " i n Student S e r v i c e s : A Handbook f o r the P r o f e s s i o n , eds. U r s u l a Delworth et a l . (San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1980), pp. 3-24; A h i s t o r y of u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s and the r e c o r d s they produce can be found i n W i l l a r d O. S t i b a l , The H i s t o r i c a l Development of Student Personnel  Records i n C o l l e g e s and U n i v e r s i t i e s (Emporia, Kansas: Kansas State Teacher's C o l l e g e , 1959); P h i l i p A. T r i p p , " O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Student Personnel A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , " i n Handbook of  C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : V o l . 2 Academic, ed. Asa S. Knowles (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), p. 7:13. 3 1 M i c h a e l D a n n e l l s , " D i s c i p l i n e , " i n C o l l e g e Student  Personnel S e r v i c e s , ed. W i l l i a m T. Packwood ( S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r les C. Thomas, 1977): 237-38. 3 = s D a n n e l l s , " D i s c i p l i n e , " pp. 233, 256; C a r r o l l , C o n f i d e n t i a l F i l e s , p p . 211, 216. 3 3 M i c h a e l D a n n e l l s , " F i n a n c i a l A i d , " i n C o l l e g e Student  Personnel S e r v i c e s , ed. W i l l i a m T. Packwood ( S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r l e s C. Thomas, 1977), p. 64. 3"*American C o l l e g e Health A s s o c i a t i o n , "Recommended Standards and P r a c t i c e s f o r a C o l l e g e Health Program", i n C o l l e g e Student P e r s o n n e l : Readings and B i b l i o g r a p h i e s , eds. 44 Laurine F i t z g e r a l d , Walter F. Johnson, and Willa Norris (Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1970), pp. 306-7. 3 8 S I b i d . , p. 313; William J. Curran, " P o l i c i e s and Practices Concerning C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y in College Mental Health Services in the United States and Canada," American Journal of  Psychiatry. 125 (May 1969): 1529. 3 6Wolf Von Otterstedt, "Student Records," in Handbook of  College and University Administration: Vol. 2 Academic, ed. Asa S. Knowles (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), p. 1:8. 3 7George W. Young, "Counseling and Testing," in Handbook  of College and University Administration: Vol. 2 Academic, ed. Asa S. Knowles (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970), p. 7:142; Lynette Daniels Schneider, "Counseling," in College Student  Personnel Services, ed. William T. Packwood (Springfield, I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1977), p. 353. 3°Dannells, "Financial Aid," p. 79; William T. Packwood, "Health," in College Student Personnel Services, ed. William T. Packwood (Spr i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1977), pp. 311-12. 3 < 3 B e t t y Blaska and Marlin R. Schmidt, "Placement," in College Student Personnel Services, ed. William T. Packwood (Spri n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1977), p. 385. **°Terry F. Ganshaw, "Alumni," in College Student  Personnel Services, ed. William T. Packwood (Springfield, I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1977), p. 434. "^Shields, "Registration and Student Records," p. 2:113. "* 2William C. Price, "Creating and Using Information Systems," in Admissions, Academic Records and Registrar  Services: A Handbook of P o l i c i e s and Procedures, ed. James C. Quann et a l . (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979), pp. 220-24; James P. Sampson J r . , "Ethical Considerations in Computer Use," in Enhancing Student Development with Computers, eds. Cynthia S. Johnson and Richard K. Pyle (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984), pp. 77-78. "*3David J. Eckholm, "Characteristics of a Comprehensive Student Records System," College and University 58-59 (Summer 1983): 377-80; For descriptions of s p e c i f i c integrated systems used in u n i v e r s i t i e s , see: Orin.T. Wheeler, Howard R. Baldwin and Richard L. Yount, "Academic Records Management System," College and University 51 (Summer 1976): 634-46; A.L. Darling, "The Registrar and University Records Review," College and  University 53 (Spring 1978): 314-20; Eleanor S. Rockett et a l . , "The Total Integrated System," College and University 50 (Summer 1975): 386-410. 45 •**The impact of microcomputers on univer s i t y counselling o f f i c e s i s described in James P. Sampson J r . and Richard K. Pyle, "Ethical Issues Involved with the Use of Computer-Assisted Counseling, Testing, and Guidance Systems," Personnel and Guidance Journal 61 (January 1983): 283-87. "•^Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act 20 U.S.C., 1232g (Supp. IV, 1974). "*6J.R.K. Kantor, "Some Comments on College and University Archives with Part i c u l a r Reference to the Univer-s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Archives," Indian Archives 19-20 (January 1970): 15; Nicholas C. Burkel, "The Expanding Role of a College or University Archives," in College and University Archives:  Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), p. 49; Patrick M. Quinn, "Academic A r c h i v i s t s and their Current Practice: Some Modest Suggestions," Georgia Archive 10 ( F a l l 1982): 16. A 7"Burkel, "The Expanding Role," p. 42; Annabel Straus makes the same point. "College and University Archives: Three Decades of Development," College and Research L i b r a r i e s 40 (September 1979): 432. -* eCharles B. Elston, "University Student Records: Research Use, Privacy Rights and the Buckley Law," in College and University Archives: Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), pp. 68-79; C l i f f o r d K. Shipton, "The Reference Use of Archives," in College and University  Archives: Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), pp. 125-35; Harley P. Holden, "Student Records: The Harvard Experience," American A r c h i v i s t 39 (October 1976): 461-67. "^Subcommittee on Student Records, Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , College and University Archives Committee, "The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Research Use of Student Records," in College and University Archives:  Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), p. 177. s o S h i p t o n , "Reference Use," p. 126. ! 3 1Holden, "Student Records," p. 463. S 2 S h i p t o n , "Reference Use," 127; Quinn, "Academic A r c h i v i s t s , " p. 17. a 3 D a v i d B. Potts, "Students and the Social History of American Higher Education," History of Education Quarterly, 15 (F a l l 1975): 317. =-*For an overview of these studies consult Ibid., pp. 317-27; See also David B. Potts, "College Archives as Windows 46 on American Society," American A r c h i v i s t 40 (January 1977): 43. ^Timothy Walch, "Student Correspondence: A New Source for the History of Higher Education," The Midwestern A r c h i v i s t 1 (1976)': 33; Kantor, "Some Comments," p. 15; Maris A. Vinovskis, "Are We Erasing Our Past? Research Problems and Opportunities with Machine-Readable College and University Records," in A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records:  Proceedings of the Conference on Archival Management of  Machine-Readable Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor,  Michigan, eds. Carolyn L. Leda, Erik W. Austin and Francis X. Blouin, J r . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980): 45. H eEdward S h e f f i e l d , Research on Post-Secondary Education  in Canada: A Review for the Canadian Society for the Study of  Higher Education and the Social Sciences and Humanities  Research Council of Canada (n.p.: Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education, 1981), pp. 9-10; For a survey of Canadian post-secondary educational research, see Robbin S. Harris, A Bibliography of Higher Education in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960/Supplement, 1981). "^Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Association Program: 64th Annual  Meeting 28-30 May, 1985 (Ottawa: Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Associa-tio n , 1985), p. 18. s < 3 P o t t s , "Students and Social History," pp. 317-27. "^Potts, "College Archives," -p. 47. s o S e e David F. Allmendinger, Jr.'s bibliographic essay in Paupers and Scholars: The Transformation of Student L i f e in  Nineteenth-Century New England (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975); pp. 142-48. s l M a r c i a G. Synnott, "The Half-Opened Door: Researching Admissions Discrimination at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton," American A r c h i v i s t 45 (Spring 1982): 184-86; See also the bibliography in Marcia G. Synnott, The Half-Opened Door:  Discrimination and Admissions at Harvard, Yale, and  Princeton, 1900-1970 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1979), pp. 289-91. 6 2Holden, "Student Records," pp. 465-67. S 3Maynard Brichford, "The I l l i a r c h , " I l l i n o i s L i b r a r i e s 52 (February 1970) : 190. &"*Elston, "University Student Records," pp. 77-72. ^^Potts, "College Archives," p. 48. s s , E l s t o n , "University Student Records," p. 78. 47 e 7 l b i d . , s o S h e f f i e l d , Research on Post-Secondary Education, pp. iv, 9. S 3Robert M. Pike, "Sociological Research on Higher Education in English Canada 1970-1980: A Thematic Review," The  Canadian Journal of Higher Education 11 (1981): 2. "7°Sheffield, Research on Post-Secondary Education, p. 45 . "•^Eckholm, "Comprehensive Student Records System,11 p. 86. ^Holden, "Student Records," p. 466. ^Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy, p. 39 4. ^ P r i c e , "Creating and Using Information Systems," p. 237. ^ F o r overviews of the role of i n s t i t u t i o n a l research see: Hans Wagner, "Undertaking I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research," in Admissions, Academic Records and Registrar Services: A Hand- book of P o l i c i e s and Procedures, ed. James C. Quann et a l . (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979), pp. 309-29; Mantha V. Mehallis, "Improving Decision Making through I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research," in Improving Decision Making, ed., Mantha Mehallis (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981), pp. 95-103; M. Kathryne Baratta, "Using Student Data for Academic Planning," in Improving Decision Making, ed., Mantha Mehallis (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981), pp. 46-61. An extremely f l e x i b l e student data system is described in Wheeler, Baldwin and Yount, "Academic Records Management System," pp. 634-46. 7 S C l a u d i n a E. Fisher, James R. Schoemer, and Kenneth C. Curtis, "What Happens to the Data You Give to the Office of I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research?, College and University 48 (Summer 1973): 432; Wagner, "Undertaking I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research," p. 302. •^Edward H. Humphreys, "The Use of the Cumulative Student Record as a Source: The Planner and Student Privacy," Educational Planning 4 (October 1977): 64-72. "^American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions O f f i c e r s , Retention of Records, p.98. 7 * I b i d . , p. 10. a o I b i d . , pp. 11-16. Mbid., pp. 24, 27, 32-35. 48 e : 2Note for example, the views of: Edith James Blendon, "The University Archives: A Reason for Existance," American  Ar c h i v i s t 38 ( A p r i l 1975): 175; Straus, "Three Decades," p. 432; Brichford, "The I l l i a r c h , " p. 191. e 3Howard Zinn, "Secrecy, Archives, and the Public Interest," Boston University Journal 19 ( F a l l 1971): 37-44. • ^ V i r g i n i a Stewart, "Problems of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y in the Administration of Personal Case Records," American A r c h i v i s t 37 (July 1974): 387-98; Joy Parr, "Case Records as Sources for Social History," Archivaria 4 (Summer 1977): 122-36; Peter G i l l i s , "The Case F i l e : Problems of Acquisition and Access from the Federal Perspective," Archivaria 6 (Summer 1978): 32-39. e = 5 P a r r , "Case Records," p. 136; Joseph R. Anderson, "Public Welfare Case Records: A Study of Archival Practices," American A r c h i v i s t 43 (Spring 1981): 169-79. s eMariam I. Crawford, "Interpreting the University Archives to the L i b r a r i a n , " in College and University  Archives: Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), p. 70. e 7"John Dojka and Sheila Conneen, "Records Management as an Appraisal Tool in College and University Archives" in Archival Choices: Managing the H i s t o r i c a l Record in an Age of  Abundance, ed. Nancy E. Peace (Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Co., 1984), p. 20. e , a T h i s study a c t u a l l y examines only a portion of the t o t a l survey r e s u l t s , namely those pertaining to university archives in the anglophone provinces. One of the goals of the o r i g i n a l survey e f f o r t was to provide information for the College and University Archives Committee of the Association of Canadian A r c h i v i s t s . For this reason, questionnaires were sent to u n i v e r s i t y archives in Quebec as well as to those in other provinces, and the questionnaires requested information on published student records and student manuscripts as well as the " o f f i c i a l " types of records under examination in t h i s study. The categories of student records were based both on suggestions made by the chairman of the College and University Archives Committee, Chris Petter, and on the categories i d e n t i f i e d in Subcommittee on Student Records, "The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act," pp. 176. ^Anderson, "Public Welfare Case Records," p. 175; Elston gives some examples of the application of selective retention techniques to student records, "University Student Records," p. 73. •^'American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions O f f i c e r s , Retention of Records, pp. 25-26. 49 CHAPTER III THE CONCEPTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS OF PRIVACY For a r c h i v i s t s to establish or recommend sound access p o l i c i e s , they need some understanding of the interests which such p o l i c i e s are designed to protect. Put another way, a r c h i v i s t s must attempt to understand what i s generally meant by "the right to privacy." It is true that privacy is on one l e v e l an e s s e n t i a l l y vague and elusive concept. Although the concept of privacy has attracted serious interest in the behavioural sciences since the 1960s, s o c i a l science theorists have not been able to agree on precisely what privacy i_s, or even on whether i t is a condition, value, process, goal, or other a b s t r a c t i o n . 1 Despite innumerable attempts on the part of j u r i s t s , philosophers, and other scholars, i t has not been possible to formulate a d e f i n i t i o n of privacy which would be comprehensive enough to cover a l l of the contexts in which the term is commonly used, and s t i l l serve as a useful conceptual tool for l e g i s l a t o r s and r e g u l a t o r s . 2 The sheer volume of the l i t e r a t u r e devoted to privacy concerns makes i t d i f f i c u l t to develop a detailed understanding of the topic, and this d i f f i c u l t y is compounded for a r c h i v i s t s by the fact that the l i t e r a t u r e r a r e l y s p e c i f i c a l l y addresses archival concerns. Fortunately, however, i t is possible to i d e n t i f y patterns and underlying themes in the literature> as well as certain 50 i n f l u e n t i a l concepts which w i l l be useful to a r c h i v i s t s . It i s notable that while privacy has long been seen as a fundamental value of western society, only in the recent past has i t appeared so s e r i o u s l y threatened as to become a subject of widespread concern. In large part, r i s i n g public concern over the privacy issue can be attributed both to the modern "explosion of information c o l l e c t i o n " which has paralleled the growth of large public sector service organizations and to the increasing capacity of these organizations to use computer technology to store, manipulate, and communicate the informa-ti o n they c o l l e c t . 3 American a r c h i v i s t Judith Rowe observes that an obvious r e s u l t of the r i s e of the welfare state in the 1930s, as well as subsequent expansions of government services, i s the c o l l e c t i o n and use by government of massive amounts of personal data, but she notes that concern over perceived abuses of the information was u n t i l approximately the end of the 1950s limited to a group of i n t e l l e c t u a l s and c i v i l l i b e r t a r i a n s . By the 1960s, however, the computer revolution was underway, trust in government and large i n s t i -tutions in general was declining rapidly, and scholars had begun to document actual and potential invasions of privacy."* As a r e s u l t , privacy came to be widely perceived as a threatened value. It became a p o l i t i c a l issue. Computer s c i e n t i s t K. M. Hussain has observed that the responses of western c i t i z e n s and their governments to the privacy issue from the 1960s onward can be divided into a series of three stages which vary in duration from country to country. The f i r s t of these stages, that of awareness, 51 occurred in the early 1960s in the United States, and shortly afterwards in Canada and B r i t a i n . In t h i s period, the public f i r s t became familiar with potential threats to personal privacy. This awareness led to the study stage of the 1970s in which national study groups and government committees prepared large-scale reports on privacy issues. These studies in turn led to the passage of various privacy acts during the l e g i s l a t i v e stage of the middle to late 1970s. = In a sim i l a r manner, commentators have divided the l i t e r a t u r e devoted to privacy issues into "generations" which correspond loosely to Hussain's stages. Thus, in the aware-ness stage the l i t e r a t u r e was broad in scope, dealing with e l e c t r o n i c eavesdropping and psychological testing as well as the growth of private and public data banks. e The studies of the second stage increasingly tended to deal s p e c i f i c a l l y with problems associated with the use of personal information stored in manual or computerized records systems. Subsequent works have focused even more prec i s e l y on such topics as the impact of privacy l e g i s l a t i o n on various organizations or the use of personal f i l e s in s p e c i f i c types of record systems.7" When one examines a broad cross-section of the a r t i c l e s , books, and government studies dealing with privacy which have been produced over the past two decades by scholars working in a wide variety of d i s c i p l i n e s , one not s u r p r i s i n g l y finds a diverse range of opinions and recommendations. Nevertheless, these studies contain common underlying assumptions and address common themes, issues, and concepts, many of which f i r s t found expression in the writings of American scholars. 52 For instance, as American scholars began to concentrate on problems related to the use of personal data f i l e s , i t became possible to adopt serviceable d e f i n i t i o n s of privacy by focusing on the term information. The d e f i n i t i o n cited most often is that proposed in 1967 by Professor Alan Westin in his work Privacy and Freedom: "Privacy i s the claim of i n d i v i d -uals, groups or i n s t i t u t i o n s to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others. " < B Indeed, Privacy and Freedom i s a seminal work that elucidates concepts which have had a decisive impact on subsequent works on informational privacy. Westin begins his study by demonstrating that the need for privacy has been present in some form in v i r t u a l l y a l l s o c i e t i e s . He then draws on studies from a broad range of academic d i s c i p l i n e s to present a comprehensive view of the psychological, s o c i o l o g i c a l , and p o l i t i c a l functions f u l f i l l e d by privacy in modern democratic s o c i e t i e s . F i r s t , Westin contends that some degree of privacy is essential for the maintenance of mental health since i t provides opportunities for emotional release, noncompliance with s o c i a l norms, and self-evaluation. Westin and other commentators, such as philosopher Arthur Schafer, argue that there is a close c o r r e l a t i o n between the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a certain measure of privacy and a person's a b i l i t y to develop his or her i n d i v i d -u a l i t y and c r e a t i v i t y . In t h i s regard Schafer c i t e s J. S. M i l l ' s thesis that in a society which i s frequently intolerant of or h o s t i l e to nonconformity, freedom from constant surveillance i s an important precondition for the 53 development of independent and c r i t i c a l l y - m i n d e d i n d i v i d u a l s . n 9 Second, westin argues t h a t the a b i l i t y to l i m i t and p r o t e c t communications i s a v i t a l p r e r e q u i s i t e to the establishment of "necessary boundaries of mental d i s t a n c e i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i t u a t i o n s . " 1 0 F i n a l l y , while Westin and other w r i t e r s have i d e n t i f i e d s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l ends promoted by p r i v a c y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p s t r e s s e d most i s t h a t between p r i v a c y and p e r s o n a l autonomy or f r eedom. 1 1 In one sense p r i v a c y can be s a i d to promote i n d i v i d u a l freedom by the way t h a t i t allows f o r the development of p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l autonomy. However, the d e s i r e f o r p r i v a c y i s a l s o a p o l i t i c a l i ssue i n t h a t i t i s a quest f o r p o wer—a " d e s i r e to a v o i d being manipulated or dominated wholly by o t h e r s . " 1 2 Westin and others have observed t h a t data s u r v e i l l a n c e i s a fundamental means of s o c i a l c o n t r o l . That i s , p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s u s u a l l y gathered by p u b l i c or p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s e i t h e r to monitor the a c t i v i t i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s or to make dete r m i n a t i o n s a f f e c t i n g the s u b j e c t i n d i v i d u a l s . 1 3 I t i s , moreover, the c a p a c i t y of i n s t i t u t i o n s to u t i l i z e p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n to e x e r c i s e some form of c o n t r o l over i n d i v i d u a l l i v e s which has been the s u b j e c t of most concern to the p u b l i c . American s o c i o l o g i s t James Rule, w r i t i n g as the p r i n c i p a l author of a survey of governmental responses to p r i v a c y concerns, s t a t e s : Most c o n f l i c t s making up the p r i v a c y issue i n the l a t e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y have to do with s t r a t e g i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . They a r i s e , to s i m p l i f y o n l y a l i t t l e , because of new ways i n which i n f o r m a t i o n about us may a f f e c t our i n t e r e s t s . . . . S i m i l a r l y , the concerns which make up the p r i v a c y issue as i t c o n f r o n t s us i n the 54 1970s have mainly to do with... invasion of privacy by those at the centres of power. % + ( I t a l i c s mine.) Having demonstrated the relat i o n s h i p between privacy and individual freedom, Westin argues that the western b e l i e f in the i n t e g r i t y and di g n i t y of the individual necessitates a corresponding b e l i e f in the value of protecting individual p r i v a c y — o f upholding the claim of individuals to control the dissemination of information about themselves. Although some scholars believe that privacy has received too much emphasis in "contemporary l i b e r a l society, " 1 = i recent public opinion p o l l s in B r i t a i n and the United States reveal that there is a s i g n i f i c a n t consensus that privacy is important. However, the same po l l s reveal that "there is no general agreement as to what reasonable expectations of informational privacy ought to be." l s This lack of agreement i s to be expected because, as Westin stresses, while the need for some degree of privacy is universal, s p e c i f i c privacy norms vary widely. Perceptions of which information is sensitive vary from culture to culture; they vary over time within each culture, and at any given time they vary from individual to i n d i v i d u a l . 1 7 In addition to discussing the v a r i a b i l i t y of privacy norms, Westin also stresses the fact that privacy is not an absolute value in modern western society. The right to privacy must be balanced against other rights and needs such as the "right to know" or the need to promote e f f e c t i v e government administration and law enforcement. i r a In Westin's view, the problem i s that of developing c r i t e r i a for weighing c o n f l i c t i n g interests: "a structured and r a t i o n a l weighing 55 p r o c e s s . 1 1 1 3 E s s e n t i a l l y Westin advocates applying procedural reforms to personal data banks in order to give individuals a measure of control over how personal information i s used while s t i l l allowing society to benefit from the use of such information. Westin's concepts were c l e a r l y evident in a 1973 report prepared by a committee of the U . S . Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). 2 0 This report stressed that privacy as applied to record-keeping practices was not incon-si s t e n t with the disclosure and use of personal information. Instead, what was required was to provide individuals with the right to par t i c i p a t e in decisions regarding the disclosure of personal information by ensuring that certain fundamental pr i n c i p l e s of f a i r information practices were followed. Together, these p r i n c i p l e s stated that the existence of a l l personal record-keeping systems should be made known in order that individuals could discover what personal information about themselves was maintained and how that information was used. Individuals were to be provided with the means both to exercise some control over the use of personal records and to correct or amend such records. F i n a l l y , the organizations creating personal data systems were to assure the accuracy of the records produced and to prevent misuse of these r e c o r d s . 2 1 By enunciating a "code of f a i r information practices," the HEW report helped lay the groundwork for subsequent privacy l e g i s l a t i o n and regulatory schemes in North America. In p a r t i c u l a r , the HEW code was adopted and expanded by the U . S . federal government when i t enacted the Privacy Act of 56 1974 2 2 which sought to regulate the c o l l e c t i o n , storage, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal agencies. Through the Privacy Act the U.S. government also created the Privacy Protection Study Commission (PPSC) which was to conduct a study of the information systems of "governmental, regional, and private organizations," and to determine to what extent, i f any, the p r i n c i p l e s and requirements of the Privacy Act could be applied to agencies outside the federal govern-ment. 2 3 The report of the Commission, e n t i t l e d Personal  Privacy in an Information Society, was published in 1977. This report, according to James Rule, "constitutes one of the most far-reaching i n q u i r i e s into organizational uses of personal data ever assembled."2'* After analyzing the Privacy Act, the PPSC report concluded that while the Act had b a s i c a l l y sought to implement the HEW f a i r information p r i n c i p l e s of providing individuals with controls over the content, use, and disclosure of personal records, the Act had also sought to place some l i m i t s on the types of information which organizations could c o l l e c t and to hold organizations responsible for establishing sound record-keeping p o l i c i e s and p r a c t i c e s . 2 3 S i g n i f i c a n t l y , the p r i n c i p l e s proposed in the o r i g i n a l HEW report, as well as the expanded p r i n c i p l e s i d e n t i f i e d in the PPSC report, were to appear, in whole or in part, in many of the regulatory schemes adopted in western' countries. In e f f e c t , a consensus emerged on a core set of i n t e r - r e l a t e d privacy rights or p r i n c i p l e s which have been i d e n t i f i e d as: establishing access to one's own data; ensuring the 57 accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of recorded information; l i m i t a t i o n on information which may be colle c t e d ; establishing procedures for challenging and correcting erroneous data; and protecting data from unnecessary d i s c l o s u r e . 2 6 A l l of the above p r i n c i p l e s have the potential to a f f e c t the work of the a r c h i v i s t when they are translated into s p e c i f i c regulations governing the a r c h i v i s t ' s sponsoring organization. However, thi s study w i l l focus primarily on the las t p r i n c i p l e , since i t i s practices related to the use and dissemination of information which have generated the greatest concern among the general public as well as among a r c h i v i s t s . Indeed, perhaps the most troublesome problem a r c h i v i s t s face in administering a records p o l i c y i s that of s a t i s f y i n g both the individual's desire to l i m i t the disclosure of personal information and the researcher's desire to study such information. Westin and others have stressed that privacy must compete with other values. How then have government reports dealt with the potential c o n f l i c t between the right to privacy and the right to know? The potential for c o n f l i c t between demands for access to information and demands for privacy was recognized early in the privacy debate. In fact, the same general decline in trust in government which helped give r i s e to privacy l e g i s l a t i o n also gave impetus to demands for more open, more accessible government. These demands eventually prompted federal, state, and pr o v i n c i a l governments in western countries to enact so-called freedom of information laws, including in 1966 the American Freedom of Information A c t . 2 7 This Act gave c i t i z e n s s p e c i f i c rights of access to records 58 held by their federal government but authorized federal agencies to exempt certain classes of records from disclosure, including personal records, the disclosure of which would constitute "a c l e a r l y unwarranted invasion of p r i v a c y . " 2 0 Similar exemptions have been included in other l e g i s l a t i o n at the state l e v e l in the United States, and in other countries. The question, of course, is what constitutes an unwar- ranted invasion of privacy. Scholars in numerous d i s c i p l i n e s have been at the forefront of those groups lobbying for freer access to information. Increasingly, moreover, the type of information which scholars such as s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s and s o c i a l historians have desired i s personal information such as that found in case f i l e s . 2 9 Thus, while freedom of informa-tion and privacy laws may specify personal records as being ones to which t h i r d parties should not have a general right of access, the case has been made that certain research uses of such records should not be considered unwarranted invasions of privacy. Due to widespread recognition of the value of research based on government records, l e g i s l a t i o n such as the U.S. Privacy Act has spe c i f i e d that while agencies maintaining personal records are generally forbidden to disclose personal records to t h i r d parties without the permission of the record subjects, exceptions should be made under certain circum-stances to the general rule in order that such records could be used for research and s t a t i s t i c a l purposes. 3 0 Furthermore, the question of exactly what types of conditions should exist before personal records are made available for research uses 59 was addressed by the Privacy Protection Study Commission. To begin with, the Commission stressed that i t s p r i n c i p a l objective was "to s t r i k e a proper balance between the individual's interest in personal privacy and society's need for knowledge." 3 1 It f e l t that in research a c t i v i t i e s the main threat to individual privacy came from the use of records in i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e form: "material that could reasonably be uniquely associated with the i d e n t i t y of the individual to whom i t p e r t a i n s . " 3 2 The Commission further argued that the most fundamental step toward achieving the "desired balance" was to esta b l i s h what i t termed the pr i n c i p l e of functional separation; that i s , "separating the use of information about an individual for a research or s t a t i s t i c a l purpose from i t s use in a r r i v i n g at an adminis-t r a t i v e or other decision about that i n d i v i d u a l . " 3 3 Clearly, such a separation would serve to protect what has been i d e n t i f i e d as st r a t e g i c or u t i l i t a r i a n privacy by preventing administrators from using personal information preserved for research purposes in order to exercise control over i n d i v i -duals. Under the system envisioned by the PPSC, information co l l e c t e d for research purposes was not to flow to adminis-t r a t o r s . The reverse flow of information from administrative records to researchers was to be permitted since such a flow, as a r c h i v i s t s well know, is increasingly important to research a c t i v i t i e s . 3 " * Nevertheless, despite the fact that the research use of administrative records, by d e f i n i t i o n , does not lead to decisions about individual record subjects, i t i s s t i l l true 60 that when a researcher uses personal information contained in administrative records the record subjects have lost some control over the disclosure of that information and are often even unaware that such a loss has occurred. Therefore, the PPSC stipulated that the research use of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i -f i a b l e records was only to occur "on the basis of demonstrated need and under stringent safeguards. " 3 = 5 The Commission observed that such r e s t r i c t i o n s would in any case only a f f e c t a minority of research a c t i v i t i e s since most research only required the use of anonymous microdata: "data in the form of individual records stripped of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " 3 S The steps which the PPSC f e l t should be taken prior to the research use of personal records included determining both that the use of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records was necessary to the research project and that the project i t s e l f was "such as to warrant r i s k to the individual from additional exposure of the record or i n f o r m a t i o n . " 3 7 Other safeguards were also stipulated, and the PPSC went on to examine questions such as when individual consent should be sought for the research use of personal records. The Commission's recommendations in these and other areas w i l l be examined further in subsequent chapters of t h i s study. It can be observed, therefore, that despite the complex-i t y of privacy as a concept and as a public p o l i c y issue, certain patterns can be discerned in the responses of western governments, and cer t a i n key concepts can be i d e n t i f i e d in the privacy l i t e r a t u r e . To summarize, most western societ i e s have responded to the privacy issue in stages: f i r s t , examining a 61 broad array of threats to personal privacy, then focusing on informational privacy, and f i n a l l y enacting l e g i s l a t i o n to govern the operation of personal information systems. Privacy has been defined as the individual's claim to control the communication of personal information. The need for some degree of privacy i s universal, but the extent of control exercized and the s p e c i f i c types of information perceived as requiring protection vary from country to country, over time, and from individual to in d i v i d u a l . The primary purpose c i t e d for c o n t r o l l i n g the disclosure of personal information i s to prevent such information from being used by others to make decisions regarding an individual without that person's permission. However, since in any open society privacy must compete with other values such as freedom of information, regulatory reforms have been developed to give individuals some input into decisions over the use and dissemination of personal information while s t i l l allowing society to benefit from certain uses of such information. For a r c h i v i s t s , a feature of central interest regarding these regulatory reforms is that they often e s t a b l i s h c r i t e r i a for balancing the individual's desire to l i m i t the disclosure of personal information with the scholar's desire to seek knowledge through the use of such information. Certainly events in Canada, both at the federal l e v e l and in the common law provinces, have followed the standard pattern. The emergence of privacy as a subject of public concern in the late 1960s led to the appointment of provincial committees and commissions which produced reports documenting 62 perceived threats to privacy and available legal remedies. 3 3 Interestingly, t h i s early concern a c t u a l l y led to the enact-ment of l e g i s l a t i o n establishing privacy as a general right in B r i t i s h Columbia (1968), Manitoba (1970), and Saskatchewan (1974). 3 9 As w i l l be demonstrated, however, these privacy acts do not deal extensively with the issue of informational privacy and were directed primarily at c o n t r o l l i n g invasions of physical privacy r e s u l t i n g from eavesdropping or electronic surveillance."* 0 That l e g i s l a t o r s were primarily concerned with preventing unauthorized electronic surveillance was also demonstrated by the controls established in 1974 by the federal government through i t s Protection of Privacy Act."*1 It should be noted that there was s u f f i c i e n t concern over informational privacy in the early 1970s1 to lead several provinces to enact l e g i s l a t i o n governing the record-keeping practices of c r e d i t reporting companies as well as to prompt Ontario to regulate the use of elementary and secondary school records in 1972."*:z Moreover, the federal government had as early as 1970 addressed the subject of informational privacy by establishing the Task Force on Privacy and Computers which produced a series of reports."* 3 Studies on informational privacy subsequently also appeared at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l , p a r t i c u l a r l y in Ontario which established i t s Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy in 1977. The f i n a l report of the Ontario Commission constitutes a detailed, comprehensive analysis of the personal record-keeping practices of the Ontario government."*** Drawing extensively on concepts presented in the American l i t e r a t u r e , 63 the r e p o r t proposes a t o t a l i n f o r m a t i o n p o l i c y d e s i g n e d both t o implement f a i r i n f o r m a t i o n p r a c t i c e s and t o promote f r e e r a c c e s s t o government i n f o r m a t i o n . The Commission sought t o p r e v e n t a c o n f l i c t between the p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d be c o n t r o l s on the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n and the p r i n c i p l e , o f openness i n government by i n c l u d i n g a p r i v a c y exemption i n i t s proposed freedom of i n f o r m a t i o n p o l i c y . T h i s p r i v a c y exemption m e r i t s c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n s i n c e i t s g u i d e -l i n e s a r e s i m i l a r t o tho s e p r e s e n t i n many a c c e s s p o l i c i e s . While r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t an exemption from any g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e of openess would o b v i o u s l y have t o be a p p l i e d when an i n d i v i d u a l r e q u e s t e d a c c e s s t o r e c o r d s c o n t a i n i n g i n f o r m a -t i o n about o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , the Commission observed t h a t the i d e a l s t r u c t u r e of such an exemption was not i m m e d i a t e l y a p p a r e n t . I t r e j e c t e d the i d e a t h a t a l l r e c o r d s c o n t a i n i n g p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be w i t h h e l d from t h i r d - p a r t y a c c e s s , on the grounds t h a t p r i v a c y must y i e l d a t times t o ot h e r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s . S i m i l a r l y , the p r o p o s a l t h a t an a b s o l u t e c l o s u r e c o u l d be imposed upon c e r t a i n c l a s s e s of p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i v e r e c o r d s was r e j e c t e d because i t was f e l t t h a t l e g i t i m a t e t h i r d - p a r t y uses e x i s t e d f o r even the most s e n s i t i v e records."* 5 5 The approach f a v o u r e d by the Commission was the a d o p t i o n of a b a l a n c i n g t e s t s i m i l a r i n n a t u r e t o the unwarranted i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y t e s t c o n t a i n e d i n the American Freedom of I n f o r m a t i o n A c t . The O n t a r i o Commission advocated t h a t a p r i v a c y exemption s h o u l d c o n t a i n , among o t h e r f e a t u r e s , a l i s t of s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e r e was an o v e r r i d i n g i n t e r e s t i n a c c e s s 64 to p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The Commission then s t r e s s e d that r e s e a r c h access to government i n f o r m a t i o n should be e x p r e s s l y i d e n t i f i e d as c o n s t i t u t i n g an " o v e r r i d i n g i n t e r e s t , " provided t h a t c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s were observed. Thus, the Ontario Commission held that while as a g e n e r a l r u l e no i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e r e c o rds should be r e l e a s e d without the s u b j e c t s ' consent to t h i r d p a r t i e s , such records should be r e l e a s e d f o r a r e s e a r c h purpose i f : i . the use or d i s c l o s u r e i s c o n s i s t e n t with the c o n d i t i o n s or reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n s of use and d i s c l o s u r e under which the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the records was provided, c o l l e c t e d or obtained; i i . the r e s e a r c h purpose f o r which the d i s c l o s u r e i s to be made: A. cannot be reasonably accomplished unless the i n f o r m a t i o n i s provided i n i n d i v i -d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e form; and B. warrants the r i s k to the i n d i v i d u a l t h a t a d d i t i o n a l exposure of the i n f o r m a t i o n might b r i n g ; i i i . the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of those who w i l l conduct the r e s e a r c h warrant the c o n c l u s i o n that the r e s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e s w i l l be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y achieved; i v . the r e s e a r c h proposal i s soundly designed i n terms of i t s a b i l i t y to achieve the s t a t e d r e s e a r c h objectives....'*' 5 . The Commission f u r t h e r s t i p u l a t e d t h at r e s e a r c h e r s were to s i g n a statement a t t e s t i n g to t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to maintain the s e c u r i t y and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of any c o l l e c t e d data and to r e f r a i n from d i s c l o s i n g any i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e informa-t i o n without the approval of the agency which o r i g i n a l l y p rovided i t . " * 7 In e f f e c t , t h e r e f o r e , the Commission argued t h a t before an agency opened personal records f o r r e s e a r c h use, t h a t agency should judge the worthiness of the proposed 65 project as well as the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the researcher. The Commission's recommendations have as yet not been implemented through l e g i s l a t i o n . " * 3 However, l e g i s l a t i o n s imilar in intent has been enacted at the federal l e v e l in Canada. The 1972 report of the federal Task Force on Privacy and Computers had revealed a conception of privacy very similar to that proposed by Alan Westin.**3 This conception f i r s t found l e g i s l a t i v e expression in Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act which came into force in 1978. s o This Act gave Canadians 1imited rights of access and correction regarding personal information held by departments of the federal government and placed r e s t r i c t i o n s on the department's disclosure of personal information. In June of 1982 the federal government extended i t s protection of privacy and established measures designed to s a t i s f y the public demand for more open government by adopting the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act." 3 1 Like the recommendations of the Ontario Commission, the federal l e g i s l a t i o n attempted to implement f a i r information practices such as l i m i t i n g the disclosure of personal informa-tion while s t i l l making provisions for competing interests such as research access to personal information. The federal l e g i s l a t i o n , however, stipulated that individuals requesting access to personal records were to be directed to the Privacy Act which contains a l i s t of permissible disclosure c r i t e r i a . Section eight of the Act governs the disclosure of records r e l a t i n g to l i v i n g individuals or those who have been deceased twenty years or less. Certain clauses of the section refer 6 6 s p e c i f i c a l l y to the Public Archives of Canada. 