At last, the University of Kentucky is on the right side of the transparency divide — this time as it relates to COVID-19 test results for returning football players.
On June 22, SBNation reported that earlier that day:
"UK announced that 106 football players were screened, and six of them tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. The players who tested positive did not have the virus at the time of the testing but at some point had been exposed. The school also says those six players have since been cleared for athletic activities."
https://www.aseaofblue.com/platform/amp/2020/6/22/21299169/kentucky-wil…
The article even included a link to UK's plan for returning teams.
https://ukathletics.com/news/2020/6/22/general-uk-athletics-return-to-a…
In contrast to past efforts to secret away records relating to complaints of sexual harassment behind federal privacy laws protecting student education records, UK acknowledges that disclosure of non-identifiable aggregate test results does not abridge student privacy, in general, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or HIPAA.
https://law.justia.com/cases/kentucky/court-of-appeals/2019/2017-ca-000…
An Associated Press poll cited in the linked article confirms that two-thirds of the country's athletic departments recognize their obligation to disclose COVID-19 testing information.
UK belongs to this majority, along with
Clemson, LSU, Houston, and Kansas State.
Rightfully so.
As the author of the article linked below bitingly declares, "None of us can trace a positive test back to a individual student.
"[For those universities unwilling to disclose the COVID-19 Information] this is less about student privacy than student dollars."
The article examines the in-state transparency war raging between two Oregon universities — the University of Oregon adopting a strained construction of FERPA to support secrecy and Oregon State adopting the opposite (and correct) construction to support openness and the interest of the community it serves.
Here, then, is another example of the cynical and self-serving uses to which some universities put student privacy laws — to offer false assurances, restore confidence, increase enrollment, and fill gaping budgetary holes.
Happily, however, in this case UK comes down on the legally correct side of the divide and effectively serves the very weighty public interest.
As for those universities on the other side of the transparency divide:
"[They don't] think anyone deserves to know how early coronavirus testing is going among athletes.
"That's none of your business. But [they] want your business."
