In the wake of school violence in 2007, including the shooting at Virginia Tech, Stanford and other universities are paying more attention to student mental health and to those who may be prone to violence. This attention, however, brings up a number of legal and ethical issues relating to students’ privacy.

Both the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protect information privacy on college campuses by heavily restricting the circumstances in which mental health information can be released. Only in the case of an emergency situation, where a student is considered an imminent threat to themselves or others, may a professional release information on her patient.

The Federal Education Department enacted new regulations in March to reassure universities that they will not face penalties for reporting concerns about the mental health of students in emergency situations.

“In the case of an immediate threat, mental health professionals have a duty to provide a warning,” said University General Counsel Debra Zumwalt. “FERPA will protect information, but in the case of an immediate threat you can do what you need to do.”

Stanford’s use of private medical data falls under the purview of both these federal acts and California law, and the University’s policies are guided by legal dictates.

“We really do stay within the boundaries,” Zumwalt said.

Zumwalt provided an example of a situation where Stanford would release information.

“Essentially, if there’s a student who is believed to be a danger, we would act,” Zumwalt said.

“If they said, I hate that Daily newspaper, I’m going to burn it down, we would warn you.”

Though the shootings have not changed the letter of the law, they have brought renewed attention to university policies.

“Virginia Tech caused us to think again about security and communications issues,” Zumwalt said.

The most significant change in University policy has been the formation of a task force that meets to discuss issues of general student health, as well as, in special circumstances, cases of individual students that might require additional attention or further action.

“We discuss the climate of mental health on campus, and how to deal with specific issues,” Zumwalt said. “But we always try to comply with legal restrictions.”

“I hope we are never in a situation where we have to sacrifice [the privacy of a student] for the [safety of the school],” Zumwalt added.

Zumwalt emphasized that Stanford has not had a history of disputes over its use of data.

“We haven’t had any complaints in the eight years I’ve been here,” she said. “As well, Vaden and CAPS [Counseling and Psychological Services] want to be careful, and maintaining the trust of students is crucial to the process.”

Some students felt that information should be acted on in the interests of safety, within limits.

“When a student specifically threatens people, it is okay for the administration to violate their privacy for the wider safety of the school,” said Jeannette Westwood ‘11. “However, it is not right to release a person’s mental health information just because they are angry or feeling violent in general.”

Others expressed doubts that there could be an acceptable situation to act.

“There’s always going to be the extreme circumstance where someone is actually the Incredible Hulk,” said Andrew Suciu ‘10. “But otherwise, you’re violating rights for an uncertain reward.”