5 5 2 Clause 8(2)1, for instance, establishes that personal information may be disclosed (that i s , transferred) to the Archives. A l l departments, including the Archives, may according to clause 8(2)j release personal information without the consent of the subject i n d i v i d u a l s : to any person or body for research or s t a t i s t i c a l purposes i f the head of the government i n s t i t u t i o n i . i s s a t i s f i e d that the purpose for which the information is disclosed cannot reasonably be accomplished unless the information i s provided in a form that would i d e n t i f y the individual to whom i t r e l a t e s , and i i . obtains from the person or body a written undertaking that no subsequent disclosure of the information w i l l be made in a form that could reasonably be expected to i d e n t i f y the individual to whom i t rel a t e s . An Access Review Committee has been established by the Public Archives to review access requests made under the above clause. 1 - 5 3 Because the Archives' research c l i e n t e l e f e l t that the Privacy Act would unduly r e s t r i c t access to f i l e s containing personal information, and because clause 8(2) j was "thought too r e s t r i c t i v e in regard to further disclosure of personal information to allow h i s t o r i c a l research to be conducted at the Public Archives," 3"* subsection 8(3) was included in the Act. This subsection states that personal information under the control of the Archives "may be disclosed in accordance with the regulations to any person or body for research or s t a t i s t i c a l purposes." The most s i g n i f i c a n t of the Treasury Board regulations r e l a t i n g to subsection 8(3) is regulation 67 6(a) which permits the Archives to disclose personal informa-tion for research purposes provided "the information is of such a nature that disclosure would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual to whom the information re l a t e s . " = = 5 Under the regulations, d i s c r e t i o n is given to the Dominion A r c h i v i s t "to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between those types of personal information which would and would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of p r i v a c y . " 3 6 Conse-quently, the Public Archives has developed an invasion-of-privacy test for determining which types of information are p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive and which disclosures would be unwarranted. = v' There i s , therefore, a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the recommendations of the Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy and the portions of the Privacy Act and Treasury Board regulations cited above. The former attempt to ensure both that researchers using personal information are s u f f i c i e n t l y q u a l i f i e d and that the researchers' projects warrant any resultant r i s k s to the record subjects, while the federal access scheme concentrates more on the s e n s i t i v i t y of the requested personal information. Nevertheless, clause 8(2)j of the Act does require the Public Archives to pass judgement on the soundness, i f not the worth, of a research project. Furthermore, the Archives has stated that i f a researcher i s provided access to personal records under clause 8(2 )j and subsequently wishes to release the information in an i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e form, the researcher must obtain the consent of either the record 68 subjects or the Dominion A r c h i v i s t who must then refer to clause 8(2)m of the Privacy Act." 3 0 This clause states in part that the head of a government i n s t i t u t i o n may disclose personal information for any purpose where the "public interest in disclosure c l e a r l y outweighs any invasion of privacy that could re s u l t from the disclosure." Both the recommendations of the Ontario Commission and the p o l i c y established by the federal government require that any exceptions to the general p r i n c i p l e of nondisclosure of personal records be made on a case-by-case basis. For a r c h i v i s t s , t h i s task of discriminating between a warranted disclosure of personal information and an unwarranted disclosure w i l l i n e v i t a b l y be a complex one. Furthermore, as a r c h i v i s t Robert Hayward has observed, the types of access decisions required under federal l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l compel a r c h i v i s t s to achieve control over the records in their possession at a much fin e r l e v e l than was previously the case: at the le v e l of the individual page or sentence rather than at the f i l e or box l e v e l . 5 , 1 3 In short, there i s no denying that the trend evident in government reports and l e g i s l a t i o n in Canada and other western countries towards subjecting personal data systems to procedural reforms based on f a i r information practices w i l l have the eff e c t of complicating the task of archival administration. Nevertheless, i t must be recognized that the predominant view that privacy is a r e l a t i v e value, and that the primary goal of protecting individual privacy i s to guard the individual against manipulation by others is a convenient one 69 for both researchers and a r c h i v i s t s . Such a view allows a r c h i v i s t s and others to argue convincingly that research access to personal records should be allowed since society benefits from such access and since research uses of information, unlike administrative uses, do not expose individuals to the control of decision makers. It must also be recognized, however, that while the u t i l i t a r i a n view of privacy i s predominant, i t i s by no means universal. For instance, the study group headed by James Rule main-tained that procedural arguments for regulating the operations of records systems ignore such questions as "how much personal record-keeping i s desirable?" and "when does the use of personal data f i l e s , even for good purposes, become too much of a good t h i n g ? " 6 0 Although proposals for regulatory reforms often do suggest li m i t a t i o n s on the c o l l e c t i o n of personal information, the emphasis i s usually on c o n t r o l l i n g the uses of personal records rather than on c o n t r o l l i n g their growth. Rule, along with his coauthors, argues that privacy can only be protected by using less personal information. He bases th i s argument on the contention that privacy i s valued not only for str a t e g i c reasons but also for what he terms "aesthetic" reasons. In his view there is something inherently desirable in preserving private areas of experience. 6 1 Philosopher Arthur Schafer also c i t e s n o n u t i l i t a r i a n arguments for privacy. It has been stated that to monitor the conduct of individuals without their authorization--even i f the gathered information is not misused--"is to show a l e s s -than-proper respect for their d i g n i t y . " 6 2 To some extent t h i s 70 s t r i c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p r i v a c y i s inherent i n Westin's d e f i n i t i o n of p r i v a c y as the c l a i m of i n d i v i d u a l s to c o n t r o l the communication of i n f o r m a t i o n about themselves. In f a c t , the Canadian F e d e r a l Task Force on P r i v a c y and Computers has s t a t e d t h a t : c o n c e p t u a l l y , the v a l i d i t y of [the] i n t e r e s t i n c o n t r o l l i n g access to p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s not d e r i v e d from any mental d i s t r e s s or p e c u n i a r y harm that i t s d i s s e m i n a t i o n or p u b l i c a t i o n may cause to the i n d i v i d u a l concerned. His p r i v a c y i s 'invaded' as each new person becomes p r i v y to the i n f o r m a t i o n . S 3 Access r e g u l a t i o n s such as those developed by the Canadian f e d e r a l government which d i f f e r e n t i a t e between l e g i t i m a t e and n o n l e g i t i m a t e uses of p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n thus do not s a t i s f y a s i g n i f i c a n t number of i n d i v i d u a l s who r e s e n t the maintenance or use of any p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n which has not s p e c i f i c a l l y been a u t h o r i z e d by them. As Schafer observes, the source of t h i s resentment " i s the b e l i e f t h a t no one i s e n t i t l e d to have access to [personal] i n f o r m a t i o n without the knowledge or consent of the s u b j e c t . Such b e l i e f s can lead to p o l i c i e s which e i t h e r r e q u i r e i n d i v i d u a l consent f o r v i r t u a l l y any t h i r d p a r t y use of personal i n f o r m a t i o n or r e q u i r e the d e s t r u c t i o n of records a f t e r they have f u l f i l l e d the purposes f o r which they were o r i g i n a l l y c o l l e c t e d . In New York S t a t e , f o r i n s t a n c e , a j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n to remove from an a r c h i v e s mental h e a l t h records maintained f o r both r e s e a r c h and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes was based "on testimony that even having one's r e c o r d i n such an a r c h i v e produced a n x i e t i e s among pat i e n t s . " s = s A e s t h e t i c concepts of p r i v a c y or s t r i c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s 71 of the right to control personal information should thus be of interest to a r c h i v i s t s . They should be of p a r t i c u l a r interest to Canadian unive r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s since the l e g i s l a t i v e provisions for research access to personal records held by federal agencies obviously do not apply to u n i v e r s i t i e s , which come under p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . As a r e s u l t , u n i v e r s i t i e s have a considerable degree of freedom to develop unique access p o l i c i e s — i n c l u d i n g p o l i c i e s which may express quite a d i f f e r e n t philosophy than the one expressed at the federal l e v e l . The s p e c i f i c views of university administrators and researchers towards privacy w i l l be studied in subsequent chapters of t h i s study. F i r s t , however, i t w i l l be instruc-ti v e to examine the extent to which the right to privacy has been addressed by legal measures applicable to u n i v e r s i t i e s . In other words, legal guidelines or "policy l i m i t s " now exist for federal a r c h i v i s t s in Canada: what legal guidelines, i f any, exist for u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s ? To begin with, i t should be observed for comparative purposes that since 1974 federal l e g i s l a t i v e guidelines have existed which a f f e c t university a r c h i v i s t s in the United States. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, which is similar in structure to the U.S. Privacy Act, governs a l l educational i n s t i t u t i o n s receiving federal f u n d s . 6 6 This Act*was o r i g i n a l l y intended to correct administrative practices which opened student records to government agencies while closing the records to students. Unfortunately, as a subcommittee of the Society of American 72 A r c h i v i s t s (SAA) has noted, the implications of the Act's disclosure r e s t r i c t i o n s were never f u l l y considered by the proponents of the l e g i s l a t i o n . e ' 7 Under the statute, i n s t i t u t i o n s must obtain the written consent of students or parents before d i s c l o s i n g i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records to persons other than those mentioned in a l i s t of exceptions. Although t h i s l i s t does grant access rights to o f f i c i a l s and instructors who are deemed by the i n s t i t u t i o n s to have "legitimate educational interests" in the requested records, no consistent guidelines have been developed for determining which interests are legitimate. As the SAA Subcommittee has observed, the Act therefore creates "many ambiguities regarding the a c c e s s i b i l i t y of student records for research use." G B Although u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s have themselves f a i l e d to reach a consensus regarding the appropriate interpretation of the l e g i s l a t i o n , i t appears that a majority of university legal advisors have interpreted the law narrowly with the ef f e c t that personally i d e n t i f i a b l e student records are presently closed [for most research purposes] without written consent.* 3 3 Further complications are created for American university a r c h i v i s t s hoping to develop consistent p o l i c i e s by the fact that many American states have passed statutes governing either student records or public records in general, and these statutes are among themselves inconsistent in the approaches they take."'0 Much less attention has been paid to the issue of informational privacy by nonfederal Canadian l e g i s l a t o r s . With the exception of Quebec, no province has enacted a 73 statute governing personal records maintained by u n i v e r s i t i e s . Moreover, while i t i s true that p r o v i n c i a l governments generally have "ultimate control" over the actions of u n i v e r s i t i e s , due to the fact that most Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s have been established by means of pr o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n or c h a r t e r , 7 1 i t is also true that in respect to many issues u n i v e r s i t i e s operate as "self-governing c o r p o r a t i o n s . " 7 2 P r o v i n c i a l u n i v e r s i t y acts tend to confer broad powers and duties rather than establishing s p e c i f i c administrative p r a c t i c e s . 7 3 Thus, although the l e g i s l a t i v e act governing a univers i t y may specify that the univer s i t y r e g i s t r a r " s h a l l keep the records and perform the duties which the board or senate may require," 7" 4 the precise methods by which unive r s i t y records are created, maintained, and disclosed are determined by the university administration. Of course, univ e r s i t y o f f i c i a l s are governed by the same statutes and common law pr i n c i p l e s which apply to a l l Canadian c i t i z e n s . Indeed, since u n i v e r s i t i e s , l i k e a l l corporate bodies, can act only through individual o f f i c e r s and employees, when an o f f i c e r of a university f a i l s to comply with a common law p r i n c i p l e (commits a t o r t ) , not only is that o f f i c e r l i a b l e but so is the u n i v e r s i t y . 7 ! S It is therefore necessary for a r c h i v i s t s to determine i f there are any common law pr i n c i p l e s and p r o v i n c i a l statues with which they must comply i f they are to avoid exposing themselves and their i n s t i t u -tions to court action over the improper disclosure of personal information. With regard to statutory law, although no province has 74 s p e c i f i c a l l y attempted to r e g u l a t e p e r s o n a l r e c o r d s , the p r i v a c y a c t s passed by B r i t i s h Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan seek to provide g e n e r a l p r o t e c t i o n for i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y . 7 - 6 The a c t s use s i m i l a r language i n making i t a t o r t to v i o l a t e p r i v a c y " w i l l f u l l y " or "unreasonably" and "without c l a i m of r i g h t . " The term p r i v a c y , however, i s not c l e a r l y d e f i n e d . As l e g a l s c h o l a r P h i l i p Osborne notes, i t i s l e f t up to the c o u r t s "to e v a l u a t e and balance the needs of s o c i e t y , and the i n t e r e s t s of the i n d i v i d u a l . " 7 " 7 . The Manitoba and Saskatchewan Acts do s t i p u l a t e t h a t the unauthorized use of l e t t e r s , d i a r i e s , and other p e r s o n a l documents may c o n s t i t u t e an unwarranted i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y . 7 " 0 These two a c t s t h e r e f o r e do address the i s s u e of i n f o r m a t i o n a l p r i v a c y to a l i m i t e d degree and i t i s p o s s i b l e that p r o v i n c i a l judges w i l l i n the f u t u r e i n t e r p r e t the a c t s so as to prevent unreasonable uses of p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n contained i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d s . 7 - 3 N e v e r t h e l e s s , a study conducted i n 1978 f o r the O n t a r i o Commission on Freedom of Information and I n d i v i d u a l P r i v a c y noted t h a t o n l y one case had been decided under any of the three p r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e s . s o The p r o v i n c i a l p r i v a c y s t a t u t e s have thus not f u l f i l l e d e a r l y e x p e c t a t i o n s , and i n f a c t have been s e v e r e l y criticized.® 1 The O n t a r i o Commission study, i n p a r t i c u l a r , concluded that the a c t s "are not of s i g n i f i c a n t a s s i s t a n c e i n d e f i n i n g p r i v a c y of i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d about people.'" 3 2 The inadequacy of p r o v i n c i a l p r i v a c y l e g i s l a t i o n i n the area of i n f o r m a t i o n a l p r i v a c y has a l s o been noted by p r o f e s s o r of law B e v e r l y M. McLachlin who has w r i t t e n on the 75 t o p i c of u n i v e r s i t y r e c o r d s and p r i v a c y . McLachlin concludes t h a t " i n Canada, there i s no l e g i s l a t i o n on the questi o n of c o n f i d e n t i a l communications made to and w i t h i n e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , " s a and s t a t e s t h a t any l e g a l remedies f o r the improper use of u n i v e r s i t y records w i l l have to be found i n the common law. However, the Canadian common law, u n l i k e the American, does not e s t a b l i s h a g e n e r a l , independent r i g h t of p r i v a c y . As p r o f e s s o r of law Peter Burns s t a t e s : There i s broad agreement then among judges and academics t h a t i n the Commonwealth there i s no gene r a l l e g a l r i g h t to p r i v a c y . Instead, where t h a t term i s used by c o u r t s i n d e c i s i o n s g r a n t i n g a l e g a l remedy i t i s u s u a l l y taken to mean that p r i v a c y i s s u e s i n t e r s e c t with others t h a t the law a l r e a d y r e c o g n i z e s and p r o t e c t s . T h i s i s i n sharp c o n t r a s t to the American p o s i t i o n , where an independent r i g h t to p r i v a c y w i l l support a cause of a c t i o n i n the bulk of the states. 6 9"* The r e l u c t a n c e of the Canadian c o u r t s to recog n i z e an indepen-dent r i g h t to p r i v a c y has been a t t r i b u t e d to the b e l i e f t h a t such a r i g h t would c o n f l i c t with the e s t a b l i s h e d r i g h t of freedom of speech. 6 3 3 5 Thus, as McLachlin notes, under the common law, "one s t a r t s from the premise t h a t anyone may repeat, d i s c l o s e or otherwise use any statement or informa-t i o n , unless such use i s s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d . " 6 3 6 One l i m i t a t i o n on the use of i n f o r m a t i o n i s the law of c o p y r i g h t which p r o t e c t s p r o p e r t y r i g h t s with r e s p e c t to l i t e r a r y and a r t i s t i c works, and hence i s of l i t t l e relevance to most u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d s . 6 3 7 A f u r t h e r l i m i t a t i o n to f r e e speech i s provided by the d o c t r i n e of p r i v i l e g e which allows an i n d i v i d u a l to prevent c e r t a i n communications from being r e v e a l e d i n j u d i c i a l proceedings. Canadian c o u r t s , again u n l i k e those i n the United S t a t e s , have 76 h i s t o r i c a l l y r e c o g n i z e d o n l y three types of p r i v i l e g e : s o l i c i t o r - c l i e n t , m a t rimonial, and s t a t e p r i v i l e g e . None of these c a t e g o r i e s would t y p i c a l l y cover "communications made to and held by a u n i v e r s i t y . " 0 3 There have been r e c e n t cases i n which the Canadian c o u r t s have expanded the d o c t r i n e of p r i v i l e g e to i n c l u d e a d d i t i o n a l types of c o n f i d e n t i a l communi-c a t i o n s . m < 9 I t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t comments made between a doctor or p s y c h o l o g i s t and p a t i e n t which are subsequently documented i n u n i v e r s i t y r e c o rds may be deemed to be p r i v i l e g e d by the c o u r t s . However, as McLachlin s t r e s s e s , while the law of p r i v i l e g e "may prevent communication being d i s c l o s e d a t t r i a l or p r e - t r i a l procedures, i t does not prevent d i s c l o s u r e i n other c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " 3 0 Thus, except i n the r e l a t i v e l y u n l i k e l y event t h a t u n i v e r s i t y records were subpoenaed by a Canadian c o u r t and were subsequently r u l e d to be p r i v i l e g e d , the d o c t r i n e of p r i v i l e g e c o u l d not be used to r e s t r i c t the d i s c l o s u r e of pers o n a l records h e l d i n a u n i v e r -s i t y a r c h i v e s . McLachlin t h e r e f o r e concludes that the l e g a l l i m i t a t i o n s most l i k e l y to be of p o t e n t i a l relevance to communications made w i t h i n u n i v e r s i t i e s are those found under the headings of defamation, breach of confidence, and c o n t r a c t law. The law of defamation, or more narrowly that of l i b e l , permits i n d i v i d u a l s to o b t a i n compensation when a f a l s e s t a t e -ment i s p u b l i s h e d Which damages an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e p u t a t i o n and business i n t e r e s t s . 3 1 The law co u l d serve as a b a r r i e r to the p u b l i c a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n which i s " h i g h l y p e r s o n a l and... o p i n i o n a t i v e , " 3 a presumably such as the i n f o r m a t i o n sometimes 77 f o u n d i n u n i v e r s i t y c o u n s e l l i n g a n d a d m i s s i o n s r e c o r d s . H o w e v e r , f o r a n i n d i v i d u a l t o c l a i m d a m a g e s , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p u b l i s h e d m u s t n o t o n l y b e f a l s e , i t m u s t a l s o c a u s e m o n e t a r y l o s s e s a n d n o t j u s t i n j u r e d f e e l i n g s . ® 3 I n a d d i t i o n , e v e n w h e n i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e p u t a t i o n i s i n s e r i o u s j e o p a r d y , t h e c o u r t s w i l l , i n t h e w o r d s o f p r o f e s s o r D a l e G i b s o n , s e t " t h e v a l u e o f p r o t e c t i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s r e p u t a t i o n a n d p r i v a c y . . . o n t h e s c a l e s o p p o s i t e t h e i m p o r -t a n c e o f f r e e s p e e c h , b o t h t o t h e d e f e n d e n t a n d t o t h e l a r g e r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . " 9 " * M a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e i d e n t i f i e d t h e a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h o f c o n f i d e n c e a s o f f e r i n g " t h e m o s t g e n e r a l a n d p r o m i s i n g s o u r c e o f c o m m o n l a w p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o r h u r t f u l p u b l i c a t i o n o f a c c u r a t e p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . " ' s = s T h e a c t i o n p r o v i d e s p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o r r e l e a s e o f i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h h a s b e e n g i v e n i n c o n f i d e n c e . T h e r e i s s o m e d i f f i c u l t y i n v o l v e d i n e s t a b l i s h i n g w h i c h c o m m u -n i c a t i o n s m u s t b e k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l . M c L a c h l i n n o t e s t h a t , n o t o n l y m u s t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n b e g i v e n i n c o n f i d e n c e , b u t t h e p e r s o n r e c e i v i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n m u s t b e u n d e r a d u t y t o k e e p i t c o n f i d e n t i a l L a w y e r s , d o c t o r s , p s y c h o l o g i s t s , a n d o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s h a v e o f t e n b e e n s a i d t o b e u n d e r s u c h a d u t y b u t M c L a c h l i n f e e l s t h a t t h e g e n e r a l u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h o f c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l c o n t e x t i s l i m i t e d . I n c o n t r a s t t o M c L a c h l i n , G i b s o n a r g u e s t h a t a j u d i -c i a l l y e n f o r c e a b l e p r i n c i p l e i s e v o l v i n g w h i c h h o l d s t h a t " n o p e r s o n i s p e r m i t t e d t o d i v u l g e t o t h e w o r l d i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h h e h a s r e c e i v e d i n c o n f i d e n c e , u n l e s s h e h a s j u s t c a u s e o r 78 e x c u s e f o r d o i n g s o . " 3 7 . N e v e r t h e l e s s , e v e n i n t h e n a r r o w e r a r e a o f p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w h e r e , a s l e g a l s c h o l a r H . J . G l a s b e e k n o t e s , " t h e c o u r t s h a v e m a d e w i d e , s w e e p i n g s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t c o n f i d e n c e s i m p a r t e d b y . . . a d v i s e e s t o t h e i r a d v i s o r s a r e t o b e r e s p e c t e d , " t h e c o u r t s h a v e s h o w n a p e n c h a n t f o r a p p l y i n g s u c h b r o a d f o r m u l a t i o n s n a r r o w l y . ' 3 , t 3 T h u s , w h i l e t h e c o u r t s h a v e o f t e n s t a t e d t h a t d o c t o r s a r e u n d e r a l e g a l d u t y n o t t o r e v e a l p a t i e n t s ' s e c r e t s , e x c e p t i o n s h a v e o f t e n b e e n g r a n t e d , s u c h a s i n c a s e s w h e r e " d i s c l o s u r e w a s c o n d u c i v e t o t h e e n d s o f s c i e n c e . I n M c L a c h l l n ' s w o r d s , s u c h e x c e p t i o n s c a n b e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h o f c o n f i d e n c e " i s n o t a r u l e b u t r a t h e r a d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e m e d y . I n e a c h c a s e t h e c o u r t m u s t w e i g h t h e b e n e f i t s o f d i s c l o s u r e a g a i n s t t h e b e n e f i t s o f p r o t e c t i o n . " 1 0 0 T h e l a t t e r p o i n t i s o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o a r c h i v i s t s s i n c e c o m m o n w e a l t h c o u r t s h a v e h e l d t h a t t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n c a n i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m -s t a n c e s b e j u s t i f i e d b y " t h e r i g h t o f t h e p u b l i c t o b e i n f o r m e d a b o u t m a t t e r s o f h i s t o r i c a l o r c u r r e n t g o v e r n m e n t a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . " 1 0 1 T h e f i n a l a r e a o f l a w i d e n t i f i e d b y M c L a c h l i n a s p o t e n t i a l l y o f f e r i n g p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f e d u c a t i o n r e c o r d s i s t h a t o f c o n t r a c t l a w . S h e s t a t e s , i t c a n b e a r g u e d t h a t a s t u d e n t a n d a u n i v e r s i t y h a v e a c o n t r a c t i n w h i c h t h e r e i s a t e r m p r o v i d i n g t h a t h i s m a r k s a n d p o s s i b l y o t h e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n s m u s t b e h e l d i n c o n f i d e n c e b y t h e u n i v e r s i t y , u n l e s s h e o t h e r w i s e i n s t r u c t s . 1 0 : 2 T h e p r i m a r y p r o b l e m i n M c L a c h l i n ' s v i e w l i e s i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e t e r m s o f s u c h a c o n t r a c t . U n i v e r s i t y c a l e n d a r s , 79 a p p l i c a t i o n forms and o t h e r r e l e v a n t documents, from which the terms of the s t u d e n t - u n i v e r s i t y c o n t r a c t would t y p i c a l l y be d e r i v e d , do not u s u a l l y d e a l e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h the u n i v e r s i t y ' s a c c e s s and d i s c l o s u r e p o l i c i e s . Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s c o u l d a ttempt t o use the law of c o n t r a c t t o d e a l w i t h the p r i v a c y i s s u e by i n c l u d i n g i n s t u d e n t c o n t r a c t s p r e c i s e s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g p r i v a c y r i g h t s , but as of 1981, a t l e a s t , t h e y had not done s o . 1 0 3 Moreover, i t i s M c L a c h l i n ' s o p i n i o n t h a t the l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a c o n t r a c t , which i n c l u d e the s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t a promise must be g i v e n i n r e t u r n f o r s p e c i f i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a r e too narrow t o a l l o w c o n t r a c t law t o p r o v i d e g e n e r a l p r o t e c t i o n f o r p r i v a c y . 1 0 " * I n any c a s e , Canadian u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s would c l e a r l y f e e l bound by any g e n e r a l r e c o r d s p o l i c y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s . S i n c e c o n t r a c t law does not s p e c i f y the terms of a c o n t r a c t but o n l y s t i p u l a t e s t h a t any terms p r o p e r l y e s t a b l i s h e d a r e l e g a l l y b i n d i n g , the problem f o r a r c h i v i s t s i n t h i s a r e a would be the g e n e r a l one of a t t e m p t i n g t o ensure t h a t any u n i v e r s i t y r e c o r d s p o l i c y i n c l u d e a r c h i v a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . There a r e i n a d d i t i o n t o the a c t i o n s or p r i n c i p l e s c i t e d by M c L a c h l i n o t h e r a r e a s of common law which a r e of m a r g i n a l r e l e v a n c e t o the i n f o r m a t i o n a l p r i v a c y i s s u e . 1 0 = 5 F u r t h e r m o r e , a r c h i v i s t s s h o u l d of c o u r s e be aware t h a t the f a c t t h a t a common law p r i n c i p l e has not as y e t been used t o r e g u l a t e the use and d i s c l o s u r e of p e r s o n a l r e c o r d s does not mean t h a t i t w i l l never be so used. L e g a l s c h o l a r s have spoken about the " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c u n c e r t a i n t y of t o r t l a w . " l o e To a l i m i t e d degree the common law has the c a p a c i t y t o adapt t o changing 80 s o c i a l v a l u e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e O n t a r i o C o m m i s s i o n on F r e e d o m o f I n f o r m a t i o n a n d I n d i v i d u a l P r i v a c y i n e x a m i n i n g t h e common l a w c o n c l u d e d t h a t f o r p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n s i t was n o t l i k e l y t o p r o v i d e a n e f f e c t i v e means o f r e g u l a t i n g r e c o r d -k e e p i n g p r a c t i c e s s i n c e , f o r e x a m p l e , a n y c o u r t a c t i o n w o u l d be e x p e n s i v e a n d w o u l d s i m p l y e x a c e r b a t e a n y l o s s o f p r i v a c y w h i c h had o c c u r r e d . 1 0 7 . The common l a w t h e r e f o r e seems t o be o f l i m i t e d u s e e i t h e r t o s t u d e n t s s e e k i n g l e g a l p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t l o s s o f p r i v a c y o r t o a r c h i v i s t s s e e k i n g g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f f a i r a n d l e g a l l y s o u n d a c c e s s p o l i c i e s . M c L a c h l i n c o n c l u d e s h e r a n a l y s i s o f t h e common l a w w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t : R e s p e c t i n g p r o t e c t i o n o f c o n f i d e n t i a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , t h e E n g l i s h l e g a l s y s t e m ' s t r a d i t i o n a l ways o f d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p r o b l e m do n o t o f f e r g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l c o n t e x t . T h e y p o i n t t o no c l e a r p r i n c i p l e w h i c h c a n be u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r p a r t i c u l a r c o m m u n i c a t i o n s s h o u l d o r w i l l be p r o t e c t e d f r o m d i s c l o s u r e . 1 0 0 I t s h o u l d p e r h a p s be n o t e d t h a t M c L a c h l i n ' s a n a l y s i s b o t h o f s t a t u t o r y l a w a n d common l a w f o c u s e s on t h e l a w s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h o s e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w h i c h m o s t c o m m o n l y a r e made t o a n d w i t h i n u n i v e r s i t i e s . The a b o v e a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t common l a w p r i n c i p l e s i d e n t i f i e d b y M c L a c h l i n a s h a v i n g l i m i t e d r e l e v a n c e f o r m o s t u n i v e r s i t y r e c o r d s may h a v e somewha t more r e l e v a n c e t o t h o s e c l a s s e s o f r e c o r d s c o n t a i n i n g m e d i c a l o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , a l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e no p r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e s r e g u l a t i n g u n i v e r s i t y r e c o r d s i n g e n e r a l , t h e r e a r e n u m e r o u s p r o v i s i o n s s c a t t e r e d t h r o u g h o u t p r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e s w h i c h a d d r e s s t h e u s e o f h e a l t h i n f o r m a -t i o n . T h e s e p r o v i s i o n s may d e a l w i t h h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e , 81 cert a i n categories of health i n s t i t u t i o n s , certain diseases, and various other matters pertaining to physical or mental health r e c o r d s . 1 0 3 It w i l l not be possible for t h i s study to determine which, i f any, statutes apply to student records maintained by health care i n s t i t u t i o n s on u n i v e r s i t y campuses or to health information maintained by university admissions, r e g i s t r a r s , and counselling o f f i c e s . However, i t can be noted that, i f the Ontario l e g i s l a t i v e scene is any guide, the ex i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n exhibits "no consistent treatment or coherent p o l i c y regarding the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of health i n f o r m a t i o n . 1 , 1 1 0 It has long been accepted that physicians have an e t h i c a l duty to respect the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of patient information and t h i s duty has spread to other health care professionals such as p s y c h i a t r i s t s and psychologists. With respect to psychologists, however, exis t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , in Ontario at least, does not impose a statutory obligation to preserve the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of patient i n f o r m a t i o n , 1 1 1 and the psychology profession's l i t e r a t u r e reveals a certain degree of confusion over which legal r e s t r i c t i o n s exist in Canada regarding the disclosure of patient i n f o r m a t i o n . 1 1 3 Furthermore, as legal scholars Lome Rozovsky and Fay Rozovsky have revealed in their recent comprehensive study of Canadian health l e g i s l a t i o n , while a number of p r o v i n c i a l statutes s t i p u l a t e that health record information is not to be disclosed without the consent of the patient, these statutes usually include a l i s t of exceptions to the general r u l e . 1 1 3 In p a r t i c u l a r , the statutes often provide for research access 82 to health records, although the conditions under which access is to be permitted are not consistent from statute to statute. 1 1** It i s thus doubtful whether a r c h i v i s t s could find many consistent standards in Canadian law for the disclosure of health information. In conclusion, therefore, Canadian university a r c h i v i s t s seeking to develop or recommend student records access p o l i c i e s are u n l i k e l y to find many concrete guidelines or "policy l i m i t s " in Canadian law other than such obvious ones as not releasing openly libelous material. It i s s i g n i f i c a n t that while the Commonwealth courts have shown themselves w i l l i n g to uphold the right of the individual to keep ce r t a i n communications c o n f i d e n t i a l , they have also been w i l l i n g to override that right when i t c o n f l i c t s with other s o c i e t a l values. The l a t t e r fact could perhaps be used to support an argument that an abs o l u t i s t approach to privacy would be inappropriate in Canadian society. In any case, i t is clear that, given the organic and complex nature of the law in Canada, univer s i t y a r c h i v i s t s should seek assistance from the i r i n s t i t u t i o n s ' legal counsels in order to conduct periodic reviews of the legal provisions which might apply to the student records maintained by their i n s t i t u t i o n s . Of course, while i t is necessary to review the legal provisions applicable to university record-keeping and the measures proposed for the protection of privacy in the general privacy l i t e r a t u r e , such a review i s not s u f f i c i e n t . If sound p o l i c i e s are to be developed, i t w i l l also be necessary to examine the environment in which the p o l i c i e s are to be administered. Accordingly, a r c h i v i s t s need to ask how the creators of student records within u n i v e r s i t i e s have dealt with the privacy issue. It is th i s question which the following chapter addresses. 84 NOTES Robert S. Laufer and Maxine Wolfe, "Conceptions of Privacy: Current Status and Next Steps," Journal of Social  Issues 33 (Summer 1977): 6, 17. 3John M. C a r r o l l et a l . , Personal Records: Procedures,  Practices, and Problems: A Study for the Privacy and Computers  Task Force (Ottawa: Department of Communications and Department of Justice, 1971), p. 12; The most useful survey of recent attempts to define privacy can be found in Arthur Schafer, "Privacy: A Philosophical Overview," in Aspects of  Privacy Law: Essays in Honour of John M. Sharp, ed. Dale Gibson (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980), pp. 1-20. 3 C a r r o l l et a l . , Personal Records, pp. 17, 34; Ontario. Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, Public Government for Private People: Vol. 3, Protection of  Privacy (Toronto: Ministry of Government Services, 1980), p. 495. **Judith S. Rowe, "Privacy L e g i s l a t i o n : Implications for A r c h i v i s t s , " in A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records:  Proceedings of the Conference on Archival Management of  Machine-Readable Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor,  Michigan, eds. Carolyn L. Geda, Erik W. Austin, Francis X. Blouin J r . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980), p. 195. =SK. M. Hussain, "Privacy of Data in Education," Computers and Education 3-4 (1979-80): 63-64. sTwo early American works were p a r t i c u l a r l y i n f l u e n c i a l : Vance Packard, The Naked Society (New York: McKay, 1964); Myron Brenton, The Privacy Invaders (New York: Coward-McKann, 1964). ''David H. Flaherty, Privacy and Government Data  Banks: An International Perspective (London: Mansell Publishing, 1979), p. 19; A useful guide to the privacy l i t e r a t u r e is provided by Laurel Murdoch, Jane Paterson and Judith Smith, Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy: A  Selective Bibliography (Toronto: Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, 1978). °Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (New York: Atheneum, 1967), p. 7. 3Schafer, "A Philosophical Overview," p. 15. 1 0Westin, Privacy and Freedom, p. 38; For a detailed examination of the value of privacy in interpersonal relations see Charles Fried, An Anatomy of Values: Problems of Personal  and Social Choice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970). 85 1 1Westin / Privacy and Freedom, pp. 32-42. i a I b i d . , p. 33. 1 = >Commission on Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy, Protection of Privacy, p. 502; For a detailed analysis of this thesis see James B. Rule, Private Lives and  Public Surveillance (New York: Schocken, 1974). 1-*James Rule et a l . , The P o l i t i c s of Privacy;  Planning for Personal Data as Powerful Technologies (New York: Elsev i e r North Holland, 1980). l s sSchafer, "Philosophical Overview," pp. 18-19. 1 &George B. Trulow, "The Development and Status of Informational Privacy Law and P o l i c y in the United States," in Invited Papers on Privacy : Law, Ethics, and Technology;  Presented at the National Symposium on Personal Privacy and  Information Technology, October 4-7, 1981, Sponsored by the American Bar Association. Section of Individual Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , Committee on Privacy, and American Federation of Information Processing Societies. Special Committee on the Right to Privacy (Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, 1982), p. 1; Report of the Commission on Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy, Protection of Privacy, pp. 507-10. 1 7Westin, Privacy and Freedom, pp. 22, 29. 1 6 a I b i d . , p. 25. 1 , 3 I b i d . , p. 370. a : 0U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens (Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1973). 2 1 I b i d . , p. 41. " P r i v a c y Act, 5 U.S.C., sec. 552(a) (1974). a 3Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy in an Information Society (Washington, D.C: Government Prin t i n g O f f i c e , 1977), p. xv. ^ R u l e et a l . , The P o l i t i c s of Privacy, p. 105. ^Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy, p. 502. = 6 R u l e et a l . , The P o l i t i c s of Privacy, p. 112; For a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t formulation of these widely accepted p r i n c i p l e s see Hussain, "Data in Education," pp. 64-65. 86 ^Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C., 552 (1966). a e 5 U.S.C., 552 A(b) (5)(b). 2 - ! ,Flaherty, Privacy and Government Data Banks, p. 179. 3°5 U.S.C., 552 A(b) (5)(b). 3 1Report of the Privacy Protection Committee, Protection  of Privacy, p. 568. 3 a I b i d . , p. 572. 3 3 I b i d . 3"*Ibid., pp. 568, 573. 3=Ibid., p. 573. 3 < 5 I b i d . , p. 586. 3 7'Ibid., p. 597. 3 BSee for example; Alberta. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. Special Committee on Invasion of Privacy, A Report to the Alberta Legislature (Edmonton: n.p., 1970); Ontario. Law Reform Commission, Report on the Protection of Privacy in  Ontario (Toronto: Department of the Attorney General, 1968). 3 S P r i v a c y Act, S.B.C. 1968, c. 39; Privacy Act, S.M. 1970, c. 74; Privacy Act, S.S. 1974, c. 80. "*°This interpretation of the acts is advanced in Commission on Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy, Protection of Privacy, p. 636. •^Protection of Privacy Act, S.C. 1973-1974, c. 50. "*2The Consumer Reporting Act, S.O. 1973, c. 97; The Schools Administration Act, S.O. 1972, c. 77. "*aSee in p a r t i c u l a r , Report of A Task Force Established J o i n t l y by the Department of Communications and the Department of Justice, Privacy and Computers (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1972). "***Ontario. Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, Public Government for Private People, 3 Vols. (Toronto: Ministry of Government Services, 1980). ** =Ontario. Comission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, Public Government for Private People:  Vol. 2, Freedom of Information (Toronto: Ministry of Government Services, 1980), pp. 324-77. 87 "* sIbid., p. 366. "* 7Ibid., p. 337. 4 B A n overview of records l e g i s l a t i o n i n i t i a t i v e s can be found in Thomas J. Babcock, "Freedom of Information in Ontario: To Be or Not to Be?," in Canada's New Access Laws:  Public and Personal Access to Governmental Documents, ed. Donald C. Rowat (Ottawa: Carleton University, 1983), pp. 119-45. "^Report of a Task Force Established J o i n t l y by the Department of Communications and Department of Justice, Privacy and Computers (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1972), p. 13. ^Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 33. = s l B i l l C-43, An Act to Enact the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, to Amend the Federal Court Act and Canada Evidence Act and to Amend Certain Other Acts in Consequence Thereof, S.C. 1980-81-82; For differences between Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Privacy Act see Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, Interim Po l i c y  Guide: Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1983). S 2 A n overview of the Privacy Act's impact on the Public Archives of Canada i s provided in Robert J. Hayward, "Federal Access and Privacy L e g i s l a t i o n and the Public Archives of Canada," Archivar ia 18 (Summer 1984 ): 47-57. = 3 P u b l i c Archives of Canada, "Guidelines for the Disclosure of Personal Information for H i s t o r i c a l Research at the Public Archives of Canada" (Ottawa, 1984), Appendix II I , p. 13 . 56 a"*Treasury Board, Interim Po l i c y Guide, Appendix II I , p. a , s I b i d . , Appendix I I I , p. 2. = f iIbid, Appendix III, p. 57. ""Interestingly, the Public Archives has chosen to consider this test even when requests are made under clause 8(2)j of the Privacy Act. Public Archives of Canada, "Guidelines for the Disclosure of Personal Information," pp. 3-4. = eIbid., p. 14. =5**Hayward, "Federal Access and Privacy L e g i s l a t i o n , " pp. 54-55. 88 s o R u l e et a l . , The P o l i t i c s of Privacy, p. 7. s l I b i d . , p. 18. & S :Schafer, "Philosophical Overview," p. 17. S 3Report of a Task Force Established J o i n t l y by the Department of Communications and Department of Justice, Privacy and Computers, p. 14. s"*Schafer, "Philosophical Overview," p. 17. s s sRobert F. Boruch and Joe S. C e c i l , Assuring the  C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Social Research Data (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), p. 13. & s F a m i l y Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C., Sec. 1232(g) (Supp. IV, 1974). This Act, also c i t e d as "the Buckley Amendment," i s examined in d e t a i l in Steven N. Schatken, "Student Records at Institutions of Post-Secondary Education: Selected Issues under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974," Journal of College and University Law 4 (Winter 1976): 147-66. ^Subcommittee on Student Records. Society of American Ar c h i v i s t s College and University Archives Committee, "The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Research Use of Student Records," in College and University Archives:  Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), p. 177. G S I b i d . ^ I b i d . , pp. 178-79. ^'Comments on the impact of American privacy l e g i s l a t i o n on archival i n s t i t u t i o n s can be found i n : Charles B. Elston, "University Student Records: Researh Use, Privacy Rights and the Buckley Law," in College and University Archives:  Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), pp. 68-79;Rowe, "Privacy L e g i s l a t i o n , " pp. 193-203. '"-•Peter M. L e s l i e , Canadian U n i v e r s i t i e s : 1980 and  Beyond: Enrolment, Structural Change and Finance (Ottawa: Association of Un i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges of Canada, 1980), p. 369 . -^"'G. H. L. Fridman, " J u d i c i a l Intervention into University A f f a i r s , " Chitty's Law Journal 21 (June 1973): 181. 7 - : 3Clive B. Lewis, "The Legal Nature of a University and the Student-University Relationship," Ottawa Law Review 15 (1983): 250. 89 ^"•Universities Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 419, s. 61 (1). 7"=sBruce Dunlop, "Tort L i a b i l i t y of the University," in Univ e r s i t i e s and the Law, ed. Paul Thomas (Winnipeg: Legal Research Institute of the University of Manitoba, 1975), p. 87. 7 CS.B.C. 1976, c. 39; S.M. 1970, c. 74; S.S. 1974, c. 80 . ^ P h i l i p H. Osborne, "The Privacy Acts of B r i t i s h Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan," in Aspects of Privacy  Law: Essays in Honour of John M. Sharp, ed. Dale Gibson (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980), p. 110. 7'eS.M. 1970, c. 74, s. 3(d); S.S. 1974, c. 80, s. 3(d). ^ D a l e Gibson, "Common Law Protection of Privacy: What to Do U n t i l the Legislators Arrive," in Studies in Canadian  Tort Law, ed. Lewis Klar (Toronto: Butterworths, 1977), p. 345. °°This case involved the use of elect r o n i c surveillance. Michael Brown, Brenda B i l l i n g s l e y , and Rebecca Shamai, Privacy  and Personal Data Protection: A Report on Personal Record- Keeping by the Mi n i s t r i e s and Agencies of the Ontario Govern- ment (Toronto: Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, 1980), p. 98. ratOsborne, "The Privacy Acts," pp. 74-75. B SBrown, B i l l i n g s l e y , and Shamai, Privacy and Personal  Data Protection, p. 16. s 3 B e v e r l e y M. McLachlin, "Educational Records and the Right to Privacy," U.B.C. Law Review 15 (1981): 188. e"*Peter Burns, "Privacy and the Common Law: A Tangled Skein Unravelling?, 1 1 in Aspects of Privacy Law: Essays in  Honour of John M. Sharp, ed. Dale Gibson (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980), p. 122. e = sHugh Lawford, "Privacy Versus Freedom of Information," Queen's Quarterly 78 (Autumn 1971): 366. a &McLachlin, "Educational Records," pp. 177-78. S 7 F o r a recent discussion of copyright law see David Walden, "The Canadian A r c h i v i s t and Copyright L e g i s l a t i o n , " Archivaria 18 (Summer 1980): 84-90. a aMcLachlin, "Educational Records," pp. 177-78. rasIbid., p. 179. 90 •""'Ibid., p. 180. 9Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, Protection of Privacy, p. 654. •^McLachlin, "Educational Records," p. 182. "^Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, Protection of Privacy, p. 654. •"^Gibson, "Common Law Protection of Privacy," p. 363. 9e»Ibid., p. 363. ^McLachlin, "Educational Records," p. 182. ^Gibson, "Common Law Protection of Privacy," p. 363. *"3H. J. Glasbeek, "Limitations on the Action of Breach of Confidence," in Aspects of Privacy Law: Essays in Honour of  John M. Sharp, ed. Dale Gibson (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980), pp. 248, 252. " I b i d . , p. 252. 1 0 0 M c L a c h l i n , "Educational Records," p. 181. 1 0 1 G i b s o n , "Common Law Protection of Privacy," p. 372. 1 0 : = :McLachlin, "Educational Records," p. 183. 1 0 3 I b i d . 1 0"*Ibid. A more detailed discussion of the applica-b i l i t y of contract law in general to Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s can be found in Lewis, "The Legal Nature of a University," pp. 254-60. 1 0 = 5See in p a r t i c u l a r , J. S. Williams, Legal Protection  of Privacy: A Study by the Privacy and Computers Task Force (Ottawa: Department of Communications and Department of Justice, 1973), pp. 14-22; and, Commission on Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy, Protection of Privacy, p. 654 . l o s G i b s o n , "Common Law Protection of Privacy," p. 372. '•'^Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, Protection of Privacy, p. 656. l o e M c L a c h l i n , "Educational Records," p. 184. 1 0 - 3Lorne E l k i n Rozovsky and Fay Adrienne Rozovsky, The  Canadian Law of Patient Records (Toronto: Butterworths, 1984) . 91 1 l p R e p o r t of the Commission of Inquiry into the  C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Health Information, Vol. 1 (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1980), p. 55. t l l I b i d . , pp. 56, 82. 1 1 2"Psychology and the Law: A Symposium," Canadian  Psychology 11 (January 1970): 6-7; Larry Eberlein, "Legal Duty and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Psychologists: Tarasoff and Haines," Canadian Psychology 21 (January 1980): 49-55. t l 3Rozovsky and Rozovsky, Canadian Law of Patient  Records, pp. 164-87. 1 1 4 I b i d . 92 CHAPTER IV PRIVACY AND STUDENT RECORDS: THE ADMINISTRATIVE VIEWPOINT University a r c h i v i s t s , l i k e a l l i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r c h i v i s t s , work not in a s o c i a l vacuum but rather within an organization which has a p a r t i c u l a r administrative structure and culture. The administrative structure of the u n i v e r s i t y — t h e manner in which power i s d i s t r i b u t e d , decisions are made, and c o n f l i c t s are r e s o l v e d — n a t u r a l l y tend to a f f e c t the structure of p o l i c i e s adopted by the i n s t i t u t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , the general s o c i a l outlook or culture of the university community, as well as the values and perceptions of individual members of that community, need to be reflected in a general records p o l i c y i f that p o l i c y is to receive broad approval. It w i l l therefore be useful to examine how u n i v e r s i t i e s as i n s t i t u t i o n s have responded to the privacy issue. It w i l l also be instructive to examine some of the e t h i c a l codes and guidelines developed by organizations representing university o f f i c i a l s and faculty members. Because of the paucity of available Canadian source material, t h i s chapter draws on the American l i t e r a t u r e . Also, to compensate for the lack of Canadian l i t e r a t u r e , the results of t h i s study's 1985 survey of u n i v e r s i t y archives w i l l be used to provide an overview of some of the s p e c i f i c guidelines governing the operations of student records systems 93 in Canada. American educators and university administrators were in fact among the f i r s t groups to respond to the emergence of privacy as an issue of public concern in the 1960s. During the years following the the Second World War the United States saw a trend towards the increased use of student f i l e s for noneducational purposes by various commercial and federal government agencies. 1 Growing unease within u n i v e r s i t i e s over the release of student records to outside agencies f i n a l l y c r y s t a l i z e d in 1966 when the federal House Un-American A c t i v i t i e s Committee demanded and received from two univer-s i t i e s the membership l i s t s of campus organizations opposing the United State's involvement in Vietnam. Following the release of these membership l i s t s , the American Council on Education (ACE) in 1967 issued a statement urging colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s to adopt clear p o l i c i e s on the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of student records. 2 In the same year, eleven national educa-t i o n a l organizations participated in a conference that lead to the d r a f t i n g of a "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students" which also advocated the adoption of sound records p o l i c i e s . 3 The statements of 1967 prompted many university adminis-trators to recognize both that they had not f u l l y realized the extent of the records under their care and that p o l i c i e s regarding the maintenance and use of these records had often not been clear.** As a r e s u l t , in the late 1960s and early 1970s surveys were undertaken to determine the nature of exi s t i n g administrative practices and p o l i c i e s . 5 5 The topic of 9 4 privacy and student records was also addressed by individual professionals or professional working groups in journals devoted to the concerns of admissions o f f i c e r s , r e g i s t r a r s , counsellors, and other university administrative personnel. 6 In addition, several major u n i v e r s i t i e s reviewed their record-keeping practices. In 1968, for instance, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology formed an Ad Hoc Committee on Privacy of Information. The Committee, aided by Professor Alan Westin, submitted i t s f i n a l report in 1970. 7 S i m i l a r l y , in 1969 Stanford University established a Committee on Protection of Information which tabled i t s report in 1972. s The early 1970s also saw the publication of several national studies of record-keeping problems at a l l levels of the American education system. One of these studies was conducted by the Russell Sage Foundation which held a conference in 1972 on record-keeping p o l i c i e s in higher education. The Conference participants included Alan Westin, the Chairmen of the MIT and Stanford Privacy Committees, and representatives from the f i e l d s of history, sociology, and psychology as well as from a number of u n i v e r s i t y adminis-t r a t i v e offices.* 3 Two years l a t e r , the National Council of Citizens in Education published a study documenting a variety of abuses in elementary and secondary school record-keeping, including the provision of open access to student records for school personnel and government agencies, and the widespread denial of access to students and p a r e n t s . 1 0 It was t h i s report which provided the primary stimulus for the passage of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) in 1974. 95 Although FERPA was o r i g i n a l l y intended to address problems in primary and secondary education, i t was extended to cover post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s as w e l l . 1 1 As a re s u l t , American u n i v e r s i t i e s were required after 1974 to formulate p o l i c i e s s p e c i f i y i n g procedures for providing students with the access and correction rights outlined in FERPA. 1 2 The experiences of i n s t i t u t i o n s in implementing the l e g i s l a t i o n , as well as perceived shortcomings in the l e g i s l a t i o n i t s e l f , were subsequently examined in the 1977 report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission (PPSC). Both FERPA and the PPSC report compelled American u n i v e r s i t i e s to examine the issue of privacy and student records. Consequently, since the mid-1970s a second wave of a r t i c l e s and proposed guidelines have appeared documenting the s p e c i f i c concerns of professional groups within u n i v e r s i t i e s , including r e g i s t r a r s , psycholo-g i s t s , counsellors, and a r c h i v i s t s . Throughout the period under examination, most of the proposed or adopted unive r s i t y records p o l i c i e s b a s i c a l l y sought to promote procedural reforms similar to those adopted in government records systems. That i s , these p o l i c i e s attempted to e s t a b l i s h records p o l i c i e s which would noti f y students of the existence of various records systems, provide students with the right to view and correct records, and s t r i c t l y l i m i t the conditions under which personal information can be disclosed without the consent of the records subjects. Some of the guidelines present in the records p o l i c i e s of American u n i v e r s i t i e s are indicative of factors related to the administrative structure or culture of the i n s t i t u t i o n s . 96 However, since FERPA in ef f e c t imposed p o l i c y guidelines upon American u n i v e r s i t i e s without seeking their input, i t i s necessary to examine p o l i c i e s developed prior to 1974 in order to obtain an accurate sense of the views of American univer-s i t y administratators—views l i k e l y to be shared by univer s i t y administrators in Canada. Returning b r i e f l y to the question of the reasons for protecting privacy, i t is evident that from the 1967 statement of the ACE onwards, higher education p o l i c y documents tend to emphasize the role of privacy in preserving individual freedom and the need, in the words of the ACE, "to protect... students from unwarranted intrusion into their l i v e s . " 1 3 The emphasis on preserving individual autonomy i s hardly surprising given the nature of the student-university relationship and the goals of u n i v e r s i t i e s . Clearly, many students enter univer-s i t y with the expectation of f a c i l i t a t i n g their career plans. They know their performance w i l l be evaluated by others and may s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t their a b i l i t y to enter into future s o c i a l and economic a c t i v i t i e s . 1 * * University administrators such as George K. Brown have long been aware that many colleges, businesses and governmental agencies tend to interpret adversely a student record that shows academic or personal variations from an imaginary or preconceived norm. 1 5 5 It has been noted as well that information contained in student records, including subjective evaluations and possible factual errors, can follow students throughout their l i v e s . 1 6 University administrators have thus come to recognize that the a b i l i t y of students to control the disclosure of their 97 r e c o r d s - - p a r t i c u l a r l y to decision makers--is d i r e c t l y related to their a b i l i t y to control their own l i v e s . The willingness of u n i v e r s i t i e s to enact p o l i c i e s requiring student consent prior to most releases of personal information stems not only from a commitment to uphold the freedom and d i g n i t y of the individual but also from a recognition of privacy's psychological r o l e . A primary goal of u n i v e r s i t i e s , as expressed by organizations such as the Association of Colleges and U n i v e r s i t i e s of Canada, is to provide for the exploration of "the widest range of dissident opinion" as part of an e f f o r t to promote "freedom of inquiry and speech." 1 7 - University statements such as that of the MIT Privacy Committee contend that " i n t e l l e c t u a l debate can only be carried out in an atmosphere free of later r e t r i b u t i o n or of penalty for views expressed." 1 3 The MIT Committee further argued that because free inquiry requires the existence of a relationship of trust between a student and his or her professors, student-professor communications should be "immune from detailed reporting unless both parties consent." 1 3 Indeed, a 1971 survey of university records p o l i c i e s revealed that such p o l i c i e s often stated that whenever a student provides information to a university, a r e l a t i o n s h i p of trust and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y is established which is essential to the educational p r o c e s s . 3 0 Records p o l i c y statements from the period under consid-eration thus indicate that university administrators have based their arguments for protecting student privacy largely on u t i l i t a r i a n grounds. One could therefore speculate that at 98 least some administrators would be receptive to the argument that research uses of student records need not represent an excessive invasion of privacy i f such uses do not expose records to decision makers. However, while government p o l i c i e s have tended to emphasize controls on the use of records, u n i v e r s i t y p o l i c i e s have also stressed the need to l i m i t the c o l l e c t i o n and retention of personal information. With regards to the c o l l e c t i o n of information, both the MIT and Stanford Privacy Committees stated that information should only be coll e c t e d for s p e c i f i c , c l e a r l y defined purposes. 3 1 1 MIT, along with other i n s t i t u t i o n s , has also stated that u n i v e r s i t i e s have an obligation to ensure that students are not subtly coerced into providing information. 3 1 2 Furthermore, in order to guard against charges of discrimina-tion and the improper use of student records by federal government agencies, many u n i v e r s i t i e s began after the late 1960s to l i m i t or bar the c o l l e c t i o n of s p e c i f i c types of information such as the race, r e l i g i o n , and p o l i t i c a l or s o c i a l views and associations of s t u d e n t s . 2 3 Older records containing such information may therefore be perceived by administrators as being p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i v e . The issue of record s e n s i t i v i t y i s addressed in several univ e r s i t y p o l i c y statements, e s p e c i a l l y in those sections of the p o l i c i e s dealing with the maintenance and retention of records. The fact that records s e n s i t i v i t y i s a r e l a t i v e concept was strongly emphasized by the Russell Sage Foundation report: The s e n s i t i v i t y of any pa r t i c u l a r data may change over 99 time. Moreover, i t may depend on the feelings of the students concerned, t h e i r background, culture, or other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Therefore, in establishing p o l i c i e s for record maintenance and retention, i n s t i t u t i o n s should recognize that categorizations of student data based on the p r i n c i p l e s of s e n s i t i v i t y are inherently inaccurate. 2"* Nevertheless, the report argued that "as a general p r i n c i p l e , i t should be recognized that d i f f e r e n t types of data may require d i f f e r e n t procedures for maintenance, retention, and access." 2 5 5 The report suggested that changing perceptions of record s e n s i t i v i t y could be accommodated by subjecting records p o l i c i e s to periodic review and modification. Indeed, while other reports such as that of the MIT Privacy Committee also noted the d i f f i c u l t y of c l a s s i f y i n g records according to s e n s i t i v i t y , 2 & most of the American unive r s i t y records p o l i c i e s developed in the early 1970s stressed that in order to permit the application of separate c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y p o l i c i e s , "academic, d i s c i p l i n a r y , f i n a n c i a l , medical, psychological, counseling and placement f i l e s must a l l be kept separately." 2 7" In fact, much of the concern voiced by university privacy committees over the growing trend in recent years towards maintaining student information in computerized data f i l e s , can be attributed to a fear that the creation of central data f i l e s would hinder e f f o r t s to apply specialized access r e s t r i c t i o n s to records previously stored separately in manual systems. 2 1 3 Furthermore, when separate f i l e s are centralized in a computer system, they become manipulable and may in p r a c t i c a l terms be able to provide more personal information than manual f i l e s . 2 - 3 Computers, i t is argued, 100 also make i t c o s t - e f f e c t i v e to increase both the amount of information stored in a system and the retention periods for that i n f o r m a t i o n . 3 0 F i n a l l y , by using remote access terminals, computerized systems increase the number of points at which student records can be viewed. 3 1 However, with respect to privacy concerns, differences between computerized and manual records systems are largely those of degree rather than k i n d . 3 2 2 To a large extent, the use of computers only increases the potential for privacy invasion present in any personal records system. Thus, many of the early u n i v e r s i t y p o l i c y statements simply advocated that p r i n c i p l e s proposed for protecting record subject privacy be applied with p a r t i c u l a r care when automated f i l e s were i n v o l v e d . 3 3 As a r c h i v i s t V i r g i n i a Stewart states, whether the data is recorded on typed pages in f i l e s or magnetic impressions on tape, the problems of privacy are conceptually the same. Someone must delineate p o l i c y on access to and acceptable uses of data which exists in record systems.3** Whereas the concept of privacy protection encompasses discussions regarding the disclosure of information, the term information security refers to the technical and procedural means for enforcing privacy decisions--for the protection of information from unauthorized use or d e s t r u c t i o n . 3 5 5 When records are computerized the problem of providing security becomes complicated since physical protection i s required for computer hardware, • software, and storage media.3*5 Security must also be provided for the data stored within a system, through the use of procedures for access control and user i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , data scrambling, and threat monitoring. 3 7 . Issues pertaining to informational security l i e outside the scope of t h i s thesis. It i s s u f f i c i e n t to note that the design of computer databases and security systems w i l l be an issue of concern to future university a r c h i v i s t s . Systems can be designed so as to " c l a s s i f y the data base to the data element l e v e l and control access to that same element." 3 0 Just as a sound records c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system enables a r c h i v i s t s to i d e n t i f y valuable series of records and schedule those records for transfer to the archives, so a sound c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n system would f a c i l i t a t e the quick i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and control of sensitive information in university records. Moving from the issue of the maintenance of student records to that of retention periods for such records, i t is clear that many univer s i t y administrators have seen the destruction of sensitive personal records as an appropriate means of protecting privacy. In reviewing ex i s t i n g records p o l i c i e s in the early 1970s, many administrators and other commentators concluded that the greatest problem in student records systems was the fact that student records were retained too l o n g . 3 3 At least one administrator exhibited what has been termed as an aesthetic conception of privacy by arguing that the mere presence of certa i n subjective student records represented an "incursion into the rights and dignity of individuals."** 0 Others simply argued that only through the destruction of a personal record could u n i v e r s i t i e s guarantee that the record would not be improperly disclosed.** 1 In any case, many records p o l i c i e s , as well as the Russell Sage Foundation guidelines, stated that as a general p r i n c i p l e 102 personal records should be reviewed p e r i o d i c a l l y and should be destroyed unless their continuing usefulness could be c l e a r l y demonstrated.**-2 Record s e n s i t i v i t y was expressly i d e n t i f i e d in some p o l i c i e s as constituting a major factor to be weighed in establishing appropriate retention periods."* 3 It is encouraging that at least some studies such as the Russell Sage Foundation report and the report of the MIT Privacy Committee addressed a r c h i v a l issues. The former, for instance, stated that "due consideration should be given to the needs of the a r c h i v i s t " when retention periods are established for student records, while the l a t t e r stressed that the appropriateness of tra n s f e r r i n g sensitive records of contin-uing value to the univer s i t y archives should be recognized.**"* Nevertheless, the b e l i e f of some university administrators that records destruction is a v a l i d method of protecting privacy may lead to the loss of valuable records. While records destruction has been c i t e d as a means of maintaining the long-term c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of certain classes of sensitve records, university administrators have of course also addressed the central question of which types of access are to be permitted to those records which are maintained. Prior to 1974 uni v e r s i t y p o l i c i e s t y p i c a l l y provided students with the right of access to their own records, although exceptions to t h i s right were often made for l e t t e r s of recommendation and for certain medical and counselling records."* 5 5 The records p o l i c i e s also stated that within the univers i t y access to student records was to be granted to those administrators and faculty members having a legitimate 103 and demonstrable need for the information concerned."*& University administrators have often argued that the misuse of student records arises primarily out of the release of records to "unqualified persons, n"*"T and that "the matter of interpre-tation appears to be the crux" of the records disclosure issue."* s There i s a great emphasis on legitimate authority and proper q u a l i f i c a t i o n s within u n i v e r s i t i e s . It has been observed that faculty members in p a r t i c u l a r are highly "status conscious.""*'31 Records creators within the university therefore tend to withhold access to their f i l e s from persons perceived to be unable to interpret them properly and i n s i s t , in the words of the Stanford Privacy Committee, that " t h i r d -party uses of information should be consistent with the degree of privacy established by the person who o r i g i n a l l y c o l l e c t e d the information." 2 5 0 Consequently, as American a r c h i v i s t C l i f f o r d Shipton notes, "some university a r c h i v i s t s have found that their most serious problem is that of convincing the administrative o f f i c e s that they can be entrusted with co n f i d e n t i a l f i l e s . " 5 5 1 Given the emphasis of administrators on proper q u a l i f i -cations and the widespread recognition that the improper release of records to employers and government agencies could s e r i o u s l y harm a student's interests, i t is not surprising that university p o l i c i e s have greatly r e s t r i c t e d the release of student information outside the university. Specific guidelines vary but p o l i c i e s such as those recommended in the reports of the MIT Privacy Committee and the Russell Sage Foundation s t i p u l a t e that as a general rule no information may 104 be released to t h i r d parties without the consent of the record s u b j e c t . = a : Exceptions are provided for the release of certain limited classes of public information (name, major, period of attendance, and so on) and for the release of information in response to an emergency or a court subpoena. 5 5 3 One might expect that the emphasis of u n i v e r s i t i e s on' free inquiry would have also led university administrators to relax r e s t r i c t i o n s on the disclosure of student information in the case of access requests by researchers. Indeed, the 1967 statement of the American Council on Education stipulated that, while the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of individual student records was paramount, i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c y should pay proper respect to the interests of research and scholarship to insure that the freedom of inquiry i s not abridged. Neither investigators seeking generalizable knowledge about the educational enterprise, historians examining the background of a deceased alumnus who became a public-a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t figure, nor other legitimate scholars should be unduly r e s t r i c t e d in their pursuits. 3"* In addition, the MIT Privacy Committee s p e c i f i c a l l y c i ted the need to balance privacy with the "right to know" and stated in p a r t i c u l a r that the needs of the archives should not be overlooked in the rush to protect privacy. The Committee argued that the a r c h i v i s t s should " i n making materials a v a i l a b l e . . . bear r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for exercising such control as w i l l avoid, to the extent practicable, jeopardizing the legitimate concern for privacy of i n d i v i d u a l s . " " 3 3 Moreover, at least one academic commentator writing at the same time as the MIT Committee proposed s p e c i f i c guidelines for research similar to those later proposed in government p o l i c i e s . 3 6 105 S p e c i f i c , a l b e i t less f l e x i b l e , research guidelines were also proposed by the American National Education Association which, in i t s Code of Student Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (1971), stated that the records of high school or college students could be disclosed for research purposes without the consent of the records subjects provided that a l l i d e n t i f i e r s were removed. 8 7 Nevertheless, the proposal of s p e c i f i c guidelines for balancing research needs with privacy rights may have been the exception rather than the rule among pre-1974 university p o l i c i e s or even among the writings of administrators. Some published p o l i c y statements prepared by administrators and educators did not mention the research use of student records at a l l . = e Other statements prepared by i n s t i t u t i o n s s t r i c t l y limited research access to student records and allowed the disclosure of aggregated information only. 5 5 9 Since there has been only limited use of student records by scholars, i t might be that many univer s i t y administrators may not have f e l t the need to formulate research guidelines. Also, since most i n s t i t u t i o n a l administrative researchers have r e l i e d on s t a t i s t i c a l information, many of those administrators who did address the research issue may have believed that the provision of aggregated student data was s u f f i c i e n t to s a t i s f y research needs. University administrators may f e e l that i t is necessary to balance privacy with competing interests and yet not believe or simply not consider that the re a l or potential demand of researchers for access to the records of individual students constitutes a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t . ' 3 0 106 Furthermore, the fact that i t is d i f f i c u l t to find university-wide p o l i c i e s containing guidelines for providing researchers with access to student records is not surprising given the r e l a t i v e l y limited manner in which the issue of research access to student f i l e s has been addressed by those profes-sional groups who work within u n i v e r s i t i e s . It has been observed that the d i f f u s i o n of power within u n i v e r s i t i e s leads to the creation of numerous semi-autonomous records systems which f a l l under the e t h i c a l standards of the various individuals or professional groups which control them. Sociologist Burton Clark has in fact categorized u n i v e r s i t y records systems according to the standards or v a r i e t i e s of "confidence" under which they operate. The f i l e s of i n d i v i -dual professors and departmental chairmen, for example, exist in a s i t u a t i o n of near "normlessness" since l i t t l e central control i s exercized over the actions of these records c r e a t o r s . 6 1 True, the Council of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) endorsed a "Statement of Professional Ethics" in 1966, but this statement did not s p e c i f i c a l l y address the issue of record-keeping. It simply stated that the professor "respects the c o n f i d e n t i a l nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between professor and student." 6' 2 In addition, although the AAUP did participate in the drafting of the 1967 "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students," th i s statement also did not address the subject of research access to student records, stating only that "information from d i s c i p l i n a r y or counseling f i l e s should not be available to unauthorized persons on campus, or to any persons off 107 campus without the express consent of the student i n v o l v e d . " S 3 S i m i l a r l y , the concerns of individual professors as expressed in the debate over the passage of FERPA have centred on whether students should have the right to view l e t t e r s of recommendation, while the question of whether such l e t t e r s should eventually be open to researchers has received l i t t l e attention. 0"* One would expect that as a group the various central administrative o f f i c e s of u n i v e r s i t i e s would operate under more c l e a r l y defined standards than the o f f i c e s of univ e r s i t y academic departments. In fact, as early as 1969 the American Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education established a Commission on Student Records and Information which in 1970 prepared a report for the Council. The Commission's report advocated that each university develop a student records p o l i c y which would balance the i n s t i t u t i o n ' s obligations to students and to society. Reflecting the t y p i c a l demand of unive r s i t y o f f i c e r s for autonomy, the report stipulated that i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c i e s should "permit individual professional judgements under appropriate circum-stances. " s = s The report also offered p o l i c y recommendations, stati n g that academic, f i n a n c i a l , d i s c i p l i n a r y , and placement records should be considered c o n f i d e n t i a l and should be released outside the i n s t i t u t i o n only with student permission. Student personnel records were to be available for current educational uses only. The report did state that student data could be released for research purposes provided u n i v e r s i t i e s took "due care to protect the i d e n t i t y of the student" and 108 ensured "that the research agency [followed] acceptable standards of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . " & e It i s not c l e a r , however, whether these somewhat vague guidelines permitted the release of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records to research agencies (assuming that those agencies removed a l l i d e n t i f i e r s prior to reporting research r e s u l t s ) . A subsequent statement by one of the organizations representing u n i v e r s i t y administrators, the American College Personnel Association, was even more vague with respect to research guidelines. The Association's 1980 "Statement of E t h i c a l and Professional Standards" simply s p e c i f i e d that members respect the student's right to privacy and share information about individuals only in accordance with i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c i e s , or when given permission by the student, or when required to prevent personal harm. 6 7 The research use of student records was not addressed in the statement, although i t did s t i p u l a t e that members releasing data gathered through th e i r own research e f f o r t s should disguise the i d e n t i t y of the data s u b j e c t s . 6 0 Other available e t h i c a l statements prepared by organizations representing unive r s i t y administrators either do not examine the issue of research access to student records or simply describe the obligations imposed upon u n i v e r s i t i e s by FERPA.6-5' The general e t h i c a l guidelines available for university administrators within the central o f f i c e s of the university thus appear to be of only limited use in determining the views of such adminis-trators with respect to the disclosure of student records to researchers, although those guidelines which do address the topic of the disclosure seem to favour either obtaining student consent prior to the release of records to thi r d parties or "disguising" the i d e n t i t y of records subjects in some manner. While i t i s r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y e t h i c a l standards applicable to university administrators as a group, there are certain administrative o f f i c e r s such as university counsellors and psychologists who, as Burton Clark notes, c l e a r l y operate under a s t r i c t "norm of confidence." 7' 0 Counsellors and psychologists have long professed to share the physician's b e l i e f in the i n t e g r i t y and dig n i t y of the patient or c l i e n t , and the consequent need to protect the c l i e n t ' s privacy and reputation. 7 - 1 A substantial body of l i t e r a t u r e has been produced over the past two decades documenting counsellors' and psychologists' rationales for maintaining the c o n f i d e n t i a l t i y of counselling r e c o r d s 7 2 and the r e l a t i v e l y high levels of c o n f i d e n t i t a l t y which counselling o f f i c e s have provided for such records in the past. 7 - 3 E s p e c i a l l y in recent years, organizations such as the American Personnel and Guidance Association and the American Psychological Associa-tion have approved e t h i c a l codes containing strong statements affirming the c l i e n t ' s right to c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and the need to seek c l i e n t consent prior to the release of personal information. 7"* (Although Canadian counsellors and psycholo-g i s t s obviously are not reguired to adhere to American e t h i c a l codes, recent statements in the l i t e r a t u r e of Canadian psychologists indicate that the e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and informed consent are generally accepted among Canadian professionals as well. 7 - 5 5) 110 In addition, recent accreditation guidelines for univer-s i t y counselling centres state that t y p i c a l l y , information should be released only at the request or concurrence of a counselee who has f u l l knowledge of the nature of the information that is being released. Appropriate information should then be released s e l e c t i v e l y and only to q u a l i f i e d r e c i p i e n t s . 7 6 The available e t h i c a l codes and guidelines thus seek to est a b l i s h s t r i c t l i m i t a t i o n s on the release of c l i e n t informa-t i o n . Nevertheless, the guidelines for university counselling centers also state that "an integral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the counselling service i s to conduct ongoing evaluation and accountability research.... This includes studies such as those on counseling outcomes...."7'7' Presumably, c l i e n t f i l e s would at times contain information useful for the evaluation of the effectiveness of past counselling procedures. Since, however, the e t h i c a l codes of counsellors and psychologists contain few comments on the use of c l i e n t f i l e s for research, i t is d i f f i c u l t to determine under which conditions, i f any, such research would be acceptable. Would counsellors within the counselling o f f i c e s be able to conduct research without f i r s t seeking the consent of a l l data subjects? Would outside researchers ever be provided access to i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i -f i a b l e f i l e s with or without the consent of the record subjects i f the researchers were s u f f i c i e n t l y q ualified? The answers to these questions are not clear. It is also not clear what forms of research access could p o t e n t i a l l y be provided to the f i l e s of another campus agency which operates under a s t r i c t "norm of confidence"--the health I l l services o f f i c e . The standards recommended for university-health programs by the American College Health Association include the s t i p u l a t i o n that patient records can be "released only upon the written authorization of the patient or his legal guardian." 7" 3 S i m i l a r l y , rule six of the "Code of Et h i c s " of the Canadian Medical Association states that An e t h i c a l physician w i l l keep in confidence informa-tion derived from his patient, or from a colleague, regarding a patient and divulge i t only with the permission of the patient except where the law requires him to do so. 7" 9 Yet despite such statements regarding the necessity of obtaining consent, researchers have often been provided with access to patient f i l e s without the express consent of the record subjects. Indeed, the Canadian Medical Research Council s p e c i f i c a l l y notes that p o l i c i e s regarding the use of i n s t i t u t i o n a l records "must take into account the fact that i t may be impossible to get prior consent for the use of these records in every i n s t a n c e . " 3 0 Thus, while e t h i c a l statements of professional groups within u n i v e r s i t i e s indicate a strong commitment towards maintaining the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of personal student informa-t i o n , such statements do not provide clear guidance as to what research p o l i c i e s the various groups would find acceptable. The lack of detailed information in administrators' e t h i c a l codes regarding the dislcosure of student information to researchers is perhaps to be expected. As lawyer Charles M. Chambres notes, i t i s the nature of codes of ethics that they are "responsive, not creative." They attempt to provide professionals with guidance when c o n f l i c t i n g demands arise in 112 their work. 6 3 1 However, past concerns regarding personal record-keeping have centered primarily, on re a l or potential misuse of personal information by administrators, not researchers. Again, therefore, the fact that records p o l i c i e s prepared by American u n i v e r s i t i e s in the early 1970s contain few comprehensive research guidelines is not surprising given the inherent complexity of the privacy issue and the r e l a t i v e l y limited manner in which the issue of research access to student records has been addressed by university professionals. It should be recognized as well that many of the p o l i c i e s discussed above were developed before the appearance of detailed studies by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Privacy Protection Study Commission. In any case, while university administrators apparently did not develop extensive guidelines for balancing the rights of students with the needs of researchers, the participants at the Russell Sage Foundation Conference of 1972 did produce a number of useful recommendations for the development of i n s t i t u t i o n a l structures for use in the administration of records p o l i c i e s . To begin with, in order to provide for the "development, continuous review, and modification" of student records p o l i c i e s , the Conference report recommends that each i n s t i t u -t i o n establish a representative body composed of faculty, students,and administrative o f f i c e r s . A standing committee of t h i s body would then supervise the implementation and enforce-ment of records p o l i c i e s . 1 3 2 The broadly representative nature of the proposed administrative body i s important, since as administrator Charles Lindahl notes, the fact that authority is widely delegated in u n i v e r s i t i e s creates a "tendency towards consensus in the making of important d e c i s i o n s . " 0 3 The l a t t e r point is also raised by the Canadian Association of Uni v e r s i t i e s and Colleges of Canada which states that "university government, as b e f i t s a society committed to the widest possible freedom of discussion, i n e v i t a b l y involves the use of committees."0"* It i s inter e s t i n g that the Russell Sage Foundation report recommends including student representatives on the records committee. In the course of the student records debate, few surveys have been conducted to determine the view of students themselves. Moreover, the surveys which have been conducted f a i l to examine the opinions of students regarding the research use of personal information. The available survey data suggests, however, that "students do discriminate among types of information they would allow to be released and among people and agencies to which they would allow access to that information." 0 0 It may thus be useful to conduct a student survey as part of the process of developing a student records p o l i c y . With regards to the use of student records for research, the Conference report recommends that Researchers, whether within or outside the i n s t i t u t i o n normally should be permitted access to i d e n t i f i a b l e student information only with the informed and f r e e l y given consent of the individual students involved. Exceptions to t h i s practice should be made only with the approval of the responsible representative body or i t s authorized standing committee, and with enforce-114 able assurances from the researcher that the data w i l l be maintained under conditions of complete confiden-t i a l i t y . 0 6 Thus, while the report echos the statements of univer s i t y administrators on the need to seek the consent of records subjects prior to the use of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records, i t does raise the p o s s i b i l i t y that under certain conditions such consent would not be necessary. The report also anticipates later statements by government study groups by suggesting that decisions regarding access to personal records should be made on a case-by-case basis, although i t does not specify the grounds upon which such decisions should be made. Whatever the merits of the Russell Sage Foundation report, the report's recommendations were of course over-shadowed in 1974 by the passage of FERPA which imposed cert a i n guidelines upon American u n i v e r s i t i e s — g u i d e l i n e s which have had a r e s t r i c t i v e e f f e c t on the research use of student records. These guidelines have accordingly been c r i t i c i z e d not only by a r c h i v i s t s but also by the PPSC, which in 1977 presented i t s own recommendations on the issues of informed consent and records disclosure c r i t e r i a . For instance, the PPSC c r i t i c i z e d the fact that FERPA permits the disclosure of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e student records for research purposes without individual consent only i f the research is conducted "for or on behalf of, an educational i n s t i t u t i o n for a s p e c i f i c educational purpose." 0 7 C i t i n g the importance of administrative records for research a c t i v i t i e s , the PPSC argued that i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e student records should 115 be available for any legitimate research a c t i v i t y provided that the Commission's general recommendations on research were followed. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the report of the PPSC stated that: Research and s t a t i s t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s can s a f e l y be spared the c o s t l y burden of obtaining the authoriza-tion of each individual i f adequate notice i s given when the information is co l l e c t e d in the f i r s t place. The individual w i l l then r e a l i z e that the information he supplies for administrative purposes may also be used for research or s t a t i s t i c a l purposes. 6 9 8 3 The suggestion that i n s t i t u t i o n s should publicize their records p o l i c i e s was in fact also made by the Russell Sage Foundation report which advocated that, whenever information was collected from a student, factors such as the intended uses of the information and the conditions of access to that information should be s p e c i f i e d , either on the record i t s e l f or in some other accessible location such as a student handbook. s® The PPSC recognized that allowing an exception to the general requirement of informed consent represented an infringement upon the individual's right to control the dissemination of personal information, but i t argued that given society's need for knowledge, such an infringement was j u s t i f i a b l e provided that certain safeguards were provided. The recommended safeguards, which have been examined in part in chapter three of t h i s thesis, include determining that the research use of personal information does not v i o l a t e any promises under which the information was o r i g i n a l l y collected, that the proposed research requires the use of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records, that the value of the research project warrants any r i s k s the project poses to the record subjects, and f i n a l l y that the personal records w i l l both be protected 116 from further disclosure to t h i r d parties and w i l l not be used to make decisions regarding the record s u b j e c t s . 3 0 The PPSC thus in e f f e c t argued that research uses of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e student records, though limited at present, were p o t e n t i a l l y s u f f i c i e n t l y valuable to society to j u s t i f y balancing the privacy rights of students with the needs of researchers in the same manner as the rights of c i t i z e n s in general were to be balanced with the needs of researchers using government records. Theoretically, i t would be possible for the guidelines and disclosure c r i t e r i a recommended by the PPSC (or similar c r i t e r i a recommended in other government reports) to be administered within univer-s i t i e s by bodies such as those proposed in the Russell Sage Foundation report. However, with respect to student records systems, the PPSC's recommendations have not been implemented through l e g i s l a t i o n in the United States, and the regulations imposed by FERPA remain in force. Some indication has been given of the responses of American u n i v e r s i t i e s and university professionals to the privacy issue, as well as of some of the factors behind these responses. How then have Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s responded to the privacy issue? Unfortunately, i t i s somewhat d i f f i c u l t to determine the pattern of responses of Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s to privacy concerns, for while there i s a f a i r l y substantial body of r e a d i l y - a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e dealing with the impact of the privacy issue on Canadian elementary and secondary schools, the same cannot be said of post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s . What is clear i s that by the late 1960s student record-keeping had become an issue of concern in at least some Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s . In 1969, during a meeting of the Association of U n i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges of Canada, a series of general "suggested guidelines concerning information po l i c y " were presented, one of which stressed the need to "consider the personal f i l e s of s t a f f and students as c o n f i -d e n t i a l . " ' 3 1 That same year computer s c i e n t i s t John M. C a r r o l l and s o c i o l o g i s t J. Ivan Williams began a study of the student record-keeping systems of fourteen Ontario universities.' 5' 2 C a r r o l l and Williams discovered that although concerns over perceived threats to privacy had been raised in student demonstrations and in student-faculty discussions, only two i n s t i t u t i o n s had developed records p o l i c i e s . 3 3 C a r r o l l and Williams' report, presented in 1971, therefore c a l l e d on Ontario i n s t i t u t i o n s to establish university-wide p o l i c i e s on privacy. It appears in fact that over the following decade and a half, many Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s did develop records p o l i c i e s and in the process were influenced by the e f f o r t s of American univer s i t y p o l i c y makers. In any case, the survey conducted for the present study in 1985 revealed that over 60% of the responding i n s t i t u t i o n s had developed some sort of records policy, although several of these p o l i c i e s were under review. (See Appendix 1.) In inquiring into the existence of administrative p o l i c i e s , the survey questionnaire did not define the term "student records" and indeed, there was no one common d e f i n i t i o n of the term among the ten p o l i c y statements enclosed along with the survey responses. The great majority of the statements covered only 118 the " o f f i c i a l academic records" held in r e g i s t r a r s ' o f f i c e s , although some statements also dealt with other series of records such as those of the f i n a n c i a l a id, counselling, and health services o f f i c e s , or simply used broad terms such as "student f i l e s . " In general terms, the administrative access p o l i c i e s were similar in content to those developed by American univer-s i t i e s . That i s , they commonly provided students with the right of access to their own academic records, provided access to student records to those s t a f f members having a "legitimate i n t e r e s t " in the records, and s t r i c t l y limited the disclosure of student information to t h i r d p a r t i e s . Several p o l i c i e s emphasized the need for " f l e x i b i l i t y " either in allowing the re g i s t r a r to exercise judgement in the release of student information, or in allowing separate d i v i s i o n s and o f f i c e s of the unive r s i t y to control access to the records under th e i r c o n t r o l . In addition, several i n s t i t u t i o n s had established committees to review and administer records p o l i c i e s . At least one such committee was s p e c i f i c a l l y charged with the task of reviewing requests for student information. With respect to research requests for student informa-t i o n , the guidelines contained both in the enclosed policy statements and in the summary statements provided by the respondents varied widely. Six i n s t i t u t i o n s merely stated either that student records were as a general rule closed to t h i r d parties or more s p e c i f i c a l l y that student records were available only to the record subjects. Five other i n s t i t u -tions only released student information to t h i r d parties with 119 the consent of the s t u d e n t s concerned or i n compl i a n c e w i t h t h e i r w r i t t e n r e q u e s t . A l t h o u g h one of the s e f i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s w i t h i n the u n i v e r s i t y were r e q u i r e d t o seek s t u d e n t consent p r i o r t o u s i n g p e r s o n a l r e c o r d s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t o t h e r of the above i n s t i t u t i o n s may v i e w s t a f f members c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s as h a v i n g a " l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t " i n s t u d e n t r e c o r d s . At l e a s t two p o l i c i e s s t a t e d t h a t s t u d e n t r e c o r d s were open t o the o f f i c e of i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . L i m i t e d p r o v i s i o n s were made f o r r e s e a r c h e r s i n the p o l i c i e s of s e v e r a l u n i v e r s i t i e s which a l l o w e d the r e l e a s e of " g e n e r a l s t a t i s t i c a l m a t e r i a l " t o r e s e a r c h e r s or r e s e a r c h a g e n c i e s . However, even when r e l e a s i n g o n l y s t a t i s t i c a l m a t e r i a l , one of t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s r e s e r v e d the r i g h t t o judge the w o r t h i n e s s of both the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and the r e s e a r c h o r g a n i z a t i o n , and t o r e v i e w the r e s u l t s of any r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t y . L e s s s t r i n g e n t g u i d e l i n e s were c o n t a i n e d i n t h r e e p o l i c i e s which r e q u i r e d the removal of i d e n t i f i e r s (and i n one case o n l y the removal of names) from i n d i v i d u a l r e c o r d s p r i o r t o t h e i r r e l e a s e . The above r e s e a r c h p o l i c i e s c o v e r e d s t u d e n t academic r e c o r d s . One i n s t i t u t i o n , however, a l s o a d d r e s s e d the r e s e a r c h use of o t h e r f i l e s by s t a t i n g t h a t r e c o r d s m a i n t a i n e d by p h y s i c i a n s , p s y c h i a t r i s t s , or p s y c h o l o -g i s t s c o u l d be used by s i m i l a r p r o f e s s i o n s " f o r d e s c r i p t i v e r e s e a r c h purposes not u s i n g s t u d e n t i d e n t i f i e r s . " F i n a l l y , the r e s e a r c h g u i d e l i n e s of s e v e r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s were not c l e a r , s i n c e one u n i v e r s i t y s t a t e d o n l y t h a t the a p p r o v a l of the u n i v e r s i t y p r e s i d e n t was r e q u i r e d f o r the r e s e a r c h use of 120 student records; another respondent indicated that student records were provided to sp e c i f i e d t h i r d parties for research use "as long as the information [did] not invade the privacy of the student"; and s t i l l another stated that student f i l e s were not available except for research use. Thus, while some of the p o l i c i e s described in the survey responses may have been f l e x i b l e enough to allow certain research uses of current i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e student records, many of the records p o l i c i e s were highly r e s t r i c t i v e from a research point of view. Certainly i t does not appear as i f Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s have followed the example of the federal government or the Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy in developing detailed guidelines for balancing the needs of researchers with the rights of individuals. Some p o l i c i e s not only neglected to provide researchers with a means of access to i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records, but also did not provide for the research use of student records after i d e n t i f i e r s were removed or after a cert a i n number of years had passed. The p o l i c i e s of the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' archives w i l l be examined in the following chapter but i t should be noted that only a few of the enclosed general i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c i e s s p e c i f i e d time lim i t a t i o n s for their disclosure r e s t r i c t i o n s . One university, whose policy was followed by some a f f i l i a t e d i n s t i t u t i o n s , did stipulate that f i f t y years following the f i n a l r e g i s t r a t i o n of a student, the student's records became available in the univer-s i t y archives to "authorized researchers," while another unive r s i t y also opened personal records after f i f t y years 121 unless additional r e s t r i c t i o n s had been imposed by the creating o f f i c e s . Nevertheless, only one respondent expressly stated that access to student records was permitted i f the record subjects were deceased, and i t was the pol i c y of at least one i n s t i t u t i o n that student records were conf i d e n t i a l in perpetuity. It i s therefore evident from both the results of the 1985 survey and the available American l i t e r a t u r e that North American u n i v e r s i t i e s have developed a wide range of record-keeping guidelines, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the area of access to student records. Certain general observations, however, can be made regarding the views of univer s i t y administrators. F i r s t , whatever s p e c i f i c guidelines they suggest, when univer-s i t y administrators do examine the broad spectrum of records produced by the r e g i s t r a r s ' o f f i c e and by other academic and service o f f i c e s , they tend to emphasize the need to establish separate guidelines for the various categories of records. In the discussions of administrators there is also an emphasis on the need for f l e x i b i l i t y and on the need to allow the various unlverity o f f i c e r s to exercise their legitimate authority and judgement. It thus seems probable that many of these o f f i c e r s w i l l request a voice in the development and perhaps the administration of any access p o l i c i e s which are established. Furthermore, i t should again be noted that the past p o l i c i e s of North American u n i v e r s i t i e s may not give a true indication of the views of university administrators regarding the disclosure of student information for research purposes. 122 There is no denying that some of the e t h i c a l statements of administrators, i f accepted at face value, s t i p u l a t e that i t is improper to provide t h i r d parties with d i r e c t access to personal records without student consent. Nevertheless, i t i s possible that many univer s i t y administrators, rather than being firmly opposed to the research use of student f i l e s or strongly committed to the p r i n c i p l e that a l l t h i r d parties must seek student permission for the use of personal informa-tio n , may have simply overlooked the r e a l and potential needs of researchers. Indeed, American a r c h i v i s t Charles B. Elston contends that the needs of "scholarly researchers and future generations" are " a l l too often... not recognized or even paid token l i p service in the course of l e g i s l a t i o n , public or news media debate, or in the university administrative decision-making process."" 3" 4 Elston argues as well that i t is incumbent upon a r c h i -v i s t s to a r t i c u l a t e the needs of researchers to university administrators. Such a role would c e r t a i n l y not be foreign to a r c h i v i s t s , who often describe their role as that of "honest broker." However, i f a r c h i v i s t s are to convince administrators that ex i s t i n g access r e s t r i c t i o n s f a i l to meet the legitimate needs of researchers, they w i l l need to demonstrate a s o l i d understanding of potential research uses of personal informa-t i o n and of alternative methods of protecting record subject privacy. The following chapter of thi s study w i l l therefore examine the needs and e t h i c a l views of researchers as well as those of a r c h i v i s t s themselves. 123 NOTES 1Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy in an Information Society (Washington, D.C: Privacy Protection Study Commission, 1977), p. 394. 2Jane E. Matson, "Statements on Student Rights," Junior  College Journal 38 (November 1967): 39. 3Matson, "Statements," pp. 38, 40-42. "*Paul L. Dressel, "Student Records: Uses and Abuses," College and University 48 ( F a l l 1971): 48. ''See, in p a r t i c u l a r , the following 1971 survey of over two hundred American colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s : Robert R. Wright, "Current C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y P o l i c y Provisions for Student Records," College and University 48 (1972-73): 100-111; Other surveys include: Albert P. Warner and Sal Evangelista, " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : Statewide Michigan Study," Junior College  Journal 40 (June 1970): 21-23; William J. Curran, " P o l i c i e s and Practices Concerning C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y in College Mental Health Services in the United States and Canada," American  Journal of Psychiatry 125 (May 1969): 1520-30. sThe topic of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i s addressed extensively, for example, in the journal College and University and the Personnel and Guidance Journal. ^ " F i n a l Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Privacy of Information at MIT," Tech Talk, 19 May 1971, Supplement, pp. 3-9. • ' ^Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Protection of Privacy  of Information at Stanford. (Stanford, C a l i f o r n i a : Stanford University, 1972). '^Student Records in Higher Education: Recommendations  for the Formulation and Implementation of Record-Keeping  P o l i c i e s in Colleges and Un i v e r s i t i e s (n.p: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973). 1 0Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy, p.412,421. 1 ]-Ibid., p. 413. ^ I b i d . , p. 416. l 3Matson, "Statements," p. 39. ^Student Records in Higher Education, p. 1; Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy, p. 412. 124 1 = sGeorge K. Brown, "Release or Student Records," in College Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies, eds. Laurine F i t z g e r a l d , Walter F. Johnson, and Willa Norris (Boston: Houghton Miff l e n Co., 1970), p. 140. 1 , sReport of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy, p. 412. -•''"Association of U n i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges of Canada, Guidelines on University Organization (Ottawa: Association of U n i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges of Canada, 1970), p. 2. 1 8 , , P r i v a c y at MIT," p. 4. 1 3 I b i d . ^Wright, "Current Po l i c y Provisions," p. 102. ^ " P r i v a c y at MIT," p. 5; Privacy of Information at  Stanford, p. 2. ^ I b i d ; "Privacy at MIT," p. 4. a 3Wright, "Current C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Provisions," p. 102. ^Student Records in Higher Education, p. 9. 2 S I b i d . a G " P r i v a c y at MIT," p. 5. ^Wright, "Current C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Provisions," p. 103; Dressel, "Student Records," p. 57. z e 3Student Records in Higher Education, p. 11. ^ O n t a r i o . Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, Public Government for Private People: Vol.  3 Protection of Privacy (Toronto: Ministry of Government Services, 1980), p. 522. 3°It appears, however, that as late as 1972, many in s t i t u t i o n s which had automated their record-keeping systems had not "extended the scope of their information c o l l e c t i o n about individuals as a r e s u l t of computerization." Computer Sciences and Engineering Board, National Academy of Sciences, Data Banks in a Free Society: Computers, Record-Keeping and  Privacy (New York: Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co., 1972 ), p. 249. 3 1James P. Sampson, J r . , "Ethical Considerations in Computer Use," in Enhancing Student Development with  Computers, eds. Cynthia S. Johnson and Richard K. Pyle (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984), p. 80; Report of a Task Force Established J o i n t l y by the Department of Communications and 125 the Department of Justice, Privacy and Computers (Ottawa, Information Canada, 1972), p. 91. 3 = 5Cameron L. Fincher, " I n s t i t u t i o n a l Practice and Threats to Individual Privacy," in Protecting Individual  Rights to Privacy in Higher Education (San Fransico: Jossey-Bass, 1977), p. 19. 3 3Wright, "Current P o l i c y Provisions," p. 103. 3**Virginia R. Stewart, "Problems of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y in the Administration of Personal Case Records," American  A r c h i v i s t 37 (July 1974): 398. 3=SR.W. Conway; W. L. Maxwell, and H. L. Morgan, "On the Implementation of Security Measures in Information Systems," in Security and Privacy in Computer Systems, ed. Lance J. Hoffman (Los Angeles: M e l v i l l e Publishing Co., 1973), p. 244. 3 e F o r an overview of the f i e l d of computer security, see Kenneth L. Kittelberger, "The Scope of Computer Security Problems," in Advances in Computer Security Management: Vol.  Two, ed. Marvin. M. Wofsey (Chichester, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), pp. J-24. 3 7 P r i v a c y of Information at Stanford, p. 6. 3 < aCharles L. Cave, "Hardware and Software Security," in Advances in Computer Security Management: Volume Two, ed. Marvin. M. Wofsey (Chichester, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), p. 146. 3 - 3 ,See, for instance, William F. Godwin and Katherine Anne Bode, "Privacy and the New Technology," Personnel and  Guidance 50 (December 1971): 302; Dressel, "Student Records," p. 53 . "*°Ibid., p. 49. **1 Privacy of Information at Stanford, p. 2. •"^Student Records in Higher Education, p. 11; Dressel, "Student Records," p. 57. "* 3Privacy of Information at Stanford, p. 3. "^"Privacy at MIT," p. 6,; Student Records in Higher  Education, p. 11. "* aIbid, p. 15; Privacy of Information at Stanford, p. 3; Wright, "Current P o l i c y Provisions," p. 107. "* sIbid., p. 108; Privacy of Information at Stanford, p. 126 "* , rDressel / "Student Records," p. 54. "*eBrown, "Release of Student Records," p. 140. "* 3Charles Lindahl, "The Registrar and Administrative Relationships in Higher Education," College and University 41 (Winter 1966): 176. = 0Privacy of Information at Stanford, p. 2. " " C l i f f o r d K. Shipton, "The Reference Use of Archives, in College and University Archives: Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), p. 126. ••"^"Privacy a t MIT," p. 6; Student Records in Higher  Education, p. 17. 109 = S 3 I b i d ; Wright, "Current C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Provisions," p. B 4Matson, "Statements," p. 39. "^"Privacy at MIT," pp. 8, 4, 6. "^Charles L i s t e r , "Privacy and Large-scale Personal Data Systems," Personnel and Guidance Journal 49 (November 1970): 211. ^ N a t i o n a l Education Association Task Force on Student Information, Code of Student Rights and Re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1971), pp. 13-14. ""^Watson, "Statements," p. 40. ""^Privacy of Information at Stanford, p. 2; Wright "Current Po l i c y Provisions," p. 110; It is d i f f i c u l t to develop an accurate sense of which research guidelines were contained in early university p o l i c i e s since surveys of such p o l i c i e s often did not seek information regarding access to student records for research use. e o I t i s perhaps s i g n i f i c a n t that at the University of I l l i n o i s , where the university archives has attempted to demonstrate the value of student records for research, the univers i t y prior to the passage of FERPA approved a policy containing provisions for various types of research access to student f i l e s . Elston, "University Student Records," p. 77. s : lBurton R. Clark, "The Dossier in Colleges and U n i v e r s i t i e s , " in On Record: F i l e s and Dossiers in American  L i f e , ed. Stanton Wheeler (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969), pp. 82-83. •^"Statement on Professional Ethics," in E t h i c a l 127 P r i n c i p l e s , Practices, and Problems in Higher Education, eds. Carlota M. Baca and Ronald H. Stein (Springfield, I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1983), p. 248. e 3Matson, "Statements," p. 40. e"*As the Russell Sage Foundation Report noted, the academic community as early as 1972 was divided over the issue of student access to evaluatory material. Student Records in  Higher Education, p. 16; Debate over the issue i n t e n s i f i e d a f t e r the passage of FERPA. See William B. Creim, "The Buckley Amendment and a Student's Right of Access to His Letters of Recommendation," Southern C a l i f o r n i a Law Review 52 (May 1979): 1163-87; A number of empirical studies have been conducted in order to determine both the preferences of employers as to whether l e t t e r s of reference should be open or sealed, and the e f f e c t s of opening such records on the record's contents. See, for example: Stephen J. Ceci and Douglas Peters, "Letters of Reference: A N a t u r a l i s t i c Study of the E ffects of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " American Psychologist 39 (January 1984): 29-31; John M. Enger, "Confidential Versus Nonconfidential Placement F i l e Recommendations," Journal of  College Student Personnel 21 (July 1980): 358-62; Dana D. Burnett and Rosmary Mason, " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and Format of Placement Credentials: Preference of Corporate and Government Employers," Journal of College Student Personnel 16 (November 1975): 486-89; As yet, no consensus on the question has emerged. It appears that p o l i c i e s regarding the status of l e t t e r s of recommendation w i l l vary from i n s t i t u t i o n to i n s t i t u t i o n , with the majority, however, c l a s s i f y i n g the material as s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . e = s"Student Records—Their C o l l e c t i o n , Use, and Protection," The National ACAC Journal 15 (Novermber 1979): 28. G e I b i d . ^American College Personnel Association, "Statement of E t h i c a l and Professional Standards," Journal of College  Student Personnel 22 (March 1981): 184-89. e o I b i d . , 187. e 3See, for example, "Professional Standards for Administrators," in E t h i c a l P r i n c i p l e s , Practices and Problems  in Higher Education, eds. Carlota M. Baca and Ronald H. Stein (Springfield, I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1983), pp. 251-56; American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions O f f i c e r s , "Academic Record and Transcript Guide: Release of Information about Students," in Admissions, Academic  Records and Registrar Services: A Handbook of P o l i c i e s and  Procedures, eds. James C. Quann et a l . (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979), pp. 359-78. 7°Clark, "The Dossier," p. 48. 128 7' 1Kathryn M . Denkowski and George C. Denkowski, "Cl i e n t -Counselor C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : An Update of Rationale, Legal Status, and Implications," Personnel and Guidance Journal 60 (February 1982): 371-72. ^ 2 I b i d , pp. 372-73; John Robert Kazalunas "The Counselor: Problems in Privileged Communication" College  Student Journal 11 (Summer 1977): 156-60. ^Wayne Anderson and Neil Kutzen, "Size and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y P o l i c i e s of College Counseling Centres," Journal of College Student Personnel 10 (July 1969), pp. 264-69. 7**See, in p a r t i c u l a r , " P r i n c i p l e 5: C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " in American Psychological Association, " E t h i c a l P r i n c i p l e s of Psychologists," Amercan Psychologist 36 (June 1981): 633-38; American Personnel and Guidance Association, E t h i c a l Standards (Washington, D.C: APGA, 1981). ^ J e a n L. P e t t i f o r , "Practice Wise: Privacy of Information," Canadian Psychology 21 (October 1980): 188; Larry Eberlain, "Legal duty and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Psychologists: Tarasoff and Haines," Candian Psychology 21 (January 1980): 55. 7 SKenneth F. Garni et a l . , "Accreditation Guidelines for University and College Counseling Services," Personnel and  Guidance Journal 61 (October 1982): 118. ^ r I b i d . ^American College Health Association, "Recommended Standards and Practices for a College Health Program," in College Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies, eds. Laurine F i t z g e r a l d , Walter F. Johnson, and Willa Norris (Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1970), p. 313. "•"•^Reproduced in Jack R. London, "Privacy in the Medical Context," in Aspects of Privacy Law: Essays in Honour of  John M. Sharp, ed. Dale Gibson (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980), p. 86. e o M e d i c a l Research Council of Canada, Working Group on Human Experimentation, E t h i c a l Considerations in Research  Involving Human Subjects (Ottawa: Medical Research Council, 1978), p. 20. e i J o h n M. Faraga, "My Rights and Your R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s : Moral Discourse in Higher Education," in E t h i c a l P r i n c i p l e s ,  Practices, and Problems in Higher Education, ed. M. Carlota Baca and Ronald H. Stein (Springfield, I l l i n o i s : Charles L. Thomas: 19 83), p. 19. Student Records in Higher Education, pp. 5, 10. 129 a 3 L i n d a h l , "The Registrar and Administrative Relationships," p. 135. e"*Association of Un i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges of Canada, "Guidelines," p. 2. a = 5Anderson and Sheer, " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Expectations," p. 268; See also Edwin C. Lewis and Roy E. Warman, "Confiden-t i a l i t y Expectations of College Students," Journal of College  Student Personnel 1 (October 1964): 7-11, 20; M i l l e r , " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " 223-29. a sStudent Records in Higher Education, p. 17. a 7"Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy, p. 427. a a I b i d . , p. 598. a g ,Student Records in Higher Education, p. 6. '^Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy, p. 441. '3,1"Does the Public Have a Right to Know?," Canadian  University and College 11 (November 1969): 28. 9 2The res u l t s of thi s study can be found in John M. C a r r o l l and J. Ivan Williams, "The Privacy of Student Records—The Computing Point of View," paper presented to The Second Ontario U n i v e r s i t i e s Computing Conference. Ottawa, Ontario. January 27-29, 1971; and in John M. C a r r o l l et a l . , Personal Records: Procedures, Practices, and Problems: A Study  for the Privacy and Computers Task Force (Ottawa: Department of Communications and Department of Justice, 1971). • ^ C a r r o l l and Williams, "Privacy of Student Records," p. 8; C a r r o l l et a l . , Personal Records, p. 78. Elston, "Student Records," p. 73. 130 CHAPTER V PRIVACY, RESEARCHERS, AND ARCHIVISTS Privacy and the Research Community It has been demonstrated that western l e g i s l a t o r s and administrators in attempting to apply procedural reforms to personal record-keeping systems have developed various guidelines for determining when personal information may be disclosed. Since such guidelines are t y p i c a l l y designed primarily to prevent the misuse of personal information by decision makers, they may only i n c i d e n t a l l y address the use of records by researchers. Thus, while the interests of researchers are re f l e c t e d in some of the major governmental privacy protection schemes, the records p o l i c i e s of many i n s t i t u t i o n s including many u n i v e r s i t i e s provide limited guidance to records custodians seeking to establish a sound balance between research needs and individual r i g h t s . It is possible, however, to approach the issue of balancing privacy with research interests from another angle, for in addition to regulating the operations of personal records systems, l e g i s l a t o r s and administrators have also devoted some atten-tion s p e c i f i c a l l y to the regulation of research a c t i v i t i e s . Government research funding agencies in both the United States and Canada have developed e t h i c a l guidelines for the use of human subjects in research. Although many of the guidelines 131 of these agencies have been developed in response to the e t h i c a l issues raised in biomedical research, they are often intended to cover the research a c t i v i t i e s of s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s as well, and may include recommendations for any research a c t i v i t y involving the use of personal records. These recommendations are often similar to those contained in the major governmental record-keeping regulations; that i s , they address such factors as the need to obtain informed consent and to weigh r i s k s against benefits prior to the release of personal information. Therefore, by examining the responses of researchers to the e t h i c a l guidelines proposed by funding agencies i t w i l l be possible to develop a sense of the needs and diverse views of researchers with regards to the use of personal information, as well as a clearer conception of the s p e c i f i c issues involved in establishing disclosure c r i t e r i a for personal records. Just as privacy has only emerged as an issue of general concern in recent decades, so too widespread concern over the e t h i c a l basis of research involving human subjects has been a r e l a t i v e l y recent phenomenon. Although the biomedical experiments of Nazi researchers during the Second World War compelled the western research community to recognize the extent to which the rights and welfare of human subjects could be abused in the name of research, i t was not u n t i l the late 1960s and early 1970s that the e t h i c a l analysis of human subject research "took on a thoroughly systematic character." 1 Moreover, prior to the 1960s there was l i t t l e federal or state l e g i s l a t i o n in the United States pertaining to research 132 a c t i v i t i e s and l i t t l e evidence that projects within research oriented i n s t i t u t i o n s such as u n i v e r s i t i e s and hospitals were subject to any sort of formal review process. 2 During the 1960s, however, the U.S. federal government began to expand greatly i t s regulation and control of govern-ment funded research. In 1966 the Department of Health, Education and Welfare introduced a set of p o l i c i e s from which the current framework for the regulation of biomedical and s o c i a l science research has evolved. The HEW regulations were revised repeatedly in the years following their introduction, f i n a l l y a ttaining the status of law in 1974 through the National Research A c t . 3 B a s i c a l l y , the regulations as constituted in 1974 s p e c i f i e d that i n s t i t u t i o n s receiving HEW funds were required to establish broadly representative i n s t i t u t i o n a l review boards (IRB's) to review any research involving human subjects conducted at or sponsored by the institution."* The review boards were to ensure that resear-chers obtained " l e g a l l y e f f e c t i v e informed consent" from th e i r subjects by providing a f u l l explanation of the research procedures, r i s k s , and benefits. 2 5 In addition, the boards were both to determine "whether subjects w i l l be placed at r i s k . . . and, i f so, whether the r i s k s to the subjects are outweighed by the sum of the benefits to the subject and the importance of the knowledge sought," & and to review the measures taken to protect the rights and welfare of subjects. 7 . The HEW regulations, in e f f e c t , helped establish the ri s k - b e n e f i t or u t i l i t a r i a n method of analysis as the p r e v a i l i n g model for the resolution of e t h i c a l issues in 133 research, and led to the widespread adoption arid formalization of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l review board process within u n i v e r s i t i e s and hospitals. 6 9 It should be noted that the HEW s d e f i n i t i o n s of the terms " r i s k " and "human subjects" were broad enough to include psychological harm (or r i s k s to subject rights) brought about by the misuse of "stored data."' 3 Thus, i n s t i t u -t i o n a l review boards were required to review a broad range of s o c i a l science research projects including some involving the use of surveys and personal data. Due in part to c r i t i c i s m s of the review process by s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , the 1981 regula-tions of the Department of Health and Human Resources (HHR), successor to the HEW, reduced federal requirements for the review of s o c i a l science research by only requiring the review of projects d i r e c t l y funded by the HHR. The 1981 regulations also excluded cert a i n types of research from the review process, including both projects which u t i l i z e d surveys or interviews, and projects which used personal records without recording i d e n t i f i e r s . However, informed consent and review procedures were s t i l l to be applied i f a researcher obtained " i d e n t i f i a b l e private information." 1 0 Although the Canadian federal government does not appear to have become as involved as the American in drafting s p e c i f i c l e g a l l y enforceable regulations for human subject research, the Canadian government has through the Canada Council sponsored the preparation of e t h i c a l guidelines to be used by u n i v e r s i t i e s in reviewing Council-funded projects, and guidelines have also been prepared by the Canadian Medical Research Council. Canadian research i n s t i t u t i o n s have in 134 fact used "human subject review committees" since the 1960s. 1 1 Medical research has been a primary focus of these committees, and the Medical Research Council, which funds most medical studies in Canada, now requires committee approval of a l l projects i t supports. The Council has stressed that the phrase "research involving human subjects" is intended to include projects involving the use of c o n f i d e n t i a l medical records. The Council's guidelines for the review of such projects state that " i t is generally agreed that research is e t h i c a l only where the benefits outweigh the r i s k s , " and therefore require review committees to i d e n t i f y the potential r i s k s and benefits of proposed projects, and to evaluate both the s c i e n t i f i c v a l i d i t y of the projects and the procedures used to obtain informed consent. 1* Although mos't review committees have concentrated primarily on medical research, some univer s i t y p o l i c i e s on the use of human subjects, such as the one employed by the University of Toronto, apply to any faculty research involving the use of nonpublic i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e r e c o r d s . 1 3 Furthermore, the report commissioned by the Canada Council to provide advice on the preparation of research guidelines stresses that e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s have relevance not only for medical research but for research in the s o c i a l sciences and humanities as well, and s p e c i f i c a l l y states that i t s recommen-dations are "intended to provide d i r e c t i o n on e t h i c a l issues involved in the documentary research pursued by historians and biographers." 1"* The report, prepared by a representative group of Canadian scholars, recommends that review committees 135 follow guidelines which are similar to those presented by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and by the Canadian Medical Research Council. Thus, the Canada Council report speaks of the general need to balance the rights of individuals with society's need for knowledge, and reviews the concepts of informed consent, research r i s k s and benefits, and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . It does, however, argue that the procedure of weighing r i s k s and benefits has only a limited a p p l i c a b i l i t y to most research in the humanities and s o c i a l sciences, and stresses instead the need to obtain informed consent prior to the communication of personal information and the need to maintain the confiden-t i a l i t y of such information once i t has been co l l e c t e d . Although the report devotes l i t t l e attention d i r e c t l y to research uses of personal records, i t does imply that under certain conditions review committees could approve the use of i n s t i t u t i o n a l records without subject consent—provided again that sound procedures were followed to maintain the confiden-t i a l i t y of the gathered information. 1 = 5 The North American research community has therefore been confronted in recent years with e t h i c a l guidelines proposed by funding agencies, as well as a general increase in public concern over threats to individual ri g h t s , and has conse-quently devoted increasing attention to e t h i c a l issues. Social s c i e n t i s t s have been p a r t i c u l a r l y active participants in the e t h i c a l debate and have produced a sizable body of l i t e r a t u r e on research e t h i c s . 1 S As yet, however, s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have f a i l e d to reach a consensus on most issues 1 3 6 p e r t a i n i n g t o e t h i c a l r e s e a r c h p r o c e d u r e s . I n d e e d , i t h a s b e e n o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l f e a t u r e o f t h e i r e t h i c a l d i s c o u r s e h a s b e e n t h e w i d e r a n g e o f p o s i t i o n s e x p r e s s e d . 1 7 T r u e , s o c i a l s c i e n c e a s s o c i a t i o n s h a v e s i n c e t h e l a t e 1 9 6 0 s b e c o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y i n v o l v e d i n d e v e l o p i n g c o d e s o f e t h i c s c o n t a i n i n g s t a t e m e n t s o n t h e r i g h t s o f r e s e a r c h s u b j e c t s . 1 3 A U N E S C O s p o n s o r e d s u r v e y o f n a t i o n a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e a s s o c i a t i o n s h a s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e a s s o c i a t i o n s ' e t h i c a l c o d e s o f t e n c o n t a i n s t a t e m e n t s a f f i r m i n g t h e n e e d t o s e e k i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t f r o m r e s e a r c h p a r t i c i p a n t s a n d t o m a i n t a i n t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f r e s e a r c h d a t a . 1 3 A f e w c o d e s e v e n s t a t e t h a t a n y s t u d y i n v o l v i n g h u m a n s u b j e c t s m u s t b e " r e l a t e d t o a n i m p o r t a n t i n t e l l e c t u a l q u e s t i o n . " 5 8 0 I n a d d i t i o n , t h e C a n a d a C o u n c i l r e p o r t o n e t h i c s h a s n o t e d t h a t t h e e t h i c a l c o d e s o f C a n a d i a n r e s e a r c h p r o f e s s i o n a l s a n d i n s t i t u t i o n s t y p i c a l l y c o n t a i n s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e n e e d t o s e e k s u b j e c t c o n s e n t a n d t h e n e e d t o p r o t e c t s u b j e c t p r i v a c y . 3 1 1 H o w e v e r , t h e r e p o r t a l s o s t a t e s t h a t e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h c o d e s t e n d t o w i t h d r a w w i t h q u a l i f i c a t i o n s w h a t t h e y h a v e a s s e r t e d i n p r i n c i p l e , s o t h a t a r e s e a r c h e r i s p r o v i d e d w i t h m a n y r e a s o n s w h y h e m a y i n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f s c i e n c e c o m p r o m i s e o n e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . He i s t h u s l e f t w i t h f e w f i r m g u i d e l i n e s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t i t i s w r o n g f o r h i m t o d o s o . . . . 2 2 F u r t h e r m o r e , i t h a s b e e n o b s e r v e d o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e a s s o c i a -t i o n s t h a t t h e y g e n e r a l l y a r e p o w e r l e s s t o e n f o r c e t h e i r e t h i c a l c o d e s . S u c h o r g a n i z a t i o n s d o n o t s y s t e m a t i c a l l y m o n i t o r r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e s a n d d o n o t p r o v i d e " m e a n i n g f u l p u n i s h m e n t f o r n o n - c o m p l i a n c e " w i t h e x i s t i n g c o d e s . 2 3 137 It i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the Canada C o u n c i l study e x p r e s s l y c r i t i c i z e d e x i s t i n g e t h i c a l codes f o r f a i l i n g to address the t o p i c of secondary uses of d a t a . 2 * As has been i n d i c a t e d , the codes and expressed views of s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s c l e a r l y r e v e a l a widespread b e l i e f i n the importance of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ; t h a t i s , t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n obtained by r e s e a r c h e r s through surveys or other means should not subse-q u e n t l y be r e l e a s e d to others i n i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e form. I t i s somewhat more d i f f i c u l t to d i s c o v e r d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n s i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e l i t e r a t u r e of the p r i v a c y i s s u e s r a i s e d by the r e s e a r c h use of i n s t i t u t i o n a l case f i l e s without p r i o r s u b j e c t consent. F o r t u n a t e l y , however, some s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s and other s c h o l a r s w r i t i n g on the t o p i c of s o c i a l s c i e n c e e t h i c s have c l o s e l y examined the issue of p r i v a c y and p e r s o n a l r e c o r d s . The w r i t i n g s of these s c h o l a r s serve to i l l u m i n a t e the q u e s t i o n of whether or to what extent the types of e t h i c a l g u i d e l i n e s proposed by funding agencies should a p p l y to r e s e a r c h uses of pers o n a l r e c o r d s . Before r e v i e w i n g some of the views of s c h o l a r s with regards to d e s i r a b l e records d i s c l o s u r e c r i t e r i a i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h , i t w i l l be u s e f u l to examine the q u e s t i o n of what form of pe r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n the r e s e a r c h community r e q u i r e s . T h i s study has demonstrated t h a t records r e f e r r i n g to i n d i v i d u a l students have both proven and p o t e n t i a l value f o r higher education r e s e a r c h e r s . Many s c h o l a r s have i n f a c t argued that the use of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records i s necessary f o r c e r t a i n types of r e s e a r c h . For i n s t a n c e , p s y c h o l o g i s t and r e s e a r c h d i r e c t o r Robert Boruch and 138 p s y c h o l o g i s t Joe S. C e c i l contend t h a t t h e r e a r e two broad r e s e a r c h methods " f o r which i d e n t i f i e r s a r e n o r m a l l y deemed e s s e n t i a l " : l o n g i t u d i n a l and c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . 2 5 5 The former i n v o l v e s t r a c k i n g an i n d i v i d u a l or group of i n d i v i d u a l s over t i m e , u s i n g i d e n t i f i e r s t o l i n k o b s e r v a t i o n s of i n d i v i -d u a l s a t one p o i n t i n time w i t h subsequent o b s e r v a t i o n s , w h i l e the l a t t e r i n v o l v e s e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an i n d i v i d u a l , o f t e n by l i n k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n s e p a r a t e r e c o r d s systems. 2* 3 Boruch and C e c i l demonstrate t h a t a g g r e g a t e d a t a o f t e n cannot s e r v e as an adequate s u b s t i t u t e f o r i n d i v i d u a l d a t a i n s t u d i e s which attempt t o e s t a b l i s h t r e n d s or a n a l y z e changes i n i n d i v i d u a l s over t i m e . S i m i l a r l y , h i s t o r i a n A l l a n G. Bogue notes t h a t once the b a s i c i n d i v i d u a l u n i t of d a t a i s gone and we a r e f o r c e d t o depend upon an agency a g g r e g a t i v e summary, or one done by an e a r l i e r s c h o l a r , we can never a g a i n r e c a p t u r e the i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r c e r t a i n . 2 " 7 i Boruch and C e c i l a l s o p r o v i d e e x t e n s i v e examples of l o n g i t u -d i n a l s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g the use of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e r e c o r d s i n m e d i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h as w e l l as i n r e s e a r c h on the impact of e d u c a t i o n on i n d i v i d u a l s . 2 S Arguments s i m i l a r t o those of Boruch and C e c i l a r e p r e s e n t e d by Canadian l e g a l h i s t o r i a n David H. F l a h e r t y who has w r i t t e n e x t e n s i v e l y on the i n c r e a s i n g r e s e a r c h demand f o r a c c e s s t o m i c r o d a t a (non-aggregated i n d i v i d u a l f i l e d a t a ) h e l d by government s t a t i s t i c a l a g e n c i e s . 2 9 F l a h e r t y o r g a n i z e d and c h a i r e d a 1977 c o n f e r e n c e d u r i n g which d a t a c u s t o d i a n s from the c e n t r a l s t a t i s t i c a l a g e n c i e s of f i v e c o u n t r i e s met w i t h r e s e a r c h e r s i n B e l l a g i o , I t a l y i n o r d e r t o d i s c u s s the 139 r e s e a r c h uses of government m i c r o d a t a . The B e l l a g i o C o n f e r -ence l e d t o the development of e i g h t e e n p r i n c i p l e s , two of which s t a t e : 9. There a r e l e g i t i m a t e r e s e a r c h purposes r e q u i r i n g the use of i n d i v i d u a l d a t a f o r which p u b l i c use samples a r e i n a d e q u a t e . 10. There a r e l e g i t i m a t e r e s e a r c h uses which r e q u i r e the u t i l i z a t i o n of i d e n t i f i a b l e d a t a w i t h i n the framework of con c e r n f o r c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . 3 0 The need f o r a c c e s s t o government m i c r o d a t a has a l s o been s t r e s s e d by o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t i n g the Canadian r e s e a r c h community. In a 1978 b r i e f t o the f e d e r a l government, the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Teachers (CAUT) i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was the vi e w of both the CAUT and the Canadian H i s t o r i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n t h a t : C e r t a i n k i n d s of r e s e a r c h n e c e s s i t a t e a c c e s s t o m i c r o -d a t a a t an i d e n t i f i a b l e i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l , a l t h o u g h the f i n a l r e s u l t of a r e s e a r c h e r ' s work might be of an anonymous or s t a t i s t i c a l n a t u r e . The p u b l i c a t i o n of aggre g a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n from census and o t h e r s u r v e y s i s not s u f f i c i e n t as i t cannot take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l of the con c e r n s of s c h o l a r s . 3 3 T h e r e f o r e , w h i l e many r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s may o n l y r e q u i r e the use of anonymous or aggregated d a t a and w h i l e , as w i l l be seen, c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r a l and s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s have been i d e n t i f i e d by Boruch, C e c i l , and o t h e r s which a l l o w r e s e a r -c h e r s t o use p e r s o n a l r e c o r d s w i t h o u t b e i n g a b l e t o a s s o c i a t e i d e n t i f i e r s w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s , r e s e a r c h e r s w i l l a t ti m e s d e s i r e d i r e c t a c c e s s t o p e r s o n a l r e c o r d s . I t i s f o r s i t u a t i o n s such as the s e t h a t the e t h i c a l g u i d e l i n e s proposed by f u n d i n g a g e n c i e s and the d i s c l o s u r e c r i t e r i a o u t l i n e d i n r e c o r d - k e e p i n g p o l i c i e s have most r e l e v a n c e . How then have s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s and e t h i c a l a n a l y s t s 140 r e s p o n d e d t o f u n d i n g a g e n c y g u i d e l i n e s ? A s m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d , t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f s c h o l a r s r e g a r d i n g g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e u s e o f p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i r p e r c e p -t i o n s o f p r i v a c y i t s e l f . S o m e s c h o l a r s w r i t i n g o n t h e t o p i c o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e e t h i c s a r e " p u r i s t s " ; t h a t i s , t h e y a r e s t r o n g l y c o m m i t t e d t o t h e m o r a l p r i n c i p l e o f a u t o n o m y a n d t h e r e f o r e a r g u e t h a t i t i s s i m p l y w r o n g f o r r e s e a r c h e r s t o d e n y i n d i v i d u a l s t h e r i g h t t o c o n t r o l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e m s e l v e s . 3 3 T h e s e s c h o l a r s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e u s e o f p e r s o n a l r e c o r d s w i t h o u t p r i o r r e c o r d s u b j e c t c o n s e n t r e p r e s e n t s a n u n j u s t i f i a b l e v i o l a t i o n o f p r i v a c y a n d a n i n f r i n g e m e n t u p o n h u m a n d i g n i t y . E t h i c a l a n a l y s t s s u c h a s p h i l o s o p h e r T e r r y P i n k a r d f e e l t h a t u t i l i t a r i a n a r g u m e n t s f o r i n f r i n g i n g u p o n p r i v a c y a r e " w r o n g h e a d e d " s i n c e t h e w i d e l y a c c e p t e d m o r a l p r i n c i p l e o f t r e a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s a s e n d s i n t h e m s e l v e s r a t h e r t h a n a s m e a n s t o o t h e r e n d s p r e c l u d e s o v e r r i d i n g p r i m a r y r i g h t s s u c h a s p r i v a c y i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e r e s e a r c h a n d t h e r e b y p r o m o t e s o m e b r o a d s o c i a l b e n e f i t . 3 3 A l t h o u g h i n d i v i d u a l s a s p a r t o f t h e g e n e r a l s o c i a l c o n t r a c t b e s t o w u p o n g o v e r n m e n t t h e r i g h t t o c o l l e c t c e r t a i n t y p e s o f p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e c o u r s e o f i t s d u t i e s , s u c h a r i g h t , i n P i n k a r d ' s v i e w , h a s n o t b e e n b e s t o w e d u p o n t h e r e s e a r c h c o m m u n i t y . He s t a t e s : T h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h e r h a s n o m o r a l r i g h t t o h i s o r h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e r i g h t s o f g o v e r n m e n t . A t b e s t t h e r e s e a r c h e r c a n a r g u e t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h w i l l h a v e s o m e g r e a t y i e l d a n d s h o u l d b e s u p p o r t e d . B u t h e o r s h e c a n n o t v a l i d l y a r g u e t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h o u l d b e s u p p o r t e d e v e n i n f a c e o f i t s v i o l a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s t o p r i v a c y . . . . R i g h t s t r u m p u t i l i t y a n d c e r t a i n l y t h e y t r u m p t h e n e e d s a n d i n t e r e s t s o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h e r s . O n e c a n v a l i d l y a d j u s t o r ' b a l a n c e ' m a t t e r s o n l y w h e n r i g h t s c o m p e t e . H o w e v e r , t h e r e i s n o r i g h t t o p e r f o r m 141 r e s e a r c h which competes with the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t of p r i v a c y , and hence there i s nothing to balance. 3"* As p h i l o s o p h e r R. Jay Wallace notes, the pure or s t r i c t concept of p r i v a c y "seems to express an i n t u i t i v e l y s a t i s f y i n g moral presumption a g a i n s t the v i o l a t i o n of human autonomy." 3 5 5 I t i s thus not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t some r e s e a r c h e r s have concluded t h a t i t i s u n e t h i c a l to use or d i s c l o s e p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n without the consent of the r e c o r d s u b j e c t s . 3 * 5 However, many commentators on s o c i a l s c i e n c e e t h i c s have argued t h a t the informed consent requirement r e p r e s e n t s an unnecessary burden on r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e s . C l e a r l y , as s o c i o -l o g i s t Paul Davidson Reynolds observes, i n many cases i t i s e i t h e r impossible or i m p r a c t i c a b l e to o b t a i n the informed consent of p a r t i c i p a n t s who provide i n f o r m a t i o n f o r a r c h i v a l r e c o r d s . . . [ s i n c e such persons] may have moved to an unknown l o c a t i o n , or the number of p a r t i c i p a n t s may be so great as to preclude c o n t a c t with a l l of them. 3 7 Commentators such as Reynolds and Wallace a l s o contend t h a t the i n v a s i o n s of p r i v a c y which r e s u l t from the unauthor-iz e d use of p e r s o n a l records are at times warranted, s i n c e they share the view of Westin and many others that the r i g h t to p r i v a c y i s not a b s o l u t e but r a t h e r can be balanced with other claims — i n c l u d i n g those of r e s e a r c h e r s . 3 6 3 I f i t i s assumed that the r i g h t s of r e s e a r c h s u b j e c t s are r e l a t i v e , the q u e s t i o n a r i s e s as to whether the s t r u c t u r e s and g u i d e l i n e s e s t a b l i s h e d by funding agencies f o r b a l a n c i n g competing i n t e r e s t s are a p p r o p r i a t e . Some s c h o l a r s a c t u a l l y contend that the claims of r e s e a r c h e r s are themselves s u f f i -c i e n t l y s t r o n g to be c o n s i d e r e d r i g h t s . The norm of academic or s c i e n t i f i c freedom i s s t r o n g among members of the r e s e a r c h 142 community, who often stress the need for t r i a l and error in research and the value of research to society. As professor of law John Robertson observes, some s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s question the very legitimacy of any government regulations which interfere with "the r i g h t " of s c i e n t i s t s "to plan and conduct research as they see f i t . " 3 * 3 Other scholars recognize the need to protect the rights of research subjects but argue that the ri s k - b e n e f i t mode of analysis i s unsuitable for use in evaluating s o c i a l science research, since i t is d i f f i c u l t in such research to determine in advance what the risks and benefits w i l l be, or to agree on a scale for measuring risks and benefits."* 0 S t i l l other scholars contend that i f r i s k s or benefits are to be examined in research using personal records, what should be measured is not the loss of privacy which results from the unauthorized disclosure of personal records to researchers but rather the r i s k that the informa-tion supplied to researchers w i l l subsequently be exposed to others. Implicit in the views of these scholars is the u t i l i -t a rian conception of privacy; that i s , commentators such as Wallace and Flaherty argue that the primary purpose of protecting research subject privacy i s to prevent subject information from being exposed to persons who could damage the subject's in t e r e s t s . These scholars maintain that nothing the researcher does with personal information has a s i g n i f i c a n t detrimental a f f e c t on the record, subjects as long as the researcher stores the collected information in a secure manner and anonymizes his reporting of collected data."*1 Indeed, some scholars such as Reynolds argue that respect for the 143 rights of research subjects which is t y p i c a l l y demonstrated by seeking informed consent can instead be demonstrated through the measures taken to protect subject anonymity."*2 Whatever the c r i t i c i s m s s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have of review boards or of the guidelines used by the reviewers, i t is clear that such boards have been charged and w i l l continue to be charged with reviewing research projects which u t i l i z e personal records. Reynolds and others have observed that despite the inadequacies of the ris k - b e n e f i t mode of analysis and the case-by-case review of projects, no superior procedure has been developed for balancing the interests of researchers and research subjects."* 3 Moreover, i t i s c l e a r l y possible for review boards to r e f l e c t the views of researchers in the s o c i a l sciences by stressing the maintenance of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y by researchers rather than requiring a l l projects to adhere to informed consent requirements. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , even when they were not s p e c i f i c a l l y required to do so, many boards have sought to ensure that researchers incorporate c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y safeguards into their projects. Researchers can, for instance, be asked to destroy i d e n t i f i e r s when they are no longer required, to keep l i s t s of i d e n t i f i e r s separate from research f i l e s , or to return copy f i l e s to the archives upon completion of their projects. It is also possible for review boards to determine whether the projects under review do in fact require the use of identifiers."*"* A substantial body of l i t e r a t u r e has been produced d e t a i l i n g various techniques for manipu-la t i n g data f i l e s so that i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of record subjects is not possible, and for reducing the need for di r e c t researcher 144 a c c e s s t o i d e n t i f i e r s . * s O b v i o u s l y , w h i l e some r e s e a r c h e r s r e q u i r e a c c e s s t o i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e r e c o r d s , many o t h e r s do n o t . F u r t h e r m o r e , s i n c e much o f t h e d a t a s t o r e d i n t h e m a j o r s o c i a l s c i e n c e d a t a a r c h i v e s — i n s t i t u t i o n s s p e c i a l i z i n g i n a c q u i r i n g a n d d i s s e m i n a t i n g m a c h i n e r e a d a b l e r e c o r d s f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h " * * 3 — c o n s i s t s o f e i t h e r a g g r e g a t e d d a t a o r d a t a o r i g i n a l l y g a t h e r e d b y s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s u n d e r a s s u r a n c e s o f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , many s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s a p p e a r t o f e e l t h a t a r c h i v e s a s a g e n e r a l r u l e s h o u l d r e l e a s e o n l y a n o n y m i z e d da ta . "* 7 " I t may a l s o be n o t e d a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t a r c h i v i s t s w o r k i n g i n e i t h e r s o c i a l s c i e n c e d a t a a r c h i v e s o r m a c h i n e r e a d a b l e d i v i s i o n s o f g o v e r n m e n t a r c h i v e s , h a v e a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e a s s u r a n c e s o f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y p r o v i d e d t o d a t a s u b j e c t s , a n d t h e p o w e r o f c o m p u t e r s t o m a n i p u l a t e d a t a e l e m e n t s make i t b o t h n e c e s s a r y a n d p r a c t i c a l t o r e s o l v e t h e p r i v a c y i s s u e b y s i m p l y r e l e a s i n g f i l e s o n l y when i n d i v i d u a l s c a n n o t be i d e n t i f i e d . " * 3 A s c o m m e n t a t o r s s u c h a s B o r u c h a n d C e c i l h a v e n o t e d , t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l p r o c e d u r e s a v a i l a b l e t o a r c h i v e s f o r p r e s e r -v i n g d a t a c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y when s u p p l y i n g p a t r o n s w i t h c o p i e s o r p r i n t - o u t s o f m a c h i n e r e a d a b l e f i l e s . A t t h e s i m p l e s t l e v e l , i d e n t i f i e r s c a n be d e l e t e d ; t h e number o f d a t a e l e m e n t s d i s c l o s e d c a n be m i n i m i z e d , o r r e s e a r c h e r s c a n be p r o v i d e d w i t h o n l y a r a n d o m s a m p l e o f t h e a v a i l a b l e ( a n o n y m i z e d ) f i l e s . I f i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n t h e e d i t e d m i c r o d a t a o r a v a i l a b l e s u p p l e m e n t a r y i n f o r m a t i o n ( s u c h a s l i s t s o f i n d i v i d u a l s whose r e c o r d s a r e h e l d b y t h e a r c h i v e s ) c r e a t e t h e r i s k t h a t 145 researchers w i l l be able to deduce the i d e n t i t y of individuals described in the microdata, "random errors" can be introduced into the data, or the exactness of certain responses can be adjusted. Aternatively, data can be averaged for groups (microaggregation) or s t a t i s t i c a l tabulations can be created. F i n a l l y , the archives i t s e l f can perform various s t a t i s t i c a l analyses for researchers . Boruch and C e c i l have also reviewed various procedural and s t a t i s t i c a l techniques which allow researchers to u t i l i z e personal information without a c t u a l l y permitting researchers to associate i d e n t i f i e r s with p a r t i c u l a r individuals. Survey respondents, for instance, can remain anonymous while p a r t i c i -pating in longitudinal studies by replacing their names on each successive questionnaire with a unique code created through the use of a formula supplied by the researcher. 2 5 0 There are, as well, techniques for allowing a researcher to link d i f f e r e n t types of records without having dir e c t access to i d e n t i f i e r s . In one such technique each survey respondent provides the researcher with a completed questionnaire and an encoded i d e n t i f i e r ( a l i a s ) . The survey respondents then give their a l i a s e s and true i d e n t i t i e s to the archives. The archives takes those case f i l e s pertaining to the respondents and replaces the respondents' names in the f i l e s with the provided a l i a s e s . The encoded archival records are then given to the researcher who can link the o r i g i n a l questionnaires and the archival case f i l e s without being aware of the research subjects' true i d e n t i t i e s . 3 1 Thus, as data a r c h i v i s t A l i c e Robbin notes, there are a 146 growing number of p r o c e d u r a l and s t a t i s t i c a l methods which a r c h i v e s can use to s a t i s f y the needs of at l e a s t some of the r e s e a r c h e r s who would normally r e q u i r e d i r e c t access to pe r s o n a l r e c o r d s . " 5 2 I t has been asked whether, i n r e a l i s t i c terms, the techniques d e s c r i b e d by Boruch and C e c i l f o r re d u c i n g the need f o r " t r u e " i d e n t i f i e r s are widely a p p l i c a b l e to s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e s e a r c h and whether such techniques are f e a s i b l e f o r use by r e s e a r c h e r s with l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s . 5 5 3 Boruch and C e c i l themselves s t a t e that the procedures f o r a v o i d i n g d i r e c t access to i d e n t i f i e d r e c o rds may be unaccept-able because they are complicated and may y i e l d i n a p a r t i c -u l a r s e t t i n g , lower q u a l i t y data than the d i r e c t methods.=-"* S i m i l a r l y , s e v e r a l a r c h i v i s t s have noted t h a t i f a r c h i v e s are to u t i l i z e the v a r i o u s procedures a v a i l a b l e f o r anonymizing r e c o r d s , there w i l l need to be an in c r e a s e i n a r c h i v a l funding and i n s t a f f e x p e r t i s e i n s t a t i s t i c a l and data management t e c h n i q u e s . = = 5 F i n a l l y , and most imp o r t a n t l y , i t i s obvious t h a t many of the procedures f e a s i b l e f o r use with computerized f i l e s would be almost impossible to apply to manual r e c o r d s - -and as has been noted, Canadian u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s do not as yet r e c e i v e student records i n machine readable form. The r e s e a r c h community, then, has sought to address the iss u e s r a i s e d by the i n c r e a s i n g demand of i t s members f o r access to pe r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . S o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s and s c h o l a r s i n t e r e s t e d i n s o c i a l s c i e n c e e t h i c s have been a c t i v e i n a n a l y z i n g the v a r i o u s e t h i c a l g u i d e l i n e s and review systems proposed by government agencies. While s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have by no means reached a consensus with regards to a p p r o p r i a t e 147 procedures for protecting subject privacy, they have attempted through the development of e t h i c a l codes and various tech-niques for working with personal records to demonstrate a commitment towards maintaining the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of personal information used in research. Social s c i e n t i s t s are of course not the only nonmedical researchers using personal information. Historians also may be affected by the e t h i c a l guidelines and records disclosure c r i t e r i a developed by government agencies. However, i t is Flaherty's view that historians as a group, unlike s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , "have not confronted certain basic e t h i c a l issues of data use." a s The major North American h i s t o r i c a l associa-tions, for instance, have not adopted formal codes of ethics." 3 7 Flaherty attributes the r e l a t i v e l y limited involve-ment of historians in the debate over research ethics to the fact that historians have t r a d i t i o n a l l y wrote about past generations, but he notes that now that historians are becoming increasingly involved in contemporary and s o c i a l history, they are facing problems similar to those of s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s . 3 6 3 Furthermore, although the h i s t o r i c a l profession does not appear to have become engaged in a rigorous analysis of the e t h i c a l issues raised by research involving l i v i n g subjects, i t has been a c t i v e l y involved in promoting "freedom of information" and in c r i t i c i z i n g government regulation of research. Some American historians have gone so far as to characterize the movement towards protecting privacy through l e g i s l a t i o n as "hysteria" and a "crusade" which menaces the t r a d i t i o n a l openness of a r c h i v e s . 3 3 148 Given the r e l a t i v e l y limited number of historians who have written on the topic, i t i s somewhat d i f f i c u l t to make generalizations about the views of historians regarding appropriate c r i t e r i a for the release of personal records. Nevertheless, i t does appear that those historians who have commented on the privacy issue tend to view privacy as a nonabsolute right which must be balanced with "the scholar's right to know."so It has been observed that h i s t o r i c a l scholars are l i k e l y to support privacy " u n t i l i t interferes with objective analysis.'" 5 1 Moreover, although the h i s t o r i c a l profession has not been active in proposing s p e c i f i c mechan-isms for balancing privacy with other interests, some suggestions regarding archival access r e s t r i c t i o n s have been made. It is interesting that a committee of the American H i s t o r i c a l Association did in 1950 approve the policy of screening researchers prior to the provision of access to manuscripts, while individual historians have subsequently condemned the p o l i c y of screening the r e s u l t s of r e s e a r c h . 6 2 Historians have also c r i t i c i z e d p o l i c i e s which either give a r c h i v i s t s a great deal of d i s c r e t i o n in imposing access r e s t r i c t i o n s or f a i l to indicate why r e s t r i c t i o n s are imposed. 6 , 3 F i n a l l y , historians such as Bogue and Canada's Robert Craig Brown have argued that records custodians and regulators of research ethics have neglected to protect the interests of researchers in the attempt to protect privacy. Brown states: At bottom, the manic pursuit in government agencies and university administration for codes, guides, regulations and bureaucratic impediments is a disavowal 149 of trust in the i n t e g r i t y of the researcher and his or her research. ...what i s needed, Professor [Robert] Graham concluded in 1971, " i s a reaffirmation of the pr i n c i p l e that as far as the world of scholarship i s concerned, the public interest is served by protecting to the greatest possible extent the freedom of the scholar, provided that i t is coupled with a sober sense of responsibility....'" 3"* Depending on their individual conceptions of privacy, historians, s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , and other scholars have thus expressed a wide var i e t y of views regarding proposed guide-lines for research access to personal records. Some scholars have argued that any research use of personal records without subject consent represents an unwarranted invasion of privacy while others have contended that society should trust researchers to use their d i s c r e t i o n in handling personal information. With regards to the l a t t e r view, however, since some academic groups have no formal codes of research ethics, and the codes of others provide limited guidance for appro-priate conduct, society may be j u s t i f i e d in not providing researchers with unrestricted access to personal f i l e s . On the other hand, i f access is to be r e s t r i c t e d , which r e s t r i c t i o n s are legitimate? The research community has c l e a r l y not been able to present a series of "approved" guidelines-- what then are the views of a r c h i v i s t s ? Is there currently an archival perspective on the privacy issue? If so, of which elements i s this perspective t y p i c a l l y composed? The Response of Archi v i s t s To some extent, the general stance of a r c h i v i s t s with regards to the privacy issue is predetermined by the nature of 150 their position in society. Faced on one side with records creators and subjects claiming the right to privacy, and on the other with scholars c i t i n g the right or at least the need to know, a r c h i v i s t s have long recognized the need to find means of balancing c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s . 6 2 5 It would seem, moreover, that at least when the issue in question i s access to personal records without subject consent, a r c h i v i s t s who accept the role of mediator also accept the view that the right to privacy can legitimately be balanced with other rights or needs. It has also been observed that the access dilemma facing a r c h i v i s t s arises not only from the nature of the archival role but also from the values of a r c h i v i s t s themselves which t y p i c a l l y "come from both scholarship and the rights of the i n d i v i d u a l . " 6 6 Archival codes of ethics such as those developed by the SAA therefore state that archival i n s t i t u t i o n s are obligated both "to guard against unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" and to make records "available for research as soon as possible. n e , y" A r c h i v i s t s may accept or even suggest access r e s t r i c t i o n s designed to protect privacy but these r e s t r i c t i o n s should be neither "unreasonable" nor unlimited in d u r a t i o n . e e A r c h i v i s t s have in fact decried those r e s t r i c t i o n s which threaten to cause—or when implemented, have caused--archival materials to be closed "for r i d i c u l o u s l y long periods of time," sealed permanently or even destroyed. 6 3 The very nature of archival work leads a r c h i v i s t s to view existing personal records as a potential s o c i e t a l resource which should be preserved and, under appropriate conditions, used. As a 151 SAA study group has recently stated, a r c h i v i s t s share "a unifying b e l i e f in the value of h i s t o r i c a l records to society, " 7°--and i t is clear that the fact that a series of records contains personal information does not in i t s e l f a l t e r the informational value of the se r i e s . Thus, the SAA Subcommittee on Student Records has stated that under normal circumstances, r e s t r i c t i o n s on access or the questions of individual rights and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y should have no bearing on the a r c h i v i s t ' s evaluation of the long term h i s t o r i c a l research value of univer-s i t y r e c o r d s . 7 1 Furthermore, the Association of Canadian A r c h i v i s t s (ACA) in reviewing federal privacy regulations has e x p l i c i t l y stated that the Canadian government, "should have procedures and means to make personal records available to res e a r c h e r s . " 7 2 While most a r c h i v i s t s agree that privacy r e s t r i c t i o n s must take into consideration the needs of scholars, members of the archival community, l i k e members of the research commun-i t y , obviously may hold d i f f e r i n g views as to pr e c i s e l y what weight the interests of scholars and records subjects should receive on the the o r e t i c a l balancing scale. In general terms, the archival community has in recent decades supported move-ments towards the " l i b e r a l i z a t i o n " of c i t i z e n and scholarly access to government and archival r e c o r d s . 7 3 National archival organizations have spoken of the "right to pursue legitimate research." 7"* The International Council on Archives produced in 1972 a model law on access which stated that "the 'principle of free access... should no longer have to be s a c r i f i c e d every time i t clashes'... with the privacy of i n d i v i d u a l s . " 7 3 In addition, individual commentators, echoing 152 the views of many researchers, have spoken of access to records in terms of r i g h t s . American a r c h i v i s t Sue Holbert, for instance, claims that "the right to information is as v a l i d as the right to privacy." 7" 5 The question may be asked as to what are the actual moral or legal claims of the scholar to personal information. It is a simple matter to claim a right but rather more d i f f i -c u l t to support i t in law. Clearly, freedom of information l e g i s l a t i o n has provided c i t i z e n s with a right to view broad classes of government records--with a general right to be informed of the operations of government. Alex Landenson, legal counsel to the SAA, notes as well that legal arguments have been made to the e f f e c t that under the F i r s t Amendment of the U.S. Constitution certain information can be deemed to be of "public 'or general interest" and that the right to privacy can therefore not be used to bar the disclosure of certain s c i e n t i f i c information found in personal case f i l e s (as long as i d e n t i f i e r s are not also disclosed)." 7 7 S i m i l a r l y , Canadian legal scholars have spoken about a somewhat "nebulous" right of the s c i e n t i f i c community to know, which competes with other ri g h t s , including the right to p r i v a c y . 7 3 However, even with respect to government information, federal privacy l e g i s l a t i o n indicates that scholars may view i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records only under certain c a r e f u l l y defined conditions. Although one could argue that c i t i z e n s have a certain moral right to review the operations of p u b l i c a l l y funded univer-s i t i e s , the claim that scholars have a general moral or legal right to view the records of individual students seems dubious. 153 Certainly many members of the archival community would not agree that the interests of scholars or those of the public should automatically be considered as superseding or even equalling those of individual record subjects. A 1974 survey revealed that at least twenty-five Canadian a r c h i v i s t s f e l t that the public's right to know should not outweigh an individual's privacy. In the same survey three respondents f e l t that the right to know was predominant; s i x f e l t that the passage of time would a l t e r the balance between public and individual r i g h t s , and ten respondents argued that the appropriate balance depended upon the circumstances of the individual case. 7" 3 At least in so far as personal records are concerned, i t seems probable that many a r c h i v i s t s would share manuscript curator Robert Rosenthal's opinion that "the scholar's access to the record is not a ri g h t , but is deter-mined by his needs and the needs of a democratic s o c i e t y . " 6 3 0 Indeed, while a r c h i v i s t s have generally supported the scholar's quest for freer access to archival records, many ar c h i v i s t s have also taken care to stress the importance of protecting individual privacy, e s p e c i a l l y in those cases involving the administration of personal case f i l e s . American a r c h i v i s t V i r g i n i a Stewart maintains that the a r c h i v i s t has the immediate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for maintaining rigorous standards in the protection of personal privacy on behalf of persons who may be unable to assert their rights--because they are l e g a l l y incompetent to do so (children, i n s t i t u t i o n -a l i z e d persons) or because they are unaware that records involving them have been transferred to an archives. 6 3 1 One may ask whether a r c h i v i s t s , who are usually w i l l i n g to 154 accept access r e s t r i c t i o n s when such r e s t r i c t i o n s are demanded by donors of private manuscripts, can in good conscience f a i l to protect the privacy of students simply because such students are not in the position to destroy their own records when their concerns are not met.*32 In fact, as Australian a r c h i v i s t Helen Yoxall has noted, a r c h i v i s t s have long recog-nized that, since a medium size manuscript c o l l e c t i o n may contain the l e t t e r s or other personal records of hundreds of th i r d parties, and since i t would be nearly impossible to contact a l l of these individuals to seek their consent for the use of the records, i t is necessary for a c h i v i s t s "to act independently on the i r behalf and apply r e s t r i c t i o n s to protect their p r i v a c y . 1 , ( 3 3 Whatever their views as to the r e l a t i v e strength of the claims of scholars and research subjects, a r c h i v i s t s recognize that access r e s t r i c t i o n s must be capable of being adminis-tered. Unfortunately, i t is somewhat d i f f i c u l t to obtain a sense of which s p e c i f i c types of r e s t r i c t i o n s a r c h i v i s t s consider to be both f a i r and p r a c t i c a l since exi s t i n g archival p o l i c i e s vary widely and since a r c h i v i s t s are often required to accept r e s t r i c t i o n s developed by records creators.* 3 4 As has been noted, some data archives have sought to avoid the disclosure of i d e n t i f i e r s altogether by u t i l i z i n g techniques involving the manipulation of data in machine readable form. Although many such techniques are not p r a c t i c a l for use with manual records, i t i s possible to remove or block out i d e n t i -f i e r s contained in textual case f i l e s or copies of case f i l e s . e , = Canadian a r c h i v i s t Doug Whyte has described a 155 procedure used by the Public Archives of Canada and the University of Saskatchewan in which sensitive information was removed from microfilmed legal records by covering certain frames on the films with l i g h t sensitive tape prior to producing duplicate copies of the r e c o r d s . 0 6 Obviously, such procedures for o b l i t e r a t i n g i d e n t i f i e r s are time consuming and therefore expensive. Furthermore, many a r c h i v i s t s recognize that cer t a i n forms of research require the use of i d e n t i f i e r s and argue that access p o l i c i e s must at times allow the disclosure of records in their o r i g i n a l form.®7' One common r e s t r i c t i o n which allows for the retention and eventual disclosure of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records is the closure of f i l e s for a spe c i f i e d time period, the duration of which varies greatly from i n s t i t u t i o n to i n s t i t u t i o n . For instance, American a r c h i v i s t Kathey Roe Coker, in reviewing the p o l i c i e s of state archives with regards to access to con f i d e n t i a l records, notes that seven states have spec i f i e d periods of closed access ranging in length from twenty-five years to the death of the record s u b j e c t . 3 0 Closure periods are also proposed by the SAA Subcommittee on Student Records which suggests that federal law should " c l e a r l y open student records to scholarly research use after the subjects are dead or within a s p e c i f i c period of time after the records are created such as 75 y e a r s . " 3 9 The SAA Subcommittee also recom-mends that the records of l i v i n g students should be opened provided that " r i g i d safeguards are enforced to protect the anonymity of individuals described in personally i d e n t i f i a b l e records."' 5* 0 The l a t t e r statement once more raises the issue 156 as to prec i s e l y what types of r e s t r i c t i o n s should be placed on access to and the use of personal records of l i v i n g i n d i v i -duals. How have archives sought to ensure that researchers w i l l not through the use or publication of sensitive informa-tion expose individuals to harm or embarrassment? A method t r a d i t i o n a l l y employed by archives to r e s t r i c t access to and the use of archival records is the screening of researchers on the basis of research credentials or the nature and value of the proposed research project.' 3 1 Public archives have tended to be less r e s t r i c t i v e in their access p o l i c i e s than their private counterparts. However, as Synnott has observed, even some public u n i v e r s i t i e s have exercised "a certain amount of d i s c r e t i o n in handling requests for access to their o f f i c i a l records,"'3''2 and a r c h i v i s t s have often screened applications for access to certain types of sensitive material. A t r a d i t i o n a l practice among archives is to review c a r e f u l l y the credentials of individuals seeking access to records such as medical f i l e s , which may require special t r a i n i n g on the part of the researcher i f they are to be properly i n t e r p r e t e d . 3 3 Access to personal records in general has often been limited by i n s t i t u t i o n s such as the University of I l l i n o i s to persons engaged in "legitimate research." 3"* Indeed, the arguments of individual a r c h i v i s t s and archival organizations such as the ACA for access to personal records have usually been based on the need to promote " l e g i t -imate" or "scholarly" r e s e a r c h . 3 3 Such terms imply that sensitive records are to be used by a certain type of researcher or for a certa i n type of research. Also, some 157 American archives have been required by record creating agencies to administer "discriminatory" access p o l i c i e s . As University A r c h i v i s t Joseph R. Anderson notes, in several states access to co n f i d e n t i a l government case records i s dependent "on the demonstration of legitimate purpose by the researcher." 1 3" 3 For example, the State of Georgia has passed l e g i s l a t i o n allowing private researchers to use conf i d e n t i a l records when "(1) the researcher i s q u a l i f i e d to perform such research; [and] (2) the research topic i s designed to produce a study that would be of potential benefit for the state or i t s c i t i z e n s . . . . "'s,y' Anderson observes that, while i t is d i f f i c u l t for state archives to es t a b l i s h objective c r i t e r i a for judging the legitimacy of a research purpose, the Michigan State Archives deals with the problem by interviewing researchers seeking access to case f i l e s , in order to screen out those who desire information on pa r t i c u l a r individuals and those have not c l e a r l y formulated their research proposals.' 3" 3 It is interesting to note that several state archives have at times supplemented the government-imposed r e s t r i c t i o n s on access to case records with r e s t r i c t i o n s of their own--primarily, as Stewart notes, " i n cases where the a r c h i v i s t had doubts about researcher s o p h i s t i c a t i o n in handling sensitive material." 3' 3' The reaction of the archival community to the use of screening procedures has been mixed. Anderson, for instance, contends that the procedures outlined in the Georgia Statute represent "the ideal from the archival point of vi e w . " 1 0 0 Many a r c h i v i s t s , however, fe e l that public archives have no right to decide who may view the records under their control 158 or which projects warrant the use of the records. As state-ments by the SAA make evident, the archival community has sought to promote the "maximum use of records of enduring value to society," and has sought to make records "available for use by a variety of c l i e n t s . " 1 0 1 In this regard, the 1973 SAA access standards s t i p u l a t e that " i t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of an archival and manuscript repository to make available research materials in i t s possession to researchers on equal terms of a c c e s s . " 1 0 2 While there appears to be broad commitment within the archival community to the p r i n c i p l e of equal access, there are varying interpretations as to pre c i s e l y what the p r i n c i p l e means. Some a r c h i v i s t s feel that the aim of the p r i n c i p l e i s to ensure equal access to a l l those patrons who meet the general c r i t e r i a used to define the term serious resear-c h e r . 1 0 3 From th i s point of view, the objectionable access r e s t r i c t i o n s are those which reserve records for use by a parti c u l a r researcher, those allowing o f f i c i a l s (especially government o f f i c i a l s ) to apply r e s t r i c t i o n s a r b i t r a r i l y so as to promote a pa r t i c u l a r interpretation of the records, and those which exclude s p e c i f i c individuals or s p e c i f i c classes of researchers. 1 0"* In contrast, other a r c h i v i s t s such as Tener f o r c e f u l l y argue that the d i v i s i o n of access between scholars and nonscholars is i t s e l f unethical--that "access should be ind i vis ible . " 1 0 ! S Most a r c h i v i s t s would probably agree that archives should attempt to welcome the general public as well as academic researchers, but i t may be argued that an exception should be made in the case of access to 159 personal records. The SAA "Guidelines for College and University Archives" state merely that "access to unrestricted material should be on equal terms to a l l researchers who abide by the rules of the archives." 1 0* 3 ( I t a l i c s mine.) Neverthe-les s , i t should be stressed that some a r c h i v i s t s committed to the p r i n c i p l e of equal access believe that i t i s improper for public archives to discriminate between users—even when the issue is access to sensitive personal r e c o r d s . 1 0 7 Whether or not a r c h i v i s t s attempt to screen research requests systematically for access to personal records, once researchers are provided with access, a r c h i v i s t s do have the option of attempting to control the manner in which the records are used. Public archives may seek to protect the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of personal case f i l e s by forbidding the recording or subsequent disclosure of i d e n t i f i e r s contained in the f i l e s . 1 0 0 As Stewart argues, however, " i t i s meaningless to announce po l i c y i t i f cannot be implemented." 1 0 1' Some in s t i t u t i o n s have therefore sought to enforce standards of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y by occasionally reviewing research notes or by requiring researchers to submit copies of their work for review prior to publication, and many archives require researchers to sign statements promising to follow the i n s t i t u t i o n s * s guidelines for the use of personal r e c o r d s . 1 1 0 Institutions may, of course, use a combination of procedures to enforce c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y r e s t r i c t i o n s . At the Manuscript Section of the University of I l l i n o i s Library, researchers desiring access to case records are required to complete an application form i d e n t i f y i n g themselves and their research purposes. The 160 a r c h i v i s t s reviewing the application forms inform researchers of the p a r t i c u l a r r e s t r i c t i o n s applicable to the requested f i l e s and of the fact that research notes and publications are subject to review. Researchers are also required to agree that they w i l l make no notation of the names of individuals with whom case records are concerned, and [that] such names w i l l not be used for teaching purposes, nor w i l l they appear in any publication r e s u l t i n g from [the] r e s e a r c h . 1 1 1 The Library's procedures, as Stewart notes, are designed to ensure that a r c h i v i s t s and researchers come into close contact during several stages of the research work, thereby allowing the a r c h i v i s t s to demonstrate concern for c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and, in the process, convince researchers of the seriousness of their own e t h i c a l and legal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 1 1 2 Attempts have in fact been made to impose legal obliga-tions upon researchers through the use of written agreements. Researchers using case records at the University of I l l i n o i s Library, in addition to agreeing not to disclose record subject names, must agree to "hold harmless and indemnify" the University for any loss or damage res u l t i n g from the improper release of personal i n f o r m a t i o n . 1 1 3 S i m i l a r l y , some American states have designed contractual agreements specifying the manner in which records are to be used. Under a contract developed by the Michigan State Archives through negotiations with the State Department of Mental Health, researchers agree (1) not to reveal i d e n t i f i a b l e personal information about the record subject, (2) to allow any notes or writings based on [their] research to be reviewed by the archives before dissemination, (3) to pay damages of $1,000 for v i o l a t i n g provisions of the agreement, 161 and (4) to indemnify and hold harmless the state and i t s agencies for any costs or damages which may accrue from the use of the records. 1 1"* Of course, some a r c h i v i s t s f e e l that those agreements or arch i v a l procedures which involve a r c h i v i s t s in the review of notes or publications constitute a form of censorship and should be avoided. Tener stresses that there is a danger that the a r c h i v i s t in administering access p o l i c i e s " w i l l become policeman and c e n s o r , " 1 1 3 while Holbert contends that the review of manuscripts should be required only in rare instan-c e s . 1 1 6 Undoubtedly, most a r c h i v i s t s would find the task of reviewing a patron's research methods to be d i s t a s t e f u l , and some would agree with Yoxall that " i f the data is too sensitive to allow the researcher to use i t in the way he/she sees f i t , then i t is r e a l l y too sensitive to be seen in the f i r s t p l a c e . " 1 1 7 Others, however, believe that researchers should be provided with the opportunity to study the personal records of l i v i n g individuals and fe e l that such records can l e g i t i -mately be opened only i f r i g i d c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y safeguards of some type are implemented. As might be expected, the d i v e r s i t y of opinion and practice which one finds among the archival community as a whole is also re f l e c t e d in the access p o l i c i e s of Canadian university archives. Responses to this study's 1985 survey indicated that over half of the i n s t i t u t i o n s contacted had some type of po l i c y regarding access to student records (Appendix 1, question eight). Naturally, many of the archives either were guided by the general student records p o l i c i e s of their supporting i n s t i t u t i o n s , described in the preceding 162 chapter, or followed the guidelines established by those o f f i c e s or departments which transferred records to the archives. Five respondents therefore simply indicated that access to ( o f f i c i a l ) student records was governed by the creating o f f i c e , and several others indicated that the approval of the creating o f f i c e or that of a p a r t i c u l a r o f f i c i a l or committee was required prior to the release of student information. Those s p e c i f i c access p o l i c i e s which were i d e n t i f i e d by a r c h i v i s t s ranged from the complete closure of student records to the application of r e l a t i v e l y informal guidelines. Thus, two repositories held microfilm security copies of r e g i s t r a r o f f i c e records which could not be examined, while three respondents stated that student records were not open to patrons. At two i n s t i t u t i o n s , i t was either recom-mended or required that i d e n t i f i e r s be removed from student f i l e s prior to their disclosure to researchers. Two other i n s t i t u t i o n s generally opened student records f i f t y years after the students had ceased to be registered, while a t h i r d provided access i f the record subject was deceased. Interest-ingly, one repository limited access "to a serious researcher working on a single person's background." The researcher was required to apply to the a r c h i v i s t , who would evaluate the request and the "reasons for making i t . " F i n a l l y , the policy of one archives was that of "common sense, i . e . , respect the privacy of the individual [but] allow reasonable use for genealogical and s t a t i s t i c a l research." The survey responses therefore indicate that a s i g n i f -icant number of uni v e r s i t y archives have r e l i e d on the record 163 creating o f f i c e s to establish conditions of access to student records and, as a previous chapter has noted, several respon-dents f e l t that the act of making the r e g i s t r a r responsible for access had resolved the privacy issue. It i s true, as Rosenthal observes, that the fact that a r c h i v i s t s are often guided in their access decisions by the regulations of their supporting i n s t i t u t i o n s is "a form of p r o t e c t i o n . " 1 1 6 3 However, as Rosenthal suggests, a r c h i v i s t s also have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to ensure that their i n s t i t u t i o n s establish e f f e c t i v e access p o l i c i e s , and as some of the a r c h i v i s t s responding to the 1985 survey recognized, adequate guidelines for access to student records have evidently not been formu-l a t e d . 1 1 * 9 It seems obvious that from the perspective of both the researcher and the record subject, p o l i c i e s which allow administrators to make access decisions a r b i t r a r i l y or without the aid of r a t i o n a l , well-publicized guidelines are no more desirable than p o l i c i e s which allow a r c h i v i s t s to make decisions in such a manner. It is apparent that a r c h i v i s t s , l i k e researchers, have not agreed upon a standard set of access r e s t r i c t i o n s , and that some a r c h i v i s t s have f a i l e d to give serious thought to the complex issue of balancing record subject and research int e r e s t s . However, the profession as a whole has experi-mented with a wide range of access r e s t r i c t i o n s and has at least attempted to promote the idea that society can benefit from research uses of personal information. In addition, some a r c h i v i s t s , working within i n s t i t u t i o n s such as the University of I l l i n o i s , have sought to develop coordinated sets of access 164 g u i d e l i n e s w h i c h would g u a r d a g a i n s t u n w a r r a n t e d i n v a s i o n s o f p r i v a c y w i t h o u t i m p o s i n g " u n r e a s o n a b l e " r e s t r i c t i o n s upon r e s e a r c h e r s . T h r o u g h t h e i r c o n t a c t w i t h b o t h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and r e s e a r c h e r s , u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s a r e c e r t a i n l y w e l l p l a c e d t o d e v e l o p an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e e l e m e n t s w h i c h must be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a sound s t u d e n t r e c o r d s a c c e s s p o l i c y . A t p r e s e n t t h e r e i s a d a n g e r t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i l l a r g u e f o r r i g i d i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s w h i l e r e s e a r c h e r s a r g u e f o r i n c r e a s e d t r u s t i n t h e s c h o l a r w i t h t h e r e s u l t b e i n g t h a t s t u d e n t r e c o r d s , f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s , r e m a i n c l o s e d . The t a s k a t hand i s t h e r e f o r e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p o l i c i e s w h i c h c a n be d e f e n d e d as c o n s t i t u t i n g a r e a s o n a b l e compromise between c o n f l i c t i n g v i e w s . NOTES -•Tom L. Beauchamp et a l . , eds., E t h i c a l Issues in Social  Science Research (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1982, p. 4. ^Robert T. Bower and P r i s c i l l a de Gasparis, Ethics in  Social Research: Protecting the Interests of Human Subjects (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1978), p. 4; Paul Davidson Reynolds, E t h i c a l Dilemmas and Social Science Research (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979), p. 265. 3PL. 93-348. "•Bradford H. Gray, "The Regulatory Context of Social and Behavioral Research," in E t h i c a l Issues in Social Science  Research, eds. Tom L. Beauchamp et a l . (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1982), p. 342. =Bower and de Gasparis, Ethics in Social Research, p. 36. sGray, "Regulatory Context," p. 333. ''Reynolds, E t h i c a l Dilemmas, p. 250. e I b i d . , p. 248; Bower and de Gasparis, Ethics in Social  Research, pp. 45,. 52. "''Gray, "Regulatory Context," p. 332 . 1 0 I b i d . , pp. 342, 344-45, 350. 1^Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the  Co n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Health Information, Vol. 3 (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 1980), p. 41. 1 2 :Medical Research Council of Canada, Working Group on Human Experimentation, E t h i c a l Considerations in Research  Involving Human Subjects (Ottawa: Medical Research Council, 1978), pp. 16-21. 1 3Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the  Co n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Health Information, Vo1. 3, p. 41. l"*Canada Council, Consultative Group on Ethics, Ethics, (Ottawa: The Canada Council, 1977), p. 5. l ! 3 I b i d . , pp. 6, 11-15, 18. l s F o r a review of this l i t e r a t u r e see the annotated biliography in Bower and de Gasparis, Ethics in Social  Research. 166 1 7Reynolds, E t h i c a l Dilemmas, p. 3. i eBower and de Gasparis, Ethics in Social Research, p. 55; Reynolds, E t h i c a l Dilemmas, p. 225. '•'"'Ibid., pp. 442-49; For a summary of Amercian s o c i a l science e t h i c a l codes see Bower and de Gasparis, Ethics in  Social Research, Appendix A, pp. 76-79. -^Reynolds, E t h i c a l Dilemmas, p. 444. 2 1Canada Council, Consultative Group on Ethics, Ethics, p.2 a 2 I b i d . ffi3Reynolds, E t h i c a l Dilemmas, p. 244; David H. Flaherty, Privacy and Government Data Banks: Art International Perspective (London: Mansell Publishing, 1979), p. 331. ^Canada Council, Consulatative Group on Ethics, Ethics, p. 2. 2 = 5Boruch and C e c i l , C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Social Research  Data, p. 30. ^ I b i d . , pp. 30, 47. ^ A l l a n G. Bogue, " H i s t o r i c a l Research and State Archival Data," in A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records:  Proceedings of the Conference on Archival Management of  Machine-Readable Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor,  Michigan (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980), p. 26. 2 eBoruch and C e c i l , C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Research Data, pp. 30-37, 39-47. The authors note that ex i s t i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s on access to school records have "prevented projects ranging from mundane but c r i t i c a l research, such as v e r i f y i n g the record contents, to elaborate investigations, such as estimating the e f f e c t s of a complex curriculum," p. 12. ^ F l a h e r t y , Privacy and Government Data Banks, pp. 22, 89-95 This study constitutes a comprehensive examination of the data disclosure p o l i c i e s of national s t a t i s t i c a l agencies in B r i t a i n , Sweden, Germany, Canada, and the United States. 3°David H. Flaherty, Research and S t a t i s t i c a l Uses of  Ontario Government Personal Data (Toronto: Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, 1979), p. 185. 3 1Canadian Association of University Teachers, Freedom  of Information: A Brief Submitted to the Government of Canada  by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (Ottawa: Canadian Association of University Teachers, 1978), p. 3. 167 3 2Bower and de Gasparis, Ethics in Social Research, p. 35. 3 3 T e r r y Pinkard, "Invasions of Privacy in Social Science Research," in E t h i c a l Issues in Social Science Research, eds. Tom L. Beauchamp et a l . (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1982), pp. 267-71; See also Arthur L. Caplan, "On Privacy and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y in Social Science Research," in E t h i c a l Issues in Social Science Research, eds. Tom L. Beauchamp et a l . (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1982), pp. 321-22. 3"*Pinkard, "Invasions of Privacy," p. 270. 3 SR. Jay Wallace, "Privacy and the Use of Data in Epidemiology," in E t h i c a l Issues in Social Science Research, eds. Tom L. Beauchamp et a l . (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1982), p. 291. 3 SSee, for example: B r i t i s h Association for the Advancement of Science, Does Research Threaten Privacy or Does  Privacy Threaten Research? (London: n.p., 1974), p. 3. ^Reynolds, E t h i c a l Dilemmas, p. 216. 3 < 3 I b i d . ; Wallace, "Privacy and the Use of Data," pp. 277, 291. 3 3 J o h n A. Robertson, "The Social S c i e n t i s t ' s Right to Research and the IRB System," in E t h i c a l Issues in Social  Science Research, eds. Tom L. Beauchamp et a l . (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1982), p. 356; Bower and de Gasparis, Ethics in Social Research, p. 227; Reynolds, E t h i c a l Dilemmas, p. 2 27. 4°Bower and de Gasparis, Ethics in Social Research, p. 47; Joan C a s s e l l , "Does Risk-Benefit Analysis Apply to Moral Evaluation of Social Research?" in E t h i c a l Issues in Social  Science Research, eds. Tom L. Beauchamp et a l . (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1982), p. 156. •* 1Wallace, "Privacy and the Use of Data," pp. 282-83; Flaherty, Privacy and Government Data Banks, p. 308. "*2Reynolds, E t h i c a l Dilemmas, p. 216. •* 3Ibid, . p. 83; Bower and de Gasparis, Ethics in Social  Research, p. 50. **"*Ibid., pp. 399-400; Report of the Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy, pp. 285-87; Alice Robbin, "E t h i c a l Standards and Data Archives," in Secondary Analysis:  New Directions for Program Evaluation ed. Robert Boruch (San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978), p. 12; Paul T. Zeisset, "Census Bureau C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Practices and Their Implications for 168 A r c h i v i s t s , " in A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records:  Proceedings of the Conference on Archival Management of  Machine-Readable Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor,  Michigan (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980), p. 212. "*=sFor an overview of t h i s body of l i t e r a t u r e see the bibliography in Boruch and C e c i l , C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Research  Data, pp. 281-304. "^Carolyn L. Geda and Erik W. Austin, "An Archives for the Social Sciences," in Arc h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable  Records: Proceedings of the Conference on Archival  Management of Machine-Readable Records, February 7-10, 1979,  Ann Arbor, Michigan (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980), p. 122. •"•'''Richard A. Hofferbert, " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , Privacy, and Social Data Archives: Special Problems for Pol i c y Analysis," in A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records: Proceedings of the  Conference on Archival Management of Machine-Readable  Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980), p. 223; B r i t i s h Association for the Advance of Science, Does Research Threaten  Privacy, p. 3. "*eThe e f f o r t s of the machine readable records d i v i s i o n s of the National Archives and Records Service and the Public Archives of Canada to maintain the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of personal records are described in Charles M. Dollar, "Machine-Readable Records of the Federal Government and the National Archives," in A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records: Proceedings of the  Conference on Archival Management of Machine-Readable  Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980), p. 85; Harold A. Naugler, "The Machine-Readable Archives Program of the Public Archives of Canada: The F i r s t Five Years," in Arc h i v i s t s and  Machine-Readable Records: Proceedings of the Conference on  Archival Management of Machine-Readable Records, February 7- 10, 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980), p. 76. * 9Boruch and C e c i l , C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Research Data, pp. 177-81; Robbin, "Ethical Standards," p. 12; Zeisset, "Census Bureau C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " pp. 208-13; The creation of anonymous f i l e s for research use i s addressed i n : U.S. Department of Commerce. Federal Committee on S t a t i s t i c a l Methodology, S t a t i s t i c a l Policy Working Paper 2: Report on  S t a t i s t i c a l Disclosure and Disclosure-Avoidance Technigues (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978). 25°Boruch and C e c i l , C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Research Data, p. 108. B 5 1 I b i d . / pp. 116, 117-26; See also Robert F. Boruch, 169 "Strategies for E l i c i t i n g and Merging Confidential Social Research Data," P o l i c y Sciences 3 (1982): 241-97. "^Robbin, "Ethical Standards," p. 12. S 3Caplan, "On Privacy and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " p. 323. 5 4Boruch and C e c i l , C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Research Data, p. 183; Furthermore, as of 1972 at least, i t was Boruch's opinion that "techniques for cryptographic encoding [were] l i k e l y to be unfamiliar to most s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , computer s c i e n t i s t s , or managers of data f i l e s . " Boruch, "Strategies for E l i c i t i n g and Merging Confidential Data," p. 294. "^Robbin, "E t h i c a l Standards," p. 12; Judith S. Rowe, "Privacy L e g i s l a t i o n : Implications for A r c h i v i s t s , " in Archi v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records: Proceedings of the  Conference on Archival Management of Machine-Readable  Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980), p. 200; Joseph R. Anderson, "Public Welfare Case Records: A Study of Archival Practices," American A r c h i v i s t 43 (Spring 1980): 178; A recent survey of North American university archives notes, in fact, that university archives which hold machine readable records devote most of their e f f o r t s simply to storing the records and disseminate l i t t l e data for nonadministrative purposes. Leon J. Stout and Donald A. Baird, "Automation in North American College and University Archives: A Survey," Amercian A r c h i v i s t 47 ( F a l l 1984): 398. "^David H. Flaherty, "Privacy and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : The Responsibility of Historians," Reviews in American History 8 (September 1980 ) : 419. " J o a n Hoff-Wilson, "Access to Restricted Co l l e c t i o n s : The Responsibility of Professional H i s t o r i c a l Organizations," American A r c h i v i s t 46 ( F a l l 1983): 442. "-"^Flaherty, "Privacy and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " pp. 419-20. S 9Bogue, " H i s t o r i c a l Research," p. 27; Walter Rundell J r . and Bruce F. Adams, "Historians, A r c h i v i s t s and the Privacy Issue," Georgia Archive 3 (Winter 1975): 3. e oNorman A. Graebner, "History, Society, and the Right to Privacy," in The Scholar's Right to Know Versus the  Individual's Right to Privacy: Proceedings of the F i r s t  Rockerfeller Archive Center Conference, December 5, 1975 (n.p.: Rockerfeller Archive Center, 1976), pp. 21, 23; Allan G. Bogue, "Data Dilemmas: Quantitative Data and the Social Science History Association," Social Science History 3 (October 1979): 212. s l R u n d a l l and Adams, "Historians, A r c h i v i s t s and Privacy," p. 3. 170 s : 2 P h i l i p P. Mason, "The Ar c h i v i s t ' s Respons i b l i 1 i ty to Researchers and Donors: A Delicate Balance," in Access to the  Papers of Recent Public Figures: The New Harmony Conference eds. Alonzo L. Hamby and Edward Weldon (Bloomington, Indiana: Organization of American Historians, 1977), p. 33; Alonzo L. Hamby, "Unseen Sources: A Historian's Dilemma," in Access to  the Papers of Recent Public Figures: The New Harmony  Conference eds. Alonzo L. Hamby and Edward Weldon (Bloomington, Indiana: Organization of American Historians, 1977), p. 16. S3Hamby, "Unseen Sources," p. 20; Barton J. Bernstein, "A Plea for Opening the Door," in Access to the Papers of  Recent Public Figures: The New Harmony Conference eds. Alonzo L. Hamby and Edward Weldon (Bloomington, Indiana: Organization of American Historians, 1977), pp. 84-85. s**Robert Craig Brown, "Government and Historian: A Perspective on B i l l C43," Archivaria (Winter 1981-82): 123. S 5 S"Submission of the Canadian Association of Archi v i s t s to the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Legal A f f a i r s with Respect to B i l l C-43," (n.d.), p. 2; Subcommittee on Student Records, College and University Archives Committee, Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , "The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act and the Research Use of Student Records," in College and University Archives: Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), p. 180; Sue E. Holbert, Archives and  Manuscripts: Reference and Access (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1977), p. 5; Rowe, "Privacy L e g i s l a t i o n , " p. 193; Robert Rosenthal, "Who Wi l l Be Responsible for Private Papers of Private People," in The Scholar's Right to Know  Versus the Individual's Right to Privacy: Proceedings of the  F i r s t Rockerfeller Archive Center Conference, December 5, 1975 (n.p.: Rockerfeller Archive Center, 1976), p. 4. e e I b i d . , p. 6. e 7""Joint Statement on Access to Original Research Materials," College and Research Library News 4 (1979): 112; This statement superseded an e a r l i e r , similar statement: "Standards for Access to Research Materials in Archival and Manuscript Repositories," American Ar c h i v i s t 37 (January 1974): 153-54; For a more comprehensive e t h i c a l statement see "A Code of Ethics for A r c h i v i s t s , " SAA Newsletter (July 1979): 11-12. •^Ibid. , p. 11; "Joint Statement," p. I l l ; "Report of the Task Force on I n s t i t u t i o n a l Evaluation," SAA Newsletter (January 1980): 12. &<3Rowe, "Privacy L e g i s l a t i o n , " p. 193; Kathey Roe Coker, " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Records and Access: A Survey of State Archival I n s t i t u t i o n s , " Records Management Quarterly 16 (July 1982): 25; Charles B. Elston, "University Student Records: 171 Research Use, Privacy Rights and the Buckley Law," in College and University Archives: Selected Readings, eds. Charles B. Elston et a l . (Chicago: Society of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979), p. 75. " ^ " A r c h i v i s t : A D e f i n i t i o n , " SAA Newsletter (January 1984): 4. 7 1 Subcommittee on Student Records, "Research Use of Student Records," p. 179. '^Association of Canadian A r c h i v i s t s , "Brief to the Secretary of State in Response to the Green Paper: L e g i s l a t i o n on Public Access" (June 1978), p. 8. ' 3 F o r a br i e f history of government access p o l i c i e s see: Jean Tener, " A c c e s s i b i l i t y and Archives," Archivaria 6 (Summer 1978): 16-31. "*"Submission of the ACA," p. 12. '^Quoted in Tener, " A c c e s s i b i l i t y , " p. 19. '^Holbert, Reference and Access, p. 6. " A l e x Ladenson, "Legal Problems in Administering Confidential Case Records," SAA Newsletter (May 1978): 10. ' eEdward H. Humphries, Privacy in Jeopardy: Student  Records in Canada (Toronto: The Ontario I n s t i t u t i o n for Studies in Education, 1980), p. 5. '^Laurenda Daniells, "Current Practices Relating to the Use of Unpublished Material in Canadian Repositories," Archives B u l l e t i n (May 19 74): 7. ^Rosenthal, "Private Papers," p. 3. raiVirginia R. Stewart, "Problems of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y in the Administration of Personal Case Records," Amercian  Ar c h i v i s t 37 (1974): 398; A similar argument is presented in Joy Parr, "Case Records as Sources for Social History," Archivaria (Summer 1977): 135. e : 2 : A r c h i v i s t Herbert Finch suggests that university a r c h i v i s t s when a s s i s t i n g in the formation of access p o l i c i e s have a "professional obligation to protect the confidential information inherent in the educative process." Hebert Finch, "The Problem of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y in a College Archives," American A r c h i v i s t 31 (July 1968): 239. < 3 3Helen Yoxall, "Privacy and Personal Papers," Archives  and Manuscripts 12 (May 1984): 40. , a"*Elston, "University Student Records," p. 72. 172 e f 3Stewart, "Problems of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " p. 390. e sDoug Whyte, "The Acquisition of Lawyers' Private Papers," Archivaria (Summer 1984 ): 148. < 3' 7Stewart, "Problems of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " p. 390; Tener, " A c c e s s i b i l i t y and Archives," pp. 29, 30; Parr, "Case Records," p. 135. raraCoker, " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Records," p. 26. "^Subcommittee on Student Records, "Research Use of Student Records," p. 180. • a o I b i d . s , 1For a statement of that t r a d i t i o n a l view see: Howard H. Peckham, " P o l i c i e s Regarding the Use of Manuscripts," Library Trends 5 (1956-57): 363. 9 2 M a r c i a G. Synnott, "The Half-Opened Door: Researching Admissions Discrimination at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton," American A r c h i v i s t 45 (Spring 1982): 178. '^"Discussion Summary," in The Scholar's Right to Know  Versus the Individual's Right to Privacy: Proceedings of the  F i r s t Rockerfeller Archive Center Conference, December 5, 1975 (n.p.: Rockerfeller Archive Center, 1976), p. 27; Simi l a r l y , Holbert notes that welfare agencies may l i m i t access to case f i l e s to professional s o c i a l workers. Holbert, Reference and Access, p. 8. '^Elston, "University Student Records," p. 77. '^Ibid; "Submission of the ACA," p. 12. 3 GAnderson, "Public Welfare Case F i l e s , " p. 174. •''Ibid., p. 173. •^'Ibid., p. 174. •^Stewart, "Problems of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " p. 391. 1 0 0Anderson, "Public Welfare Case Records," p. 172. 1 0 1 " A Statement of the Mission and Goals for the Archival Profession," SAA Newsletter (March 1983): 7; "A r c h i v i s t , " p. 5.* 1 0 2"Standards for Access," p. 153; "Joint Statement," p. I l l ; "Report of the Task Force on I n s t i t u t i o n a l Evaluation," SAA Newsletter (January 1980): 12. 1 0 3Mason, "The Arc h i v i s t ' s Responsibility," p. 30. 1 0"*Ibid, p. 36; Tener, " A c c e s s i b i l i t y and Archives, 20; Holbert, Reference and Access, p. 8. l o a I b i d . , p. 26. 1 0s»College and University Archives Guidelines," American A r c h i v i s t 43 (Spring 1980): 265-66. 1 0 7 - Y o x a l l , "Privacy and Personal Papers," p. 42. l o o H o l b e r t , Reference and Access, p. 8. l o eStewart, "Problems of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " p. 390. 1 1 0 I b i d . , 392; Holbert, Reference and Access, p. 8 1 1 3-Stewart, "Problems of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , " p. 390. 1 1 2 I b i d . , p. 397. 1 1 3 I b i d . , p. 396. 1 1**Anderson, "Public Case Records," p. 174; Coker, " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Records," p. 24. 1 1 = T e n e r , " A c c e s s i b i l i t y and Archives," p. 26. 1 l s H o l b e r t , Reference and Access, p. 8. 1'-'Yoxall, "Privacy and Personal Papers," p. 42. l i e R o s e n t h a l , "Who Will Be Responsible," p. 4. l x 3 , I b i d . 174 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION This study has examined the problem of establishing access p o l i c i e s for student records from the perspective of the records' subjects, creators, and users. It has demon-strated that neither Canadian law nor the e t h i c a l statements of either u n i v e r s i t y administrators or researchers provide a r c h i v i s t s with clear guidance as to when student records should be open to researchers and when such records should be closed. It has also demonstrated both that i t is possible to id e n t i f y certain prevalent concerns of students, administra-tors, and researchers with regards to access p o l i c i e s , as well as certain basic opposing concepts of privacy i t s e l f , and that there are numerous d i f f e r e n t types of access r e s t r i c t i o n s available for use by a r c h i v i s t s . This f i n a l chapter w i l l focus on the role of the university a r c h i v i s t in establishing or recommending sound student records access p o l i c i e s . The chapter w i l l thus suggest methods for addressing some of the general concerns of those groups affected by the p o l i c i e s and w i l l review the choices faced by a r c h i v i s t s with regards to the structure, underlying philosophy, and content of proposed p o l i c i e s . . P a r t i c u l a r emphasis w i l l be placed on the need for a r c h i v i s t s to develop a coherent philosophical position on the privacy issue--on the need f i r s t to d i f f e r e n t i a t e c l e a r l y 175 between those types of privacy which should be protected and those which should not, and then to propose graduated sets of access r e s t r i c t i o n s which w i l l balance the reasonable expectations of record subjects with the needs of researchers. There can be no doubt that the formulation of acceptable student records p o l i c i e s w i l l i nevitably be a demanding exercise which w i l l require a r c h i v i s t s to u t i l i z e whatever p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s they have developed in their role of "honest broker." Since the concepts of both privacy and academic freedom are emotion-laden, the concerns of students and researchers regarding proposed access p o l i c i e s w i l l often be based more on a vague fear that either the right to privacy or the freedom of the scholar is under attack than on a r a t i o n a l , thorough analysis of the policy's disclosure c r i t e r i a . S i m i l a r l y , as Harley Holden notes, i t is both the real and the "imaginary" problems of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y which can lead university administrators to question the archival preserva-tion of student records. 1 Precisely because the issue of research access to student records is complex and not l i k e l y to be a high p r i o r i t y in the university community, i t is e a s i l y misunderstood or oversimplified. A r c h i v i s t s may thus need to adopt the role of educator by acting to dispel miscon-ceptions and to assure members of the university community that extensive thought has gone into the preparation of the proposed records p o l i c i e s . Certain general steps can in fact be taken to address the concerns of students, administrators, and researchers. Pol i c y statements, for instance, can be so worded as to inform 176 students that a r c h i v i s t s (and other records custodians) are aware that records produced by university o f f i c e s contain many types of information generally considered to be sensitive, and that a r c h i v i s t s recognize and take seri o u s l y their obligation to protect students from unwarranted invasions of privacy. Indeed, respect for student rights can be demonstrated through the simple act of making access statements available to students, either in a student handbook as suggested by the Russell Sage Committee or in some other format. It should also be useful to have access statements emphasize the difference between research uses of student records and those uses of the records by administrators or employers which lead to decisions a f f e c t i n g the individual record subjects. S i m i l a r l y , since many administrators are l i k e l y to believe that the transfer of records to the university archives is equivalent to their disclosure to the public, i t should be useful to stress that a r c h i v i s t s , as professionals within the university, share the views of educators and administrators regarding the need to avoid improper breaches of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , and are aware that some administrative o f f i c e s may have their own d i s t i n c t i v e standards of confiden-t i a l i t y . Administrators can be informed that archival access standards e x p l i c i t l y recognize the right of administrative o f f i c e s to impose r e s t r i c t i o n s on material transferred to the university a r chives. 2 A r c h i v i s t s w i l l want to stress that they are capable both of upholding reasonable access r e s t r i c -tions established by university o f f i c e s and of suggesting guidelines appropriate for the records produced by those 177 o f f i c e s . F i n a l l y , whatever guidelines are eventually established, researchers are l i k e l y to be interested in knowing both who developed the guidelines and the rationales behind them. It is for good reason that archival e t h i c a l standards stress the importance of producing formal written access p o l i c i e s . The presence of written accounts of the origins and exact nature of access r e s t r i c t i o n s may help a r c h i v i s t s to avoid leaving researchers with the impression that decisions to refuse access to sensitive material are made on an a r b i t r a r y basis. An awareness of the concerns of those affected by access p o l i c i e s can be r e f l e c t e d not only by the manner in which the p o l i c i e s are publicized but also by the structure of the p o l i c i e s themselves. For example, d i f f e r e n t types of resear-chers w i l l require access to d i f f e r e n t types or forms of student records. Access r e s t r i c t i o n s suitable to s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s studying the impact of educational programs on contemporary students may not be suitable to historians writing on the topic of nineteenth century student l i f e . Thus, to implement an access policy consisting of a single blanket r e s t r i c t i o n on access to student records would seem to ignore the complexity of the research process. Furthermore, given the fact that student records are created by numerous professional groups which may have d i f f e r e n t standards of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , to adopt a single guideline or even a single set of guidelines for a l l the student records series which may be preserved in the archives would be to ignore the r e a l i t i e s of university administration. In other words, although an 178 archival student records policy may contain broad statements regarding the student's right to privacy and the general procedures to be followed by researchers prior to obtaining access to records, i t may be desirable to develop separate sets of r e s t r i c t i o n s for the various o f f i c e s or records systems covered by the poli c y . Ideally, the various sets of access guidelines would be developed in a manner such as that suggested by the Russell Sage Committee, by a representative body able to take into account the views of records subjects, creators, and users. It seems l i k e l y , moreover, that i f sound p o l i c i e s are to be developed, university a r c h i v i s t s w i l l need to take an active role in the policy-making process. Certainly the fact that the exi s t i n g student records p o l i c i e s of several Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s contain r e s t r i c t i o n s such as the complete closure of student f i l e s to t h i r d parties indicates that policy makers may elect to adopt convenient solutions to the problem of balancing privacy with openess. Administrators may simply not be prepared to devote much attention to the issue of access to student records, and i t may therefore f a l l upon a r c h i v i s t s to present sound policy suggestions. Indeed, a r c h i v i s t s can perform a valuable service by providing administrators with an overview of conceivable access r e s t r i c -tions, along with an analysis of the positive and negative features of each r e s t r i c t i o n . However, in order to present a thorough c r i t i q u e of the various conceivable r e s t r i c t i o n s , i t w i l l be necessary to define c l e a r l y the basis upon which the r e s t r i c t i o n s are being judged. A r c h i v i s t s , in other words, 179 w i l l need to specify which type of privacy t h e i r proposed p o l i c i e s are intended to protect. This study has observed that underlying most of the major governmental and private sector record-keeping studies i s a u t i l i t a r i a n or s t r a t e g i c view of privacy which holds that the main purpose of protecting privacy i s to prevent personal information from being used by unauthorized individuals or agencies to make decisions a f f e c t i n g the record subjects. In contrast, some individuals believe that privacy is valuable in i t s e l f — t h a t there i s an aesthetic value in preserving private areas of experience and therefore i t is not only the misuse of personal records but their very existance which is disturbing. Students in at least one Canadian university have rejected outright the practice of transferring personal records to the university archives. Some university administrators, moti-vated either by an aesthetic conception of privacy or simply by a b e l i e f that personal records cannot be adequately protected against misuse, have argued that the destruction of noncurrent student records is a v a l i d method of protecting privacy. What needs to be asked, however, is whether the aesthetic conception of privacy is compatible with the archival perspective. As has been suggested, the very nature of archival work leads a r c h i v i s t s to view personal records as a s o c i e t a l resource. Not only i s there an increasing demand on the part of researchers for greater access to new sources of personal information in the form of case f i l e s and government micro-data, but e x i s t i n g bodies of archival records — including those 180 preserved in university a r c h i v e s — h o l d great quantities of information pertaining to i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v iduals. Indeed, as one respondent to t h i s study's 1985 survey noted, information r e l a t i n g to students i s an integral part of almost a l l univer-s i t y records s e r i e s . To deny the legitimacy of preserving personal records would therefore seem to deny the legitimacy of the archival mission. Thus, while they can and do protect s t r a t e g i c privacy by guarding against the misuse of personal information, a r c h i v i s t s may need to argue that they generally cannot support the protection of aesthetic privacy i f that protection requires the destruction of valuable records. It may occasionally be necessary to accept the destruction of student records which are considered to be p a r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i v e . Nevertheless, surely i t is reasonable to take the position that the protection of privacy is not incompatible with the preservation of personal records, and that the use of records destruction as general means of protecting privacy is contrary to the interests of scholarship and hence the goals of the university. Assuming that the legitimacy of student records reten-tion is accepted, the next question which arises is what protection should be provided for the record subjects' privacy. It should be remembered that in e x i s t i n g record-keeping policy statements, including those of the Canadian federal government and some Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s , the right to privacy is commonly held to be equivalent to the right of individuals to control the communication of personal informa-ti o n about themselves. Thus, although scholars continue to 181 disagree over how privacy should be defined, policy makers have adopted d e f i n i t i o n s which speak of privacy in terms of control over information. In most cases a l l that remains at issue i s how s t r i c t l y should the right to informational privacy be interpreted and applied. Those e t h i c a l analysts who hold a pure or s t r i c t conception of privacy argue that the need to preserve individual autonomy is so important that any research use of personal records without the permission of the records subjects should be considered improper. The need to seek the informed consent of record subjects prior to the use of personal information has in fact been stressed in the et h i c a l guidelines of research funding agencies, in the e t h i c a l codes of some professional groups within u n i v e r s i t i e s , and in at least some of the existing Canadian university student records p o l i c i e s . University a r c h i v i s t s are thus l i k e l y to be faced with individuals arguing for a s t r i c t interpretation of the right to privacy. It may be argued, however, that such an i n t e r -pretation, l i k e the aesthetic conception of privacy, is unacceptable from an archival point of view. Given the extent to which information about named individuals permeates most university record s e r i e s , i t would c l e a r l y be impossible for university a r c h i v i s t s to provide access to unaltered contem-porary records and at the same time uphold the right of individuals to control d i r e c t l y the dissemination of informa-t i o n about themselves. Conceivably, i t would be possible to overlook the fact that students are i d e n t i f i e d in many record s e r i e s . Student consent could then be required only prior to 182 the release of case f i l e s ; that i s , separate f i l e s which deal with individual students and are retrievable by name. Even so, i t i s obvious that to impose r i g i d informed consent requirements on student case f i l e s would e f f e c t i v e l y close large bodies of student records to research use. Researchers such as Marcia Synnott have already demonstrated that e x i s t i n g access r e s t r i c t i o n s requiring student consent have prevented student records from being used in valuable s t u d i e s . 3 Thus, whereas at times the acceptance of informed consent requirements may be unavoidable, p a r t i c u l a r l y when certai n highly sensitive records are transferred to the archives from university o f f i c e s operating under s t r i c t "norms of confidence," i t would seem desirable to argue against the widespread use of such requirements. In order to avoid the adoption of p o l i c i e s granting students d i r e c t control over research access to their records, a r c h i v i s t s could advocate the adoption of alternative access r e s t r i c t i o n s which seek to ensure either that the invasion of privacy is avoided altogether or that any invasions of privacy which do occur are warranted. In other words, two options are available. Controls can be placed on personal information i t s e l f so as to make i t safe for general release, or controls can be placed on the uses of the information. One method of making personal records safe for public disclosure i s to manipulate the information within the records so that i t cannot be linked to particular individuals. If s p e c i f i c individuals can no longer be i d e n t i f i e d , the records obviously cease to be personal. Unfortunately, as this study 183 has noted, many of the techniques for removing i d e n t i f i e r s and other data elements from f i l e s , for introducing random errors into f i l e s , and for aggregating data are t y p i c a l l y expensive, complex, and suitable only for use with machine readable records. Although i t is possible to obli t e r a t e i d e n t i f i e r s from textual records, t h i s procedure i s highly time consuming and therefore is impractical for widespread use in most small archives. One respondent to this, study's 1985 survey of university archives s p e c i f i c a l l y stated that since student f i l e s at his univer s i t y could not be released without f i r s t erasing names, "research w i l l not be carried out because of the expense." Even i f names and other i d e n t i f i e r s can be removed from textual f i l e s , the i d e n t i t y of subject i n d i v i -duals can sometimes s t i l l be deduced using information remaining in the f i l e s or available from outside sources. Unless record custodians can ensure that individual students cannot be linked to those records which are released, the records remain personal, and the claim of students to control access must s t i l l be addressed. Of course, the fact that at present i t i s usually impractical for univer s i t y a r c h i v i s t s to protect student privacy by u t i l i z i n g techniques for manipulating data elements does not mean that such techniques w i l l be impractical in the future. Since many university administrative o f f i c e s are now automating their f i l e s , university a r c h i v i s t s may eventually be able to employ some of the data management techniques developed by the larger machine readable archives. Alterna-t i v e l y , i t may be possible for a r c h i v i s t s to persuade 184 university administrative o f f i c e s to produce anonymous student f i l e s which can be made available to researchers in the administrative o f f i c e s themselves, in the u n i v e r s i t i e s ' data l i b r a r i e s , or in the archives.'* In addition, i t may at times be possible to persuade research agencies seeking access to student records to provide university archives with funds for removing i d e n t i f i e r s from requested f i l e s or for employing those techniques described in chapter fiv e which reduce the need for d i r e c t access to personal records. Nevertheless, even i f the funds and expertise were available to anonymize records, statements by many commen-tators, including the Canadian Association of University Teachers, have made i t clear that cer t a i n research a c t i v i t i e s require the use of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records. Thus, while data manipulation techniques w i l l in many instances provide a high l e v e l of protection for student privacy, such techniques may not provide adequate protection for the interests of researchers. A policy which stipulated that archival student records could be released only when i d e n t i -f i e r s are removed would often not only create insurmountable p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s for the archive's s t a f f , i t would also prevent certain types of research from being conducted at a l l . As has been seen, data manipulation is not the only method of making records safe for general release. In addition to removing i d e n t i f i e r s , a r c h i v i s t s have long applied time r e s t r i c t i o n s to personal information. Esp e c i a l l y when such r e s t r i c t i o n s consist of the closure of entire series or subseries of records for a s p e c i f i c number of years after the 185 creation of the records, they have the advantage of being both f l e x i b l e and r e l a t i v e l y simple to administer. For instance, i t is possible to vary the length of the time r e s t r i c t i o n s by establishing long closure periods for series containing highly sensitive information and shorter closure periods for series containing r e l a t i v e l y innocuous information. Nevertheless, i t should be noted that, s t r i c t l y speaking, time r e s t r i c t i o n s do not protect privacy unless records are closed u n t i l after the deaths of the subject individuals. When privacy is defined in terms of control over information, any time a l i v i n g individual's records are viewed by unauthorized persons, that individual has suffered a loss of privacy. The passage of time tends to reduce the s e n s i t i v i t y of personal information and hence the seriousness of any loss of privacy which occurs as a re s u l t of the release of the information, but i t does not dissolve the right to privacy. That r i g h t , i t is widely believed, ends only with death. 5 5 Of course, a r c h i v i s t s could establish time r e s t r i c t i o n s of s u f f i c i e n t duration to protect the privacy of l i v i n g students. It may be asked, however, whether i t would be feasible to commit funds to the preservation of records which w i l l remain inaccessible for decades. Furthermore, while certain historians may be content to view only the records of past generations, s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s and some s o c i a l historians are l i k e l y to desire access to contemporary records. To bar access to the records of l i v i n g students would also greatly reduce the value of student records for p o l i c y evaluation and planning purposes. Thus, i t would appear that complete 186 protection against invasion of privacy can only be provided at the cost of greatly r e s t r i c t i n g the range of potential research projects u t i l i z i n g student records. It can be argued, therefore, that although r e s t r i c t i o n s involving the establishment of controls on personal informa-t i o n should c e r t a i n l y be represented to administrators as being useful for establishing a minimal l e v e l of research access to student records, they should be portrayed as constituting only the f i r s t in a series of desirable d i s c l o -sure c r i t e r i a . It is obviously preferable to have a po l i c y which allows the release of anonymous current student information and the complete f i l e s of deceased students than one which permits no release of records to t h i r d parties without student consent, closes records permanently, or encourages the destruction of personal f i l e s . A seventy-five year closure period such as that suggested by the SAA Subcom-mittee on Student Records would at least allow the disclosure of records dealing with nineteenth century student l i f e . In addition, i f i t is possible for a university archives or administrative o f f i c e to produce anonymized student data, such data may s a t i s f y the needs of many researchers. Then too, some administrators may allow the release of their records only i f complete protection for student privacy can be provided. It may be, as some a r c h i v i s t s have suggested, that the price for increased access to current case f i l e s w i l l be a decrease in the a v a i l a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e information.' 5 Yet given the d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in data manipulation and the desire of a r c h i v i s t s to provide the 187 broadest possible range of research access to archival material, i t would be preferable to convince administrators that records p o l i c i e s should contain r e s t r i c t i o n s c o n t r o l l i n g both the type of material released and the uses of student records, thereby permitting certain releases of contemporary personal records to researchers. If administrators are to be persuaded to permit the disclosure of personal records, a r c h i v i s t s w i l l undoubtedly need to a r t i c u l a t e c l e a r l y their often-expressed view that privacy rights must be balanced with the needs of scholars and society for information. This study has shown that the concept of balance i s central to most of the major reports on informational privacy in record-keeping systems. Westin himself defined privacy as the claim of individuals to control the dissemination of personal information, and the procedural reforms presented in studies such as that of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare were intended to allow individuals to participate in decisions regarding the use of personal information--to obtain a measure of control over the operations of record-keeping systems. The major reports on informational privacy envisage privacy as competing with other s o c i e t a l interests. Indeed, the Commonwealth courts have held that individual privacy should at times give way when scholars or the public seeks access to personal information. In Canada, both the regulations proposed by the Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy and the regulations of the Privacy Act governing the Public Archives of Canada stress the need to distinguish 188 between warranted and unwarranted disclosures of personal records. Both sets of regulations s p e c i f i c a l l y provide that under certain circumstances i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records can be released to researchers without subject consent. Arch i v i s t s can thus show that they are by no means advocating an extreme or unusual position by arguing against a s t r i c t interpretaion of the right to privacy. A r c h i v i s t s should also find i t useful to c i t e s p e c i f i c recommendations presented in reports such as that of the U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commission. It has already been noted that i t is possible to demonstrate respect for student r rights by making access p o l i c y statements available to students. It also seems reasonable to argue, as does the PPSC report, that the act of noti f y i n g individuals that information provided for administrative records may subsequently be used for research purposes can serve as a p a r t i a l substitute for obtaining informed consent prior to each research use of the records. Of course, the records p o l i c i e s of u n i v e r s i t i e s should incorporate the f a i r information practice of providing students with the right to view, and i f necessary, amend their own records in order to ensure accuracy. In addition, as th i s study has repeatedly stressed, substantial protection can be provided for the interests of students i f university records custodians uphold what the PPSC terms as the pri n c i p l e of functional separation.' If students can be assured that personal records released for research purposes w i l l be used only to obtain generalized information regarding student l i f e and not to make decisions regarding p a r t i c u l a r students, then 189 most of the need to provide students with d i r e c t control over such releases of information i s eliminated. P o l i c i e s permitting the release of student records without d i r e c t student authorization w i l l therefore need to incorporate r e s t r i c t i o n s ensuring that the records can be used neither by individuals within u n i v e r s i t i e s for administrative purposes unrelated to those for which the records were o r i g i n a l l y compiled nor by unauthorized individuals or agencies outside of u n i v e r s i t i e s for the purpose of making determinations regarding individual students. For example, the o f f i c e s which created the records could be charged with determining which administrative uses of the records are legitimate (that i s , consistent with university p o l i c y and the reasonable expectations of the students providing informa-t i o n ) , while researchers could be required to sign a statement s t i p u l a t i n g that the records w i l l not be used to a f f e c t the interests of the individual record subjects. In any case, the point which should again be emphasized i s that invasions of privacy occur whenever personal information is disclosed without subject permission to persons or agencies other than those to whom the information was o r i g i n a l l y provided. Such invasions may be warranted but they can only be so i f the disclosures do not in any way harm or adversely af f e c t the students concerned--hence the need for some method of distinguishing between research uses of records and decision-making uses. The very concept of functional separation necessitates a certain amount of discrimination between the uses or users of personal records. 190 It can be argued as well that the need for control over uses of student records does not end with the separation of administrative and research uses. Even when personal information is provided only to researchers, there is s t i l l a ris k that such information may subsequently be exposed in a manner harmful to the interests of the students concerned and the fact remains that some students w i l l object to any unnecessary disclosure of their records, harmful or not. The idea that individual privacy can be balanced with the needs of researchers implies that in certain situations research access to personal records w i l l be j u s t i f i e d and in others i t w i l l not. It is therefore necessary to provide records custodians with c r i t e r i a for d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between warranted and unwarranted research uses of student records. Before reviewing the various disclosure c r i t e r i a available to po l i c y makers, the question may be asked as to who should be made responsible for c o n t r o l l i n g the release of student records. Although the f i n a l authority for records disclosure often rests with the creating o f f i c e or a p a r t i c -ular administrative o f f i c i a l such as the r e g i s t r a r , university a r c h i v i s t s may find themselves in the position of being asked to administer access guidelines approved by the records creators or to provide advice on pa r t i c u l a r cases. Certainly some decisions such as those involving the release of anony-mous data or the f i l e s of deceased students would seem to be r e l a t i v e l y straightforward. However, decisions regarding the determination of legitimate uses of personal information involve the use of subjective judgement in an area where there 191 is l i k e l y to be much disagreement. Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis within u n i v e r s i t i e s on the need for free discussion in the decision making process. It would therefore be preferable for approval for the release of personal records to be provided by a broadly representative committee rather than by an individual a r c h i v i s t or administrative o f f i c e r . Within such a committee, administrative o f f i c e r s could voice the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y concerns of records creators, while faculty members could express the views of reseachers. The student memebers of the committee, and indeed, the committee as a whole, could in e f f e c t provide a form of representative consent for the disclosure of personal student information. For a r c h i v i s t s , one of the primary advantages of r e f e r r i n g requests for records to a broadly representative student records committee would be that such a process would help to protect them against charges of bias in the adminis-t r a t i o n of access p o l i c i e s . s True, there is a danger that the committee review process would become overly cumbersome. However, i t should be possible to introduce a degree of f l e x i b i l i t y into the process by having university a r c h i v i s t s screen requests for records, using guidelines approved by the records committee. In those cases where the records disclosure was c l e a r l y unwarranted, the a r c h i v i s t could recommend to the o f f i c e responsible for the records that the access request be rejected. Researchers could also be given the opportunity of appealing such recommendations to the student records committee. 3 In this manner, records committees could usually l i m i t their attention to researchers 192 who appeared to have a v a l i d need for access to i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e information. It should be remembered as well that the practice of using committees to evaluate research projects is an accepted and familiar one in many u n i v e r s i t i e s . Indeed, i t may be possible in some Canadian i n s t i t u t i o n s to have an existing human subject review committee carry out the review of research projects using student records, particu-l a r l y i f the need for such a review arose only infrequently, as is l i k e l y . Assuming then that university a r c h i v i s t s are to advise administrative o f f i c e s to adopt access r e s t r i c t i o n s s t i p u l a -ting that access to student records w i l l commonly be subject to committee review, on what grounds should committee decisions be based? One of the central features of those personal record-keeping regulations outlined in the major privacy reports or in l e g i s l a t i o n i s that they contain s p e c i f i c safeguards against the improper disclosure of personal information. A r c h i v i s t s w i l l find i t useful to consider these disclosure c r i t e r i a as they develop their own pol i c y suggestions. To begin with, i t seems reasonable to st i p u l a t e , as do most sets of disclosure c r i t e r i a , that i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records w i l l be released only when the proposed research project cannot be completed without their use. The review committee could consider two factors when examining the question of legitimate need for personal records. F i r s t , the soundness of the project design could be evaluated in order to determine whether the desired informa-t i o n could be obtained only through d i r e c t access to 193 i n d i v i d u a l l y I d e n t i f i a b l e records and not by using anonymous f i l e s or even f i l e s with encoded i d e n t i f i e r s 1 0 In order to conduct such an evaluation, the committee could either draw on the research expertise of i t s faculty members or seek the advice of outside scholars familiar with the methodology of the proposed project. Second, i t may be desirable for the review committee to take into account the p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by the university archives in providing anonymous data. In some cases, a research project may only be feasible i f the archives i s permitted to disclose unaltered f i l e s , even though the project i t s e l f does not require the use of i d e n t i f i e r s . Another safeguard basic to any review system consists of determining the conditions under which the records requested by researchers were o r i g i n a l l y c o l l e c t e d . The Public Archives of Canada states that one of the main factors reviewed in i t s invasion-of-privacy test is the "expectations" of the record s u b j e c t s . 1 1 Individuals may have been promised that the information they provided would remain absolutely confiden-t i a l . Counselling case f i l e s , for instance, may be compiled under such a guarantee, and l e t t e r s of recommendation are often produced by professors or high school counsellors in the expectation that they w i l l remain c o n f i d e n t i a l . Alterna-t i v e l y , i t may be possible to demonstrate that students can reasonably be assumed to expect certain research uses of their records to o c c u r — e s p e c i a l l y i f ' i n s t i t u t i o n s do adopt the practice of routinely informing students that administrative records may be used under controlled conditions for research. 194 In most cases, though, the review committee is l i k e l y to find that the research use of the records in question i s neither expressly forbidden nor c l e a r l y permitted and the committee w i l l therefore need to examine c a r e f u l l y the nature of the records themselves. As in the PAC invasion-of-privacy te s t , the s e n s i t i v i t y of the requested information must be determined, along with the ris k that the requested records disclosure w i l l r e s u l t in "measurable injury." Injury i s defined in the test as "any harm or embarrassment which w i l l have d i r e c t negative e f f e c t s on an individual's career, reputation, f i n a n c i a l position, health or w e l l - b e i n g . " 1 2 The factors of record s e n s i t i v i t y and injury are obviously c l o s e l y related. It has already been noted that there is a c o r r e l a -t i o n between the s e n s i t i v i t y of a record and i t s age. To a great extent, t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n is attributable to the fact that the capacity of information contained in a given personal record to harm or embarrass the record subject tends to diminish over time. Thus, although some records could conceivably remain highly sensitive throughout the li f e t i m e of the record subjects, there w i l l generally be less risk of harm or embarrassment when older records are disclosed than when are current records. Also, while i t cannot be forgotten that the s e n s i t i v i t y of student records w i l l depend on the perspec-tive of the individual subjects, the review committee is l i k e l y to be able to i d e n t i f y certain categories of f i l e s -such as medical, counselling, d i s c i p l i n a r y , and f i n a n c i a l records—which w i l l generally be regarded as more sensitive than o t h e r s . 1 3 195 However, i t must be asked whether i t is s u f f i c i e n t when attempting to determine i f a part i c u l a r records disclosure is warranted to examine only the risks to the record subjects without also examining the benefits of the proposed research project. As has been noted, while the research review procedures used by the PAC under the Privacy Act tend to concentrate on the s e n s i t i v i t y of the requested records, both the U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commission and the Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy st i p u l a t e that the value of the proposed research project must be such as to warrant any risk which the release of personal records w i l l bring. In addition, a number of American archives currently operate under access regulations which require researchers to be involved in "legitimate" or worth-while research i f they are to obtain access to personal case f i l e s . True, the idea of passing judgement on the value of a researcher's work is objectionable to many a r c h i v i s t s . Many researchers f e e l as well that the ri s k - b e n e f i t method of analysis is simply inappropriate for use in the evaluation of research in the s o c i a l sciences and humanities where the s o c i a l benefits of research are not as quantifiable as in the biomedical sciences. Yet i s i t possible to treat a l l conceivable projects involving the use of personal records as being equal in importance? Some commentators have argued that i f personal records are released only when there is an absence of material r i s k to the record subjects, then the nature of the proposed research is irrelevant. However, even when the information released is 196 r e l a t i v e l y innocuous, the record subjects s t i l l suffer a loss of privacy. Such a loss seems j u s t i f i a b l e when research of at least probable value to society is proposed but i t is hardly reasonable to contend that individual privacy must be s a c r i f i c e d whenever any research use of personal information is proposed.1"" It is l i k e l y , moreover, that most student records of interest to researchers w i l l be somewhat se n s i t i v e . Indeed, i t has been demonstrated that many of those types of student records which a r c h i v i s t s and researchers have i d e n t i -f i e d as having potential research value are among the most sensitive records produced by u n i v e r s i t i e s . One method of a l l e v i a t i n g the need to evaluate c a r e f u l l y the value of each proposed project would be to screen researchers according to their q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . It can perhaps be argued that research proposed by trained scholars can generally be assumed to have some s o c i a l value. The use of researcher q u a l i f i c a t i o n s as a disclosure c r i t e r i o n is in fact proposed by the Ontario Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy, and at least some archives involved in the administration of personal case f i l e s have adopted screening procedures. Some a r c h i v i s t s who believe strongly in the p r i n c i p l e of equal access to archival material reject any procedure which discriminates among potential users but such a position w i l l be d i f f i c u l t to maintain i f archives are to provide access to the i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e records of l i v i n g i n d i v i d u a l s — p a r t i c u l a r l y i f no review i s to be made of the value of the proposed research projects. Again, i t would seem d i f f i c u l t to contend that a l l individuals have a blanket 197 right to use personal student records for research. Moreover, the review of researcher q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i s intended to ensure not only that personal records w i l l be used for legitimate research, but also that such records w i l l be used in a responsible manner. There is an emphasis within u n i v e r s i t i e s on d i s c l o s i n g sensitive records only to properly q u a l i f i e d individuals so as to avoid misinterpretations of the record contents. If medical personnel and counsellors are to make the student records under their care available for research at a l l , they w i l l open such records only to s i m i l a r l y q u a l i f i e d professionals. F i n a l l y , i f screening procedures are not used to l i m i t the disclosure of student records to trained scholars i t w i l l be necessary to impose exceptionally stringent controls on the manner in which such records could be stored and used by researchers. Indeed, even i f only trained scholars are permitted to view student records, review committees w i l l s t i l l need to ensure that steps are taken to maintain the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the disclosed information. At the very least, most sets of disclosure c r i t e r i a include a provision requiring researchers to sign a statement to the effect that personal information provided to them w i l l not be disclosed to others in i n d i v i -dually i d e n t i f i a b l e form. Professor David Flaherty, in fact, argues that data use agreements should specify in " e x p l i c i t d e t a i l " what can and cannot be done with mircrodata. "1"* Review committees, for instance, could require researchers to implement security measures designed to protect personal information from unauthorized disclosure and to employ 198 s t a t i s t i c a l techniques f o r m a i n t a i n i n g s u b j e c t anonymity i n the r e p o r t i n g of p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Canadian u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s may a l s o wish to explore the p o s s i b i l i t y of f o l l o w i n g the example s e t by some of the American s t a t e a r c h i v e s by p r e p a r i n g w r i t t e n agreements which impose l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n s on r e s e a r c h e r s to maintain data c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . No doubt many u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s w i l l d eplore the use of access r e s t r i c t i o n s which imply a lack of t r u s t i n the i n t e g r i t y of s c h o l a r s . However, a r c h i v i s t s are u n l i k e l y to convince e i t h e r u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s or students that r e s e a r c h e r s should be provided with access unless they can assure these p a r t i e s t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n s on the use of pers o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n can be en f o r c e d . I f a r c h i v i s t s wish to a v o i d the expense and d i f f i c u l t y of removing i d e n t i f i e r s by r e l e a s i n g complete f i l e s , they may have no choice but to accept access procedures r e q u i r i n g those r e s e a r c h e r s who have no demonstrable need f o r i d e n t i f i e r s to r e f r a i n from r e c o r d i n g them and to agree to submit t h e i r notes f o r review. S i m i l a r l y , i f r e s e a r c h e r s are to be permitted to use i d e n t i f i e r s , they may need to be prepared to have t h e i r manuscripts reviewed by a student records committee. To summarize, t h e r e f o r e , there are review mechanisms and d i s c l o s u r e c r i t e r i a which can be used to p r o t e c t students a g a i n s t unwarranted i n v a s i o n s of p r i v a c y while s t i l l a l l o w i n g s o c i e t y to b e n e f i t from r e s e a r c h uses of student r e c o r d s . O b j e c t i o n s t h a t some of the access r e s t r i c t i o n s d i s c u s s e d above c o n s t i t u t e an unconscionable impediment to free i n q u i r y f a i l to take account of the e f f e c t s of t h e i r absence. They 199 m a y i n f a c t b e n e e d e d p r e c i s e l y t o f a c i l i t a t e f r e e i n q u i r y . C a n a d i a n u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c u r r e n t l y t e n d t o p l a c e s e v e r e r e s t r i c t i o n s o n r e s e a r c h a c c e s s t o s t u d e n t r e c o r d s . T o o v e r c o m e s u c h r e s t r i c t i o n s r e q u i r e s c o u n t e r m e a s u r e s t o s a t i s f y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a n d s t u d e n t s n o w n o t c o n t e n t t o p u t f a i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f r e s e a r c h e r s . I t m a y b e t h a t o n l y s o m e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s W i t h i n a g i v e n u n i v e r s i t y w i l l b e p r e p a r e d t o a d o p t a c o m p r e h e n s i v e , g r a d u a t e d s t u d e n t r e c o r d s a c c e s s p o l i c y - - a p o l i c y w h i c h n o t o n l y p r o v i d e s r e s e a r c h a c c e s s t o t h e f i l e s o f d e c e a s e d s t u d e n t s a n d t o a n o n y m i z e d c o n t e m p o r a r y r e c o r d s , b u t a l s o i n s t i t u t e s p r o c e d u r e s f o r r e v i e w i n g a c c e s s r e q u e s t s o n a c a s e -b y - c a s e b a s i s i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h e n p e r s o n a l r e c o r d s s h o u l d b e o p e n a n d w h e n t h e y s h o u l d n o t . I t m a y b e a s w e l l t h a t s o m e u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s , d u e t o t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h i e r a r c h y , a r e u n a b l e t o e x e r t a g r e a t i n f l u e n c e o n p o l i c y m a k e r s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i s c l e a r t h a t u n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s c a n p e r f o r m a v a l u a b l e r o l e i n p r o v i d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h w e l l - c o n s i d e r e d p o l i c y o p t i o n s . B y f o c u s i n g a t t e n t i o n o n t h e s t u d e n t r e c o r d s i s s u e , p r o m o t i n g a p r a c t i c a l c o n c e p t i o n o f p r i v a c y , a n d d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r s t u d e n t s a n d r e s e a r c h e r s w h i c h a r i s e f r o m t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s c o n c e i v a b l e a c c e s s r e s t r i c t i o n s , a r c h i v i s t s c a n h e l p t o s h a p e s o u n d a c c e s s p o l i c i e s . F i n a l l y , i t w i l l b e a d v i s a b l e t o k e e p i n m i n d t h e t y p e s o f o v e r l y - r e s t r i c t i v e a c c e s s g u i d e l i n e s p r e s e n t l y i n f o r c e i n m a n y C a n a d i a n u n i v e r s i t i e s , a n d i n A m e r i c a n u n i v e r s i t i e s u n d e r t h e F a m i l y E d u c a t i o n a l R i g h t s a n d P r i v a c y A c t . T h e i s s u e o f 200 r e s e a r c h a c c e s s t o s t u d e n t r e c o r d s i s s t i l l u n r e s o l v e d i n some Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s but i t i s not l i k e l y t o remain so. U n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v i s t s both i n d i v i d u a l l y and as a group w i l l need t o determine p r e c i s e l y how s t u d e n t l i f e s h o u l d be documented and what measures s h o u l d be t a k e n t o p r o t e c t both s t u d e n t p r i v a c y and the i n t e r e s t s of r e s e a r c h e r s . I f a r c h i v i s t s f a i l t o make such d e c i s i o n s , then a d m i n i s t r a t o r s or l e g i s l a t o r s w i l l make the d e c i s i o n s f o r them. 201 NOTES 1 H a r l e y P. Holden, "Student Records: The Harvard Exper-ie n c e , " American A r c h i v i s t 39 (October 1976): 465. a " C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s G u i d e l i n e s , " American  A r c h i v i s t 43 (Spring 1980): 266; P a t r i c k M. Quinn, "Academic A r c h i v i s t s and T h e i r Current P r a c t i c e : Some Modest Suggestions," Georgia Archive 10 ( F a l l 1982): 16. 3 M a r c i a G. Synnott, "The Half-Opened Door: Researching Admissions D i s c r i m i n a t i o n at Harvard, Yale, and P r i n c e t o n , " American A r c h i v i s t 45 (Spring 1982): 1981. **Joseph R. Anderson, " P u b l i c Welfare Case Records: A Study of A r c h i v a l P r a c t i c e s , " American A r c h i v i s t 43 (Spring 1980): 119. " I t has i n f a c t been argued by some commentators that c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l records of deceased i n d i v i d u a l s should remain c l o s e d i n order to p r o t e c t the p r i v a c y of the i n d i v i d u a l s ' remaining f a m i l i e s . Canada's P r i v a c y Act does d e f i n e personal records as those of l i v i n g i n d i v i d u a l s or of i n d i v i d u a l s deceased l e s s than twenty years. N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t would seem prudent f o r a r c h i v i s t s to argue t h a t t h e i r e t h i c a l o b l i g a t i o n to p r o t e c t a r e c o r d s u b j e c t ' s p r i v a c y e x p i r e s at the death of the s u b j e c t . The U.S. N a t i o n a l A r c h i v e s , s e v e r a l s t a t e a r c h i v e s and the l e g a l counsel of the S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s have a l l adopted the p o s i t i o n that the r i g h t of p r i v a c y ends with the l i f e of the i n d i v i d u a l s concerned. Kathey Roe Coker, " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Records and Access: A Survey of State A r c h i v a l I n s t i t u t i o n s , " Records Management  Q u a r t e r l y 16 ( J u l y , 1982): 24; Alex Ladenson, "Legal Problems i n A d m i n i s t e r i n g C o n f i d e n t i a l Case Records," SAA Newsletter (May, 1978): 11. e J u d i t h S. Rowe, " P r i v a c y L e g i s l a t i o n : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r A r c h i v i s t s , " i n A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records:  Proceedings of the Conference on A r c h i v a l Management of  Machine-Readable Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor,  Michigan, eds. C a r o l y n L. Geda, E r i k W. A u s t i n , and F r a n c i s X. B l o u i n , J r . (Chicago S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980), p. 200. ^ A r c h i v i s t s have i n f a c t begun to s t r e s s the importance of the concept of f u n c t i o n a l s e p a r a t i o n . See, f o r example, Margaret L. Hedstrom, "Computers, P r i v a c y , and Research Access to C o n f i d e n t i a l Information," The Midwestern A r c h i v i s t 6 (1981): 11-12. aThe use of committees to avoi d charges of b i a s i n the making of s e n s i t v e d e c i s i o n s i s suggested i n F r e d e r i c k L. Honhart, "The S o l i c t a t i o n , A p p r a i s a l , and A q u i s i t i o n of F a c u l t y Papers," C o l l e g e and Research L i b r a r i e s 44 (May 1983): 202 238. *The need to provide r e s e a r c h e r s with the r i g h t to o b t a i n a review of a r c h i v a l access d e c i s i o n s i s s t r e s s e d i n Helen Y o x a l l , " P r i v a c y and P e r s o n a l Papers," A r c h i v e s and  Manuscripts 12 (May 1984): 41. 1 0 I t may be noted t h a t the e v a l u a t i o n of the "methodolo-g i c a l b a s i s " of r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s i n order to e s t a b l i s h a c l e a r need f o r access to i n d i v i d u a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n i s one of the primary tasks of the P u b l i c A r c h i v e s of Canada's Access Review Committee. " G u i d e l i n e s f o r the D i s c l o s u r e of Personal Information f o r H i s t o r i c a l Research at the P u b l i c A r c h i v e s of Canada," (Ottawa, 1984), Appendix 3, p. 13. x l I b i d . , p. 4. 1 2 I b i d . i a T h e PAC d i s c l o s u r e g u i d e l i n e s note t h a t an a p p l i c a t i o n of the i n v a s i o n - o f - p r i v a c y t e s t w i l l u s u a l l y r e v e a l the f o l l o w i n g types of records to be more s e n s i t i v e than o t h e r s : medical, c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y , law enforcement and s e c u r i t y , and f i n a n c i a l . I b i d . , p. 4. '•"'Margaret Hedstrom i s one of the commentators who argue f o r minimal access r e s t r i c t i o n s . She s t a t e s " r e s t r i c t i o n s on access to c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n used f o r r e s e a r c h [should be] a p p l i e d o n l y when d i s c l o s u r e could p o t e n t i a l l y harm a data s u b j e c t and o n l y to the extent necessary to minimize the p o t e n t i a l of harm." Hedstrom, "Research Access to Confiden-t i a l I n formation," p. 16. In c o n t r a s t , t h i s study contends that i t i s necessary not o n l y to minimize r i s k s to r e c o r d s u b j e c t s but a l s o to j u s t i f y the l o s s of p r i v a c y i t s e l f . 1 = s D a v i d H. F l a h e r t y , P r i v a c y and Government Data  Banks: An I n t e r n a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e (London: Mansell P u b l i s h i n g , 1979), p. 302. 203 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l m e n d i n g e r , David F. J r . Paupers and S c h o l a r s : The T r a n s f o r - mation of Student L i f e i n N i n e t e e n t h - C e n t u r y New E n g l a n d . New York: S t . M a r t i n ' s P r e s s , 1975. A l v a r e z , R o d o l f o and Moore, W i l b e r t E. " I n f o r m a t i o n - F l o w w i t h i n the P r o f e s s i o n s : Some S e l e c t i v e Comparisons of Law, M e d i c i n e and N u r s i n g . " In On Record: F i l e s and  D o s s i e r s i n American L i f e , pp. 95-119. E d i t e d by S t a n t o n Wheeler. New York: R u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 1969. American A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g i a t e R e g i s t r a r s and A d m i s s i o n s O f f i c e r s . "Academic Record and T r a n s c r i p t Guide: R e l e a s e of I n f o r m a t i o n about S t u d e n t s . " In A d m i s s i o n s , Academic  Records and R e g i s t r a r S e r v i c e s : A Handbook of P o l i c i e s  and P r o c e d u r e s , pp. 359-78. E d i t e d by James C. Quann, James F l i n n B l a k e s l e y , J . Douglas Conner, Loyd C. O l e s o n , E. Eugene O l i v e r , Margaret P e r r y , W i l l i a m C. P r i c e , and Hans Wagner. San F r a n s i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1979. ' R e t e n t i o n of Records: A Guide f o r R e t e n t i o n and D i s p o s a l of Student Records. P h i l a d e l p h i a : D r e x e l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s f o r the American A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g e R e g i s t r a r s and A d m i s s i o n s O f f i c e r s , 1979. American C o l l e g e H e a l t h A s s o c i a t i o n . "Recommended Stand a r d s and P r a c t i c e s f o r a C o l l e g e H e a l t h Program." In C o l l e g e  Student P e r s o n n e l : Readings and B i b l i o g r a p h i e s , pp. 305-15. E d i t e d by L a u r i n g e F i t z g e r a l d , W a l t e r F. Johnson, and W i l l a N o r r i s . B o s t o n : Houghton M i f f l i n , 1970. American C o l l e g e P e r s o n n e l A s s o c i a t i o n . "Statement of E t h i c a l and P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a n d a r d s . " J o u r n a l of C o l l e g e Student  P e r s o n n e l 28 (March 1981): 184-89. ' American P e r s o n n e l and Guidance A s s o c i a t i o n . E t h i c a l S t a n d a r d s . Washington, D.C: American P e r s o n n e l and Guidance A s s o c i a t i o n , 1981. American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . " E t h i c a l P r i n c i p l e s of P s y c h o l o g i s t s . " American P s y c h o l o g i s t 36 (June 1981): 133-38. Anderson, Joseph R. " P u b l i c W e l f a r e Case Records: A Study of A r c h i v a l P r a c t i c e s . " American A r c h i v i s t 43 ( S p r i n g 1983): 169-79. 204 Anderson, Wayne and Kutzen, N e i l . "Size and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y P o l i c i e s of C o l l e g e Counseling C e n t r e s . " J o u r n a l of  Co l l e g e Student Personnel 12 (March 1971): 130-32. Anderson, Wayne and Sherr, Steve. " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Expecta-t i o n s of C o l l e g e Students: R e v i s i t e d . " J o u r n a l of  Co l l e g e Student Personnel 10 ( J u l y 1969): 264-69. " A r c h i v i s t : A D e f i n i t i o n . " SAA Newsletter (January 1984): 4-5. A s s o c i a t i o n of Canadian A r c h i v i s t s . " B r i e f to the S e c r e t a r y of State i n Response to the Green Paper: L e g i s l a t i o n and P u b l i c Access." June, 1978. A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t i e s and C o l l e g e s of Canada. G u i d e l i n e s  on U n i v e r s i t y O r g a n i z a t i o n . Ottawa: A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t i e s and C o l l e g e s of Canada, 1970. Babcock, Thomas J . "Freedom of Information i n O n t a r i o : To Be or Not to Be?" In Canada's New Access Laws: P u b l i c and  Personal Access to Governmental Documents, pp. 116-45. E d i t e d by Donald C. Rowat. Ottawa: C a r l e t o n . U n i v e r s i t y , 1983. B a r a t t a , Katherine M. "Using Student Data f o r Academic P l a n n i n g . " In Improving D e c i s i o n Making, pp. 46-61. E d i t e d by Mantha M e h a l l i s . San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1981. B e r n s t e i n , Barton J . "A Ple a f o r Opening the Door." In Access  to the Papers of Recent P u b l i c F i g u r e s : The New Harmony  Conference, pp. 83-90. E d i t e d by Alonzo L. Hamby and Edward Weldon. Bloomington, Indiana: O r g a n i z a t i o n of American H i s t o r i a n s , 1977. Blaska, B e t t y and Schmidt, M a r l i n R. "Placement." In C o l l e g e  Student Personnel S e r v i c e s , pp. 368-421. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m T. Packwood. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r les C. Thomas, 1977. Blendon, E d i t h James. "The U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s : A Reason f o r E x i s t e n c e . " American A r c h i v i s t 38 ( A p r i l 1975): 175-80. Bogue, A l l a n G. "Data Dilemmas: Q u a n t i t a t i v e Data and the S o c i a l Science H i s t o r y A s s o c i a t i o n . " S o c i a l Science  H i s t o r y 3 (October 1978): 204-26. . " H i s t o r i c a l Research and State A r c h i v a l Data." In A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records: Proceedings of  the Conference on A r c h i v a l Management of Machine- Readable Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor,  Michigan, pp. 17-31. E d i t e d by Caro l y n L. Geda, E r i k W. A u s t i n , and F r a n c i s X. B l o u i n J r . Chicago: S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980. 205 Boruch, Robert F. " S t r a t e g i e s f o r E l i c i t i n g and Merging C o n f i d e n t i a l S o c i a l Research Data." P o l i c y Sciences 3 (1972): 241-97. Boruch, Robert F. and C e c i l , Joe S. A s s u r i n g the C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of S o c i a l Research Data. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania Press, 1979. Brenton, Myron. The P r i v a c y Invaders New York: Coward-McKann, 1964. B r i c h f o r d , Maynard. "Academic A r c h i v e s : U b e r l i e f u r u n g s b i l -dung." American A r c h i v i s t 43 ( F a l l 1980): 449-60. . "The I l l i a r c h . " I l l i n o i s L i b r a r i e s 52 (February 1970): 152-204. B r i t i s h A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of S c i e n c e . Does  Research Threaten P r i v a c y or Does P r i v a c y Threaten  Research? London: n.p., 1974. Brown, George K. "Release of Student Records." In C o l l e g e Student P e r s o n n e l : Readings and B i b l i o g r a p h i e s , pp. 139-41. E d i t e d by Laurine F i t z g e r a l d , Walter F. Johnson, and W i l l a N o r r i s . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1970. Brown, Michael; B i l l i n g s l e y , B e l i n d a ; and Shamai, Rebecca. P r i v a c y and P e r s o n a l Data P r o t e c t i o n : A Report on  Personal Record Keeping by the M i n i s t r i e s and Agencies of  the O n t a r i o Government. Toronto: Commission on Freedom of Information and I n d i v i d u a l P r i v a c y , 1980. Brown, Robert C r a i g . "Government and H i s t o r i a n : A P e r s p e c t i v e on B i l l C-43." A r c h i v a r i a 13 (Winter 1981-82): 119-23. B u r k e l , N i c h o l a s C. "The Expanding Role of a C o l l e g e or Univer-s i t y A r c h i v e s . " In C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s :  S e l e c t e d Readings, pp. 47-57. E d i t e d by Charles B. E l s t o n , Maxine B. Clapp, J . Frank Cook, and Shonnie Finnegan. S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979. B u r k e l , N i c h o l a s C. and Cook, Frank J . "A P r o f i l e of C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s i n the United S t a t e s . " American  A r c h i v i s t 45 ( F a l l 1982): 410-28. Burnett, Dana D. and Mason, Rosmary. " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and Format of Placement C r e d e n t i a l s : P r e f e r e n c e of Corporate and Governmental Employers." J o u r n a l of C o l l e g e Student  Personnel 16 (November 1975): 486-89. Burns, P e t e r . " P r i v a c y and the Common Law: A Tangled Skein U n r a v e l l i n g ? " In Aspects of P r i v a c y Law: Essays i n Honour  of John M. Sharp, pp. 21-40. E d i t e d by Dale Gibson. Toronto: Butterworths, 1980. 206 Canada C o u n c i l , C o n s u l t a t i v e Group on E t h i c s , E t h i c s . Ottawa: The Canada C o u n c i l , 1977). Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Teachers. Freedom of Information: A B r i e f Submitted to the Government of  Canada by the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y  Teachers Ottawa: Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Teachers, 1978. Caplan, Arthur L. "On P r i v a c y and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i n S o c i a l Research." In E t h i c a l Issues i n S o c i a l Science Research, pp. 315-25. E d i t e d by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. J . Wallace, and LeRoy Walters. B a l t i m o r e , Maryland: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1982. C a r r o l l , John M. C o n f i d e n t i a l Information Sources: P u b l i c and  P r i v a t e • Los Angeles: S e c u r i t y World P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1975. C a r r o l l , John M.; Baudot, J . ; K i r s h , C ; and W i l l i a m s , J . I. Personal Records: Procedures, P r a c t i c e s , and Problems: A  Study f o r the P r i v a c y and Computers Task Force. Ottawa: Department of Communications and Department of J u s t i c e , 1971. C a r r o l l , John M. and W i l l i a m s , J . Ivan. "The P r i v a c y of Student Records--The Computing P o i n t of View." Paper presented at the Second On t a r i o U n i v e r s i t i e s Computing Conference, Ottawa, O n t a r i o , 27-29 January, 1971. C a s s e l , Joan . "Does R i s k - B e n e f i t A n a l y s i s Apply to Moral E v a l u a t i o n of S o c i a l Research." In E t h i c a l Issues i n  S o c i a l Science Research, pp. 144-62. E d i t e d by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. J . Wallace, and LeRoy Walters. B a l t i m o r e , Maryland: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1982. Cave, Charles L. "Hardware and Sofware S e c u r i t y . " In Advances  i n Computer S e c u r i t y Management V o l . 2, pp. 143-60. E d i t e d by Marvin M. Wofsey. C h i n c h e s t e r , New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983. C e c i , Stephan J . and P e t e r s , Douglas. " L e t t e r s of Reference: A N a t u r a l i s t i c Study of the E f f e c t s of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . " American P s y c h o l o g i s t 39 (January 1984): 29-31. C l a r k , Burton R. "The Dossier i n C o l l e g e s and U n i v e r s i t i e s . " In On Record F i l e s and D o s s i e r s i n American L i f e , pp. 67-89. E d i t e d by Stanford Wheeler. New York: R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1969. "Code of E t h i c s f o r A r c h i v i s t s . " SAA Newsletter ( J u l y 1979): 11-12. Coker, Kathey Roe. " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Records and Access: A 207 Survey of State A r c h i v a l I n s t i t u t i o n s . " Records  Management Q u a r t e r l y 16 ( J u l y 1982): 22-31. "Co l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s G u i d e l i n e s . " Amer ican  A r c h i v i s t 43 (Spring 1980): 262-71. "Comment—The C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of U n i v e r s i t y Student Records: A Common Law A n a l y s i s . " Brigham Young U n i v e r s i t y Law  Review 2 (1976): 490-96. Computer Sciences and E n g i n e e r i n g Board, N a t i o n a l Academy of S c i e n c e s . Databanks i n a Free S o c i e t y : Computers.  Record-Keeping and P r i v a c y . New York: Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co., 1972. Conway, R. W.; Maxwell, W. L.; and Morgan, H. L. "On the Implementation of S e c u r i t y Measures i n Information Systems." In S e c u r i t y and P r i v a c y i n Computer Systems, pp. 244-65. E d i t e d by Lance H. Hoffman. Los Angeles: M e l v i l l e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1973. Crawford, Miriam I. " I n t e r p r e t i n g the U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s to the L i b r a r i a n . " In C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s :  S e l e c t e d Readings, pp. 58-67. E d i t e d by Charles B. E l s t o n , Maxine B. Clapp, J . Frank Cook, and Shonnie Finnegan. S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979. Creim, W i l l i a m B. "The Buckley Amendment and a Student's Right of Access to His L e t t e r s of Recommendation." Southern  C a l i f o r n i a Law Review 52 (May 1979): 163-87. Curran, W i l l i a m J . " P o l i c i e s and P r a c t i c e s Concerning C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i n C o l l e g e Mental Health S e r v i c e s i n the United S t a t e s and Canada." American J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y 125 (May 1969): 1520-30. Dan n e l l s , M i c h a e l . " D i s c i p l i n e . " In C o l l e g e Student Personnel  S e r v i c e s , pp. 232-38. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m T. Packwood. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1977. . " F i n a n c i a l A i d . " In C o l l e g e Student Personnel S e r v i c e s , pp. 51-101. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m T. Packwood. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1977. D a n n i e l s , Laurenda. "Current P r a c t i c e s R e l a t i n g to the Use of Unpublished M a t e r i a l i n Canadian R e p o s i t o r i e s . " A r c h i v e s  B u l l e t i n (May 1974): 6-8. D a r l i n g , A. L. "The R e g i s t r a r and U n i v e r s i t y Records Review." C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y 53 (Spring 1978): 314-20. Denkowski, Kathryn M. and Denkowski, George C. " C l i e n t -Counselor C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : An Update of R a t i o n a l e , L e g a l S t a t u s , and Implementations." Personnel and Guidance  J o u r n a l 60 (February 1982): 371-72. 208 "Does the P u b l i c Have a Right to Know?" Canadian U n i v e r s i t y  and C o l l e g e 11 (November, 1969): 28-29. Dojka, John and Conneen, S h e i l a . "Records Management as an A p p r a i s a l Tool i n C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s . " In A r c h i v a l Choices: Managing the H i s t o r i c a l Record i n an  Age of Abundance, pp. 19-60. E d i t e d by Nancy E. Peace. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Co., 1984. D o l l a r , C h a rles M. "Machine-Readable Records of the F e d e r a l Government and the N a t i o n a l A c h i v e s , " i n A r c h i v i s t s  and Machine-Readable Records: Proceedings of the  Conference on A r c h i v a l Management of Machine-Readable  Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 79-88. E d i t e d by C a r o l y n L. Geda, E r i k W. A u s t i n , and F r a n c i s X. B l o u i n J r . Chicago: S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980. D r e s s e l , PaUl L. "Student Records: Uses and Abuses." C o l l e g e  and U n i v e r s i t y 48 ( F a l l 1971): 48-62. Dunlop, Bruce. "Tort L i a b i l i t y of the U n i v e r s i t y . " In U n i v e r - s l t i e s and the Law, pp. 81-89. E d i t e d by Paul Thomas. Winnipeg: L e g a l Research I n s t i t u t e of the U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba, 1975. E b e r l e i n , L a r r y . "Legal Duty and C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Psycholo-g i s t s : T a r a s o f f and Haines." Canadian Psychology 21 (January 1980): 49-55. Eckholm, David J . " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a Comprehensive Student Records System." C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y 58 (Summer 1983): 376-82. E l s t o n , Charles B. " U n i v e r s i t y Student Records: Research Use, P r i v a c y Rights and the Buckley Law." In C o l l e g e and  U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s : S e l e c t e d Readings, pp. 68-79. E d i t e d by Charles B. E l s t o n , Maxine B. Clapp, J . Frank Cook, and Shonnie Finnegan. S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979. Enger, John M. " C o n f i d e n t i a l Versus N o n c o n f i d e n t i a l Placement F i l e Recommendations." J o u r n a l of C o l l e g e Student  Personnel 31 ( J u l y 1980): 358-62. Faraga, John M. "My Rights and Your R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s : Moral Discourse i n Higher E d u c a t i o n . " In E t h i c a l P r i n - c i p l e s , P r a c t i c e s , and Problems i n Higher Education, pp. 11-22. E d i t e d by C a r l o t a M. Baca and Ronald H. S t e i n . S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r les L. Thomas, 1983. Fenskee, Robert H. " H i s t o r i c a l Foundations." In Student  S e r v i c e s : A Handbook for the P r o f e s s i o n , pp. 3-24. E d i t e d by U r s u l a Delworth e t . a l . San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1980. " F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e A d H o c C o m m i t t e e o n P r i v a c y o f I n f o r m a t i o n a t M I T . " T e c h T a l k , 1 9 M a y 1 9 7 1 , p p . 3 - 9 . F i n c h , H e r b e r t . " T h e P r o b l e m o f C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i n a C o l l e g e A r c h i v e s . " A m e r i c a n A r c h i v i s t 3 1 ( J u l y 1 9 6 8 ) : 2 3 4 - 4 1 . F i n c h e r , C a m e r o n L . " I n s t i t u t i o n a l P r a c t i c e a n d T h r e a t s t o I n d i v i d u a l P r i v a c y . " I n P r o t e c t i n g I n d i v i d u a l R i g h t s t o  P r i v a c y i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , p p . 1 7 - 3 2 . E d i t e d b y A l t o n I . T a y l o r . S a n F r a n s i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1 9 7 7 . F i s h e r , C l a u d i n a E . ; S c h o e m e r , J a m e s R . ; a n d C u r t i s , K e n n e t h C . " W h a t H a p p e n s t o t h e D a t a Y o u G i v e t o . t h e O f f i c e o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h ? " C o l l e g e a n d U n i v e r s i t y 48 ( S u m m e r 1 9 7 3 ) : 4 2 5 - 3 6 . F l a h e r t y , D a v i d H . " A c c e s s t o H i s t o r i c a l C e n s u s D a t a i n C a n a d a : A C o m p a r a t i v e A n a l y s i s . " C a n a d i a n P u b l i c  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 20 ( F a l l 1 9 7 7 ) : 4 8 1 - 9 8 . . " P r i v a c y a n d C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : T h e R e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f H i s t o r i a n s . " R e v i e w s i n A m e r i c a n H i s t o r y 8 ( S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 0 ) : 4 1 9 - 2 9 . . P r i v a c y a n d G o v e r n m e n t D a t a B a n k s : A n I n t e r n a t i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e . L o n d o n : M a n s e l l P u b l i s h i n g , 1 9 7 9 . . R e s e a r c h a n d S t a t i s t i c a l U s e s o f O n t a r i o G o v e r n m e n t P e r s o n a l D a t a . T o r o n t o : C o m m i s s i o n o n F r e e d o m o f I n f o r -m a t i o n a n d I n d i v i d u a l P r i v a c y , 1 9 7 9 . F r i d m a n , G . H . L . " J u d i c i a l I n t e r v e n t i o n i n t o U n i v e r s i t y A f f a i r s . " C h l t t y ' s L a w J o u r n a l 2 1 ( J u n e 1 9 7 3 ) : 1 8 1 - 8 8 . F r i e d , C h a r l e s . A n A n a t o m y o f V a l u e s : P r o b l e m s o f P e r s o n a l a n d  S o c i a l C h o i c e . C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 0 . G a n s h a w , T e r r y F . " A l u m n i . " I n C o l l e g e S t u d e n t P e r s o n n e l S e r v i c e s , p p . 4 2 8 - 4 7 . E d i t e d b y W i l l i a m T . P a c k w o o d . S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r l e s C . T h o m a s , 1 9 7 7 . G i b s o n , D a l e . " C o m m o n L a w P r o t e c t i o n o f P r i v a c y : W h a t t o Do U n t i l t h e L e g i s l a t o r s A r r i v e . " I n S t u d i e s i n C a n a d i a n  T o r t L a w , p p . 3 4 3 - 7 6 . E d i t e d b y L e w i s K l a r . T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1 9 7 7 . G i l l i s , P e t e r . " T h e C a s e F i l e : P r o b l e m s o f A c q u i s i t i o n a n d A c c e s s f r o m t h e F e d e r a l P e r s p e c t i v e . " A r c h i v a r i a 6 ( S u m m e r 1 9 7 8 ) : 3 2 - 3 9 . G l a s b e e k , H . J . " L i m i t a t i o n s o n t h e A c t i o n o f B r e a c h o f C o n f i d e n c e . " I n A s p e c t s o f P r i v a c y L a w : E s s a y s i n H o n o u r  o f J o h n M . S h a r p , p p . 2 1 7 - 8 0 . E d i t e d b y D a l e G i b s o n . T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1 9 8 0 . 210 Godwin, W i l l i a m F. and Bode, Katherine Ann. " P r i v a c y and the New Technology." Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l 50 (December 1971): 298-304. Graebner, Norman A. " H i s t o r y , S o c i e t y , and the Right to P r i v a c y . " In The S c h o l a r ' s Right to Know Versus the  I n d i v i d u a l ' s Right to P r i v a c y : Proceedings of the F i r s t  R o c k e r f e l l e r A r c h i v e Center Conference, December 5, 1975 pp. 20-24. E d i t e d by F r e d e r i c k S e i t z and Joseph W. E r n s t n.p.: R o c k e r f e l l e r A r c h i v e Center, 1976. Gray, Bradford H. "The Regulatory Context of S o c i a l and Be h a v i o r a l Research." In E t h i c a l Issues i n S o c i a l  Science Research, pp. 329-55. E d i t e d by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. J . Wallace, and LeRoy Walters. B a l t i m o r e , Maryland: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1982. Hamby, Alonzo L. "Unseen Sources: A H i s t o r i a n ' s Dilemma." In Access to the Papers of Recent P u b l i c F i g u r e s : The New  Harmony Conference, pp. 14-24. E d i t e d by Alonzo L. Hamby and Edward Weldon. Bloomington, Indiana: O r g a n i z a t i o n of American H i s t o r i a n s , 1977. Hay, John C. "The Mechanics of Admissions." In Handbook of C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : V o l . 2 Academic, pp. 3:50-3:73. E d i t e d by Asa S. Knowles. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Hayward, Robert J . "F e d e r a l Access and P r i v a c y L e g i s l a t i o n and the P u b l i c A r c h i v e s of Canada." A r c h i v a r i a 18 (Summer 1984): 47-57. H o f f e r b e r t , Richard A. " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , P r i v a c y , and S o c i a l Data A r c h i v e s : S p e c i a l Problems f o r P o l i c y A n a l y s i s . " In A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records: Proceedings of  the Conference on A r c h i v a l Management of Machine- Readable Records, February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor,  Michigan, pp. 217-32. E d i t e d by Car o l y n L. Geda, E r i k W. A u s t i n , and F r a n c i s X. B l o u i n J r . Chicago: S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980. Hoff-Wilson, Joan. "Access to R e s t r i c t e d C o l l e c t i o n s : The R e s p o n s i b i l i t y of P r o f e s s i o n a l H i s t o r i c a l Organiza-t i o n s . " American A r c h i v i s t 46 ( F a l l 1983): 441-47. H o l b e r t , Sue E. A r c h i v e s and Manuscripts: Reference and Access. Chicago: S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1977. Holden, Harley P. "Student Records: The Harvard Experience." American A r c h i v i s t 39 (October 1976): 461-67. Honhart, F r e d e r i c k L. "The S o l i c i t a t i o n , A p p r a i s a l and A c q u i s i t i o n of F a c u l t y Papers." C o l l e g e and Research  L i b r a r i e s 44 (May 1983): 231-41. 211 Humphries, Edward H. P r i v a c y i n Jeopardy: student Records i n  Canada. Toronto: The Onta r i o I n s t i t u t i o n f o r Studies i n Education, 1980. . "The Use of the Cumulative Student Record as a Source: The Planner and Student P r i v a c y . " E d u c a t i o n a l  P l a n n i n g 4 (October 1977): 64-72. Hussain, K. M. " P r i v a c y of Data i n Ed u c a t i o n . " Computers and  Education 3-4 (1978-80): 63-68. James, F. Don "Academic O r g a n i z a t i o n . " In Handbook of Co l l e g e a n d ' U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : V o l . 2 Academic, pp. 6:3-6:17. E d i t e d by Asa S. Knowles. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. " J o i n t Statement on Access to O r i g i n a l Research M a t e r i a l s . " C o l l e g e and Research L i b r a r y News 4 ( A p r i l 1979): 111-12. Kantor, J . R. K. "Some Comments on C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s with P a r t i c u l a r Reference to the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a A r c h i v e s . " Indian A r c h i v e s 19 (January 1970): 13-20. Kazalunas, John Robert. "The Counselor: Problems i n P r i v i l e g e d Communication." C o l l e g e Student J o u r n a l 11 (Summer 1977): 156-60. Kelman, Herbert C. " E t h i c a l Issues i n D i f f e r e n t S o c i a l Science Methods." In E t h i c a l Issues i n S o c i a l Science Research, pp. 40-98. E d i t e d by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. J . Wallace, and LeRoy Walters. B a l t i m o r e , Maryland: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1982. K i t t e l b e r g e r , Kenneth L. "The Scope of Computer S e c u r i t y Problems." In Advances i n Computer S e c u r i t y Management,  Vo 1. 2, pp. 1-24. E d i t e d by Marvin M. Wofsey. Chi n c h e s t e r , New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983. Kuh, George D. "Admissions." In C o l l e g e Student Personnel  S e r v i c e s , pp. 3-50. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m T. Packwood. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C harles C. Thomas, 1977. Ladenson, Alex. "Legal Problems i n A d m i n i s t e r i n g C o n f i d e n t i a l Case Records." SAA Newsletter (May 1978): 10-11. L a u f e r , Robert S. and Wolfe, Maxine. "Conceptions of P r i v a c y : Current Status and Next Steps." J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues 33 (Summer 1977): 5-21. Lawford, Hugh. " P r i v a c y Versus Freedom of Information." Queen's Q u a r t e r l y 78 ( F a l l 1971): 365-71. L e s l i e , Peter M. Canadian U n i v e r s i t i e s : 1980 and Beyond: 212 Enrollment, S t r u c t u r a l Change and Finance. Ottawa: A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t i e s and C o l l e g e s of Canada, 1980. Lewis, C l i v e B. "The Le g a l Nature of a U n i v e r s i t y and the S t u d e n t - U n i v e r s i t y R e l a t i o n s h i p . " Ottawa Law Review 15 (1983): 249-72. L i n d a h l , C h a r l e s . "The R e g i s t r a r and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e l a t i o n -s h i p s i n Higher E d u c a t i o n . " C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y 41 (Winter 1966): 173-79. L i s t e r , C h a r l e s . " P r i v a c y and Large-Scale Personal Data Systems." Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l 49 (November 1970): 203-12. McLachlin, B e v e r l y M. " E d u c a t i o n a l Records and the Right to P r i v a c y . " U.B.C. Law Review 15 (1981): 175-88. Mason, P h i l i p P. "The A r c h i v i s t ' s R e s p o n s i b i l i t y to Researchers and Donors: A D e l i c a t e Balance." In Access to the Papers  of Recent P u b l i c F i g u r e s : The New Harmony Conference, pp. 25-37. E d i t e d by Alonzo L. Hamby and Edward Weldon. Bloomington, Indiana: O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r American H i s t o r i a n s , 1977. Matson, Jane E. "Statements on Student R i g h t s . " J u n i o r C o l l e g e  J o u r n a l 38 (November 1967): 38-42. Medical Research C o u n c i l of Canada, Working Group on Human Experimentation. E t h i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n Research  I n v o l v i n g Human S u b j e c t s . Ottawa: Medical Research C o u n c i l , 19 78. M e h a l l i s , Mantha V. "Improving D e c i s i o n Making through I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research." In Improving D e c i s i o n Making, pp. 93-103. E d i t e d by Mantha M e h a l l i s . San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1981. M i l l e r , Jean E. " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Student Records." J o u r n a l  of Education f o r L i b r a r i a n s h i p 11 (Winter 1971): 223-29. Murdoch, L a u r e l ; Paterson, Jane; and J u d i t h , Smith. Freedom of  Information and I n d i v i d u a l P r i v a c y : A S e l e c t i v e  B i b l i o g r a p h y . Toronto: Commission on Freedom of Information and I n d i v i d u a l P r i v a c y , 1978. N a t i o n a l Education Task Force on Student Information. Code of  Student Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1971. Naugler, Harold A. "The Machine Readable A r c h i v e s Program of the P u b l i c A r c h i v e s of Canada: The F i r s t F i v e Years." In A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable Records: Proceedings of the Conference on A r c h i v a l Management of Machine-213 Readable Records, February, 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor.  Michigan, pp. 67-78. E d i t e d by C a r o l y n L. Geda, E r i k W. A u s t i n , and F r a n c i s X. B l o u i n J r . Chicago: S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980. Noland, Robert L. "Damaging Information and the C o l l e g e A p p l i c a t i o n . " Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l 49 (March 1977): 544-54. O l i v e r , Eugene E. " E s t a b l i s h i n g Admissions P o l i c y . " In Admissions, Academic Records and R e g i s t r a r S e r v i c e s : A  Handbook of P o l i c i e s and Proceedures, pp. 26-59. E d i t e d by James C. Quann, James F l i n n B l a k e s l e y , J . Douglas Conner, Loyd C. Oleson-, E. Eugene O l i v e r , Margaret Perry, W i l l i a m C. P r i c e , and Hans Wagner. San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1979. O n t a r i o . Commission on Freedom of Information and I n d i v i d u a l P r i v a c y . P u b l i c Government f o r P r i v a t e People. 3 V o l s . Toronto: M i n i s t r y of Government S e r v i c e s , 1980. Osborne, P h i l i p H. "The P r i v a c y Acts of B r i t i s h Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan." In Aspects of P r i v a c y Law:  Essays i n Honour of John M. Sharp, pp. 73-110. E d i t e d by Dale Gibson. Toronto: Butterworths, 1980. O t t e r s t e d t , Wolf Von. "Student Records." In Handbook of C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : V o l . 2 Academic, pp. 1:4-1:40. E d i t e d by Asa S. Knowles. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Packard, Vance. The Naked S o c i e t y . New York: McKay, 1964. Packwood, W i l l i a m T. "Health." In C o l l e g e Student Personnel  S e r v i c e s , pp. 298-339. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m T. Packwood. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C harles C. Thomas, 1977. P a r r , Joy. "Case Records as Sources f o r S o c i a l H i s t o r y . " A r c h i v a r i a 4 (Summer 1977): 122-36. Peckham, Howard H. " P o l i c i e s Regarding the Use of Manuscripts." L i b r a r y Trends 5 (January 1957): 361-68. P e t t i f o r , Jean L. " P r a c t i c e Wise: P r i v a c y of Information." Canadian Psychology 21 (October 1980): 187-90. P i k e , Robert M. " S o c i o l o g i c a l Research on Higher Education i n E n g l i s h Canada 1970-1980: A Thematic Review." The  Canadian J o u r n a l of Higher Education 11 (1981): 1-25. P i n k a r d , T e r r y . "Invasions of P r i v a c y i n S o c i a l Science Research." In E t h i c a l Issues i n S o c i a l Science  Research, pp. 257-73. E d i t e d by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. J . Wallace, and LeRoy Walters. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1982. 214 P o t t s , David B. "Students and the S o c i a l H i s t o r y of American Higher E d u c a t i o n . " H i s t o r y of Education Q u a r t e r l y 15 ( F a l l 1975) : 317-27. . " C o l l e g e A r c h i v e s as Windows on American S o c i e t y . " American A r c h i v i s t 40 (January 1977): 43-49. P r i c e , W i l l i a m C. " C r e a t i n g and Using Information Systems." In Admissions, Academic Records and R e g i s t r a r S e r v i c e s : A  Handbook of P o l i c i e s and Proceedures, pp. 218-43. E d i t e d by James C. Quann, James F l i n n B l a k e s l e y , J . Douglas Conner, Loyd C. Oleson, E. Eugene O l i v e r , Margaret Perry, W i l l i a m C. P r i c e , and Hans Wagner. San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1979. " P r o f e s s i o n a l Standards f o r A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . " In E t h i c a l P r i n c i p l e s , P r a c t i c e s and Problems i n Higher Education, pp. 251-56. E d i t e d by C a r l o t a M. Baca and Ronald H. S t e i n . S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r les C. Thomas, 1983. "Psychology and the Law: A Symposium." Canadian Psychology 11 (January 1970): 2-29. P u b l i c A r c h i v e s of Canada. " G u i d e l i n e s f o r the D i s c l o s u r e of Personal Information f o r H i s t o r i c a l Research at the P u b l i c A r c h i v e s of Canada." Ottawa, 1984. Quann, James C. "Organizing and M a i n t a i n i n g Academic Records." In Admissions, Academic Records and R e g i s t r a r  S e r v i c e s : A Handbook of P o l i c i e s and Proceedures, pp. 188-217. E d i t e d by James C. Quann, James F l i n n Blakesey, J . Douglas Conner, Loyd C. Oleson, E. Eugene O l i v e r , Margaret Perry, W i l l i a m C. P r i c e , and Hans Wagner. San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1979. Quinn, P a t r i c k M. "Academic A r c h i v i s t s and T h e i r Current P r a c i c e : Some Modest Suggestions." Georgia Archive 10 ( F a l l 19 82): 14-24. Report of A Task Force E s t a b l i s h e d J o i n t l y by the Department of Communications and the Department of J u s t i c e . - P r i v a c y  and Computers. Ottawa: Information Canada, 1972. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y of Information at S t a n f o r d . S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a : Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1972. Report of the Commission of I n q u i r y i n t o the C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of Health Information. 3 V o l s . Toronto: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1980 . Report of the P r i v a c y P r o t e c t i o n Study Commission, Personal  P r i v a c y i n an Information S o c i e t y . Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1977. 215 "Report of the Task Force on I n s t i t u t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n . " SAA  Newsletter (January, 1980): 7-14. Reynolds, Paul Davidson. E t h i c a l Dilemmas and S o c i a l Science  Research. San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1979. Robbin, A l i c e . " E t h i c a l Standards and Data A r c h i v e s . " In Secondary A n a l y s i s : New D i r e c t i o n s f o r Program  E v a l u a t i o n , pp. 7-18. E d i t e d by Robert Boruch. San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1978. Robertson, John A. "The S o c i a l S c i e n t i s t ' s Right to Research and the IRB System." In E t h i c a l Issues i n S o c i a l Science  Research, pp. 356-372. E d i t e d by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. J . Wallace, and LeRoy Walters. B a l t i m o r e , Maryland: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1982. Rockett, Eleanor S.; Cramer, George H.; Johnson, James A.; and B u l l o c k , B e t t y J . "The T o t a l I n t e g r a t e d System." C o l l e g e  and U n i v e r s i t y 50 (Summer 1975): 386-410. Rosenthal, Robert. "Who W i l l Be Responsible f o r the P r i v a t e Papers of P r i v a t e People." In The S c h o l a r ' s Right to  Know Versus the I n d i v i d u a l ' s Right- to P r i v a c y :  Proceedings of the F i r s t R o c k e r f e l l e r A r c hive Center  Conference, December 5, 1975, pp. 3-6. E d i t e d by F r e d e r i c k S e i t z and Joseph W. E r n s t , n.p.: R o c k e r f e l l e r A r c h ive Center, 1976. Rowe, J u d i t h S. " P r i v a c y L e g i s l a t i o n : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r A r c h i v e s . " In A r c h i v i s t s and Machine-Readable  Records: Proceedings of the Conference on A r c h i v a l  Management of Machine-Readable Records, February 7- 10, 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 193-203. E d i t e d by C a r o l y n L. Geda, E r i k W. A u s t i n , and F r a n c i s X. B l o u i n J r . Chicago: S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980. Rozovsky, Lome E l k i n and Rozovsky, Fay Adrienne. The Canadian  Law of P a t i e n t Records, Toronto: Butterworths, 1984. Rule, James; McAdam, Douglas; Stearns, Linda; and Vglow, David. The P o l i t i c s of P r i v a c y : P l a n n i n g f o r Personal  Data as Powerful Technologies. New York: E l s e v i e r North H o l l a n d , 1980. Rule, James B. P r i v a t e L i v e s and P u b l i c S u r v e i l l a n c e . New York: Shocken, 1974. R u n d e l l , Walter J r . and Adams, Bruce F. " H i s t o r i a n s , A r c h i -v i s t s , and the P r i v a c y Issue." Georgia Archive 3 (Winter 1975): 3-16. Sampson, James P., J r . " E t h i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n Computer Use." In Enhancing Student Development with Computers, pp. 77-87. E d i t e d by Cynthia S. Johnson and Richard K. 216 P y l e . San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1984. Sampson, James P., J r . and P y l e , Richard K. " E t h i c a l Issues Involved with the Use of Computer-Assisted C o u n s e l l i n g , T e s t i n g and Guidance Systems." Personnel and Guidance  J o u r n a l 61 (January 1983): 283-87. Schafer, A r t h u r . " P r i v a c y : A P h i l o s o p h i c a l Overview." In Aspects of P r i v a c y Law: Essays i n Honour of John M.  Sharp, pp. 1-20. E d i t e d by Dale Gibson. Toronto: Butterworths, 1980. Schatken, Steven N. "Student Records at I n s t i t u t i o n s of Post-Secondary Educ a t i o n : S e l e c t e d Issues Under the Family E d u c a t i o n a l Rights and P r i v a c y Act of 1974." J o u r n a l of  C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Law 4 (Winter 1976): 147-66. Schmidt, M a r l i n R. and Blaska, B e t t y . "Student A c t i v i t i e s . " In C o l l e g e Student Personnel S e r v i c e s , pp. 153-78. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m T. Packwood. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r les C. Thomas, 1977. Schneider, Lynette D a n i e l s . "Counseling." In C o l l e g e Student. Personnel S e r v i c e s , pp. 340-67. E d i t e d by W i l l i a m T. Packwood. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C h a r les C. Thomas, 1977. S h e f f i e l d , Edward. Research on Post-Secondary Education i n Canada: A Review f o r the Canadian S o c i e t y f o r the Study  of Higher E d u c a t i o n , and the S o c i a l Sciences and Research  C o u n c i l of Canada, n.p.: Canadian S o c i e t y f o r the Study of Higher E d u c a t i o n , 1981. S h i e l d s , Rosemary. " R e g i s t r a t i o n , Scheduling and Student Records." In Handbook of C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Adminis- t r a t i o n : V o l . 2 Academic, pp. 2:111-2:130. E d i t e d by Asa S. Knowles. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Shipton, C l i f f o r d K. "The Reference Use of A r c h i v e s . " In C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s : S e l e c t e d Readings, pp. 125-35. E d i t e d by Charles B. E l s t o n , Maxine B. Clapp, J . Frank Cook, and Shonnie Finnegan. S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979. Smith, Robert E l l i s and Snyder, K e i t h D. Compilation of State  and F e d e r a l P r i v a c y Laws. Washington, D.C: P r i v a c y J o u r n a l , 1977. "Standards f o r Access to Research M a t e r i a l s i n A r c h i v a l and Manuscript R e p o s i t o r i e s . " American A r c h i v i s t 37 (January 1974): 153-54. "Statement of the M i s s i o n and Goals fo r the A r c h i v a l P r o f e s -s i o n . " SAA Newsletter (March 1983): 6-7. 217 "Statement on P r o f e s s i o n a l E t h i c s . " In E t h i c a l P r i n c i p l e s , P r a c t i c e s , and Problems i n Higher Education, pp. 247-50. E d i t e d by C a r l o t a M. Baca and Ronald H. S t e i n . S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C harles C. Thomas, 1983. Stewart, V i r g i n i a . "Problems of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i n the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Personal Case Records." American  A r c h i v i s t 37 ( J u l y 1974): 387-98. S t i b a l , W i l l a r d 0. The H i s t o r i c a l Development of Student Personnel Records i n C o l l e g e s and U p i v e r s i t i e s . Emporia, Kansas: Kansas State Teacher's C o l l e g e , 1959. Stout, Leon J . and B a i r d , Donald A. "Automation i n North American C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s : A Survey." American A r c h i v i s t 47 ( F a l l 1984): 394-404. Straus, Annabel. " C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s : Three Decades of Development." C o l l e g e and Research L i b r a r i e s 40 (September 1979): 432-39. Student Records i n Higher E d u c a t i o n : Recommendations f o r the  Formulation and Implementation of Record-Keeping  P o l i c i e s i n C o l l e g e s and U n i v e r s i t i e s , n.p.: R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1973. "Student Records--Their C o l l e c t i o n , Use, and P r o t e c t i o n . " The  N a t i o n a l ACAC J o u r n a l 15 (November 1976): 27-28. Subcommittee on Student Records, S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s Committee. "The Family E d u c a t i o n a l Rights and P r i v a c y Act and the Research Use of Student Records." In C o l l e g e and  U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s : S e l e c t e d Readings, pp. 176-80. E d i t e d by C h a r l e s B. E l s t o n , Maxine B. Clapp, J . Frank Cook, and Shonnie Finnegan. S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1979. "Submission of the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of A r c h i v i s t s to the P a r l i a m e n t a r y Committee on J u s t i c e and Legal A f f a i r s with Respect to B i l l C-43." (n.d.). Synnott, Marcia G. The Half-Opened Door: D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and  Admissions at Harvard, Yale, and P r i n c e t o n , 1900-1970 Westport, C o n n e c t i c u t : Greenwood Press, 1979. . "The Half-Opened Door: Researching Admissions D i s c r i m i n a t i o n at Harvard, Yale, and P r i n c e t o n . " American A r c h i v i s t 45 (Spring 1982): 175-87. Tener, Jean. " A c c e s s i b i l i t y and A r c h i v e s . " A r c h i v a r l a 6 (Summer 1978 ) : 16-31. Treasury Board of Canada, S e c r e t a r i a t . I n t e r i m P o l i c y Guide:  Access to Information Act and the P r i v a c y Act. Ottawa: 218 M i n i s t r y of Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1983. T r i p p , P h i l i p A. " O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Student Personnel Adminis-t r a t i o n . " In Handbook of C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : V o l . 2 Academic, pp. 7:3-7:35. E d i t e d by Asa S. Knowles. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Trulow, George B. "The Development and Status of I n f o r m a t i o n a l P r i v a c y Law and P o l i c y i n the United S t a t e s . " In I n v i t e d  Papers on P r i v a c y : Law, E t h i c s , and Technology,  October 4-7, 1981, pp. 1-31. Sponsored by the American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n ' s S e c t i o n of I n d i v i d u a l Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and the American F e d e r a t i o n of Information P r o c e s s i n g S o c i e t i e s , S p e c i a l Committee on the Right to P r i v a c y . Washington, D.C: American Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , 1982. U.S. Department of Commerce. F e d e r a l Committee on S t a t i s t i c a l Methodology. S t a t i s t i c a l P o l i c y Working Paper 2: Report  on S t a t i s t i c a l D i s c l o s u r e and D i s c l o s u r e - A v o i d a n c e  Techniques. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . 1978. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Records, Computers and the Rights of C i t i z e n s . Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts I n s t i t u t i o n of Technology, 1973. V i n o v s k i s , Maris A. "Are We E r a s i n g Our Past? Research Problems and O p p o r t u n i t i e s with Machine-Readable C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y Records." In A r c h i v i s t s and Machine- Readable Records: Proceedings of the Conference on  A r c h i v a l Management of Machine-Readable Records,  February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 32-47. E d i t e d by C a r o l y n L. Geda, E r i k W. A u s t i n , and F r a n c i s X. B l o u i n J r . Chicago: S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980. Wagner, Hans. "Undertaking I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research." In Admissions, Academic Records and R e g i s t r a r  S e r v i c e s : A Handbook of P o l i c i e s and Procedures, pp. 309-329. E d i t e d by James C Quann, James F l i n n Blakesey, J . Douglas Conner, Loyd C. Oleson, E. Eugene O l i v e r , Margaret Perry, W i l l i a m C. P r i c e , and Hans Wagner. San F r a n s i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1979. Walch, Timothy. "Student Corresspondence: A New Source f o r the H i s t o r y of Higher E d u c a t i o n . " The Midwestern A r c h i v i s t 2 (1976): 33-42. Walden, David. "The Canadian A r c h i v i s t and Copyright L e g i s l a -t i o n . " A r c h i v a r i a 18 (Summer 1980): 84-90. Wallace, R. Jay. " P r i v a c y and the Use of Data i n Epidemiology." In E t h i c a l Issues i n S o c i a l Science Research", pp. 274-91. E d i t e d by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. J . 219 Wallace, and LeRoy Walters. B a l t i m o r e , Maryland: John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1982. Warner, A l b e r t P. and E v a n g e l i s t a . " C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y : Statewide Michigan Study." J u n i o r C o l l e g e J o u r n a l 40 (June-July 1970): 21-23. Westin, Alan F. P r i v a c y and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967. Wheeler, O r r i n T.; Baldwin, Howard R.; and Yount, Richard L. "Academic Record Management System." C o l l e g e and  U n i v e r s i t y 51 (Summer 1976): 634-46. Whyte, Doug. "The A c q u i s i t i o n of Lawyers' P r i v a t e Papers." A r c h i v a r i a 18 (Summer 1984): 142-53. W i l l i a m s , J . S. L e g a l P r o t e c t i o n of P r i v a c y : A Study by the P r i v a c y and Computers Task Force. Ottawa: Department of Communication and Department of J u s t i c e , 1973. Wilson, Ian E. "Canadian U n i v e r s i t y A r c h i v e s . " In A r c h i v a r i a 3 (Winter 1977 ) : 17-27. Wright, Robert R. "Current C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y P o l i c y P r o v i s i o n s for Student Records." C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y 48 (Winter 1973): 100-11. Young, George W. "Counseling and T e s t i n g . " In Handbook of C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : V o l . 2 Academic, pp. 7:137-7:150. E d i t e d by Asa S. Knowles. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Y o x a l l , Helen. " P r i v a c y and Personal Papers." A r c h i v e s and  Manuscripts 12 (May 1984): 38-44. Z e i s s e t , Paul T. "Census Bureau C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y P r a c t i c e s and T h e i r I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r A r c h i v i s t s . " In A r c h i v i s t s and  Machine-Readable Records: Proceedings of the Confer- ence on A r c h i v a l Management of Machine-Readable Records,  February 7-10, 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 208-13. E d i t e d by C a r o l y n L. Geda, E r i k W. A u s t i n , and F r a n c i s X. B l o u i n J r . Chicago: S o c i e t y of American A r c h i v i s t s , 1980. Zinn, Howard. "Secrecy, A r c h i v e s , and the P u b l i c I n t e r e s t . " Boston U n i v e r s i t y J o u r n a l (Fa11 1971): 34-44. 220 APPENDIX 1 1985 SURVEY OF CANADIAN UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES: STUDENT RECORDS—PRESERVATION AND ACCESS Methodology In February of 1985 questionnaires were mailed to f o r t y -nine post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s whose archives (or l i b r a r i e s ) were l i s t e d in either the Bureau of Canadian A r c h i v i s t ' s Directory of Canadian Archives (1981) or the Society of American A r c h i v i s t ' s Directory of College and University  Archives in the United States and Canada ( 1980 ) . By June of 1985 responses had been received from thirty-nine (80%) i n s t i t u t i o n s which can be divided in the following manner: B.C. Alb. Sask. Man. Ont. N.B. P.E.I. N.S. Nf1. Total Univer- 3 4 2 1 13 2 1 3 1 30 s i t ies Colleges 2 5 1 8 Technical 1 1 Institute 5 4 2 1 19 2 1 4 1 39 Questionnaire A) Preservation 1) Does the archives have o f f i c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the preservation of any type of student records? YES 23 (59%) NO 16 (41%) 2) Does the archives preserve any student records on an informal continuing basis? YES 33 (85%) NO 6 15%) 3) Please indicate which, i f any, of the following types of records are preserved by the archives on an o f f i c i a l or informal basis. 221 Preserved as part o f : a) o f f i c i a l b) i n f o r m a l u n i v e r s i t y p r a c t i c e p o l i c y I) P u b l i s h e d Records a) student d i r e c t o r i e s 19 (49%) 16 (41%) b) yearbooks 18 ( 46%) 19 (49%) c) g r a d u a t i o n , honours, and c o n c e r t programs 20 (51%) 15 (38%) d) a t h l e t i c programs 13 (33%) 13 (33%) Other types of student p u b l i c a t i o n s (newspapers, c l u b s ' p u b l i c a t i o n s , r e s i d e n c e annuals, p o s t e r s , f i l m s , handbooks, ombudsmen r e p o r t s , e t c . ) Please l i s t : [ s e l e c t e d responses] newspapers 17 (44%) 12 (31%) handbooks 11 (28%) 9 (23%) c l u b ' s p u b l i c a t i o n s 5 (13%) 5 (13%) p o s t e r s 1 (3%) 2 (5%) re s i d e n c e yearbooks 3 (8%) 2 (5%) f i l m s 2 (5%) 3 (8%) i Unpublished Records 1) O f f i c i a l Records (a) admissions 9 (23%) 5 (13%) (b) q u a l i f y i n g exams 5 (13%) 4 (10%) (c) academic performance 13 (33%) 6 (10%) (d) f i n a n c i a l a i d 7 (18%) 5 (13%) (e) campus employment 5 (13%) 1 (3%) (f) d i s c i p l i n e or conduct governance 7 (18%) 4 (10%) (g) Senate Committee on Appeals 11 (28%) 6 (15%) 222 o f f i c i a l i n f o r m a l p o l i c y p r a c t i c e (h) p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g or c o u n s e l l i n g 1 (3%) 1 (3%) ( i ) medical 1 (3%) 1 (3%) ( j ) campus housing 3 (8%) 2 (5%) (k) photographs 11 (28%) 13 ( 33%) U n o f f i c i a l Records (a) student s o c i e t y ( i ) minutes 12 (31%) 12 (31%) ( i i ) r e p o r t s 12 (31%) 10 ( 27%) ( i i i ) e x e c u t i v e minutes 12 (31%) 10 (27%) ( i v ) annual g e n e r a l meeting 11 (28%) 7 (18%) (v) student photo f i l e s 4 (10%) 7 (18%) ( v i ) ombudsman case f i l e s 3 (8%) 4 (10%) ( v i i ) c l u b r e c ords 11 (28%) 9 (23%) (b) alumni s o c i e t y ( i ) minutes 12 (31%) 11 (28%) ( i i ) r e p o r t s 13 ( 33%) 9 (23%) ( i i i ) photos 9 (23%) 9 (23%) Personal Papers (a) theses 18 (46%) 6 (15%) (b) term papers, l e c t u r e notes, d i a r i e s , l e t t e r s , e t c . 4 (10%) 10 (27%) (c) s o c i a l or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l involvement (student c l u b s ) 6 (15%) 11 (28%) (d) l e t t e r s of recommendation 4 (10%) 6 (15%) Other types of records c o n t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g to students (Senate r e c o r d s , f a c u l t y papers, e t c . ) Please l i s t : [ s e l e c t e d responses] Senate records 8 (21%) 4 (10%) Board of Governors 1 (3%) 3 (8%) P r e s i d e n t ' s papers 1 (3%) 2 (5%) f a c u l t y papers 6 (15%) 4 (10%) departmental f i l e s 2 (5%) 1 (3%) 223 4) Is the a r c h i v e s p a r t of or r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a u n i v e r s i t y r e c o r ds management program? YES 20 (51%) NO 18 (46%) No Response 1 (3%) I f YES, from which of the f o l l o w i n g o f f i c e s (or t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t s ) does the a r c h i v e s r e g u l a r l y r e c e i v e r e c o r d s ? : a) Admissions O f f i c e 8 (21%) h) F i n a n c i a l Aid/Awards 10 (27%) b) R e g i s t r a r ' s O f f i c e 12 (31%) i ) C o u n s e l l i n g c) Deans* O f f i c e s 16 (41%) and T e s t i n g 2 (5%) d) Departmental j ) Student O f f i c e s 18 (46%) S e r v i c e s 9 (2%) e) P r o f e s s i o n a l k) Health Schools 12 (31%) S e r v i c e s 1 (3%) f) Graduate S t u d i e s 11 (28%) 1) Senate 18 (46%) g) C o n t i n u i n g Educa- m) Board of t i o n / E x t e n s i o n s 9 (23%) Governors 11 (49%) 5) Approximately what percentage of the a r c h i v e ' s student r e c o r d s are i n machine-readable form (computer tapes, d i s k s , e t c . ) ? 0% [no machine-readable records r e p o r t e d ] . 6) I f the a r c h i v e s i s not c u r r e n t l y p r e s e r v i n g student records have any e f f o r t s (formal or informal) been made to a c q u i r e student r e c o r d s ? YES 10 (27%) NO 11 (28%) No Response 18 (46%) If YES, are there any p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r s which have presented or are foreseen as p r e s e n t i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s with regard to the a c q u i s i t i o n of student records ( c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y problems, i n s u f f i c i e n t p o t e n t i a l r e s e a r c h use, i n s u f f i c i e n t funds, space, s t a f f , adminis-t r a t i v e support, e t c . ) ? B) Access 7) Does the U n i v e r s i t y have an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g access to student records ( i . e . r e s e a r c h use, d i s c l o s u r e to t h i r d p a r t i e s and so on)? YES 24 (62%) NO 7 (18%) No Response 8 (21%) If YES, please provide a copy of the p o l i c y (or of a summary of the p o l i c y ) . 8) Does the a r c h i v e s i t s e l f have a p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g access to student r e c o r d s ? YES 22 (56%) NO 11 (28%) No Response 6 (15%) 9) Is the matter of access to student records an unresolved issue or a s u b j e c t of c u r r e n t concern to the a r c h i v e s ? YES 13 (33%) NO 17 (44%) No Response 9 (23%) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096661/manifest

Comment

Related Items