Letters to the Editor

Millstone bypass to connect primarily to Washington Road

The graphic that appears with your Jan. 16 article about the Millstone bypass is not the alignment that was proposed by the state of New Jersey nor, as presented, is it an alignment the University would support. In the proposed bypass, the principal flow of traffic crossing U.S. Route 1 and heading toward Princeton would have been to Washington Road.

There was a spur to Harrison Street, consistent with the general goal of distributing traffic in much the way it is currently distributed, but the road design pointed more toward Washington than Harrison. The alignment in your graphic showed all the traffic on the bypass going on to Harrison, without a connection to Washington. That would not be acceptable to the community or to us. Robert K. Durkee '69 Vice President for Public Affairs

Procedures in place to protect student rights to privacy

In a letter published just before the holidays, a number of student organizations commended the statement that the University issued earlier last fall regarding the privacy of student records and requested further information about how the administration would respond in the event of future governmental inquiries to the University or members of our community. This letter attempts to answer those questions.

The first two questions asked whether the University had developed specific "criteria" for deciding whether information is being collected solely or primarily on the basis of ethnicity or national origin and what action the University would take if it had concerns about a particular request or an emerging pattern of requests. The answer is that we do not have specific criteria but would expect to make judgments based on the number and nature of the requests that come to our attention. Since individual members of the University community may receive inquiries separate from those that come to the attention of the General Counsel's office, we are interested in learning about actual experiences that others may have. First-hand reports from our community regarding the nature, extent and methods of governmental inquiries should provide the best means for us to evaluate whether some level of intervention by the University is appropriate.

If intervention does seem called for, all available avenues would be considered. There could be circumstances where we would comply with a court order but express concerns to law enforcement leaders and our congressional representatives about a pattern that we have observed. In other circumstances we might decide to contest an order before complying. Each decision would depend on the particular facts and circumstances regarding the applicable request.

The letter then asked whether the community would be informed if the University had concerns and whether individual students would be informed of requests for information specific to them. We will make every effort to keep the community informed of our concerns while recognizing our responsibilities to respect the privacy of individual members of the community, to avoid compromising legitimate investigative efforts and to respect restrictions that may be imposed on us by the courts regarding what we are able to say publicly about particular requests for information. In those cases where investigators seek education records (other than "directory information") pertaining to a Princeton student, we would advise the student of the request in advance of compliance unless we have been ordered not to do so by a court.

As I have indicated, there may be requests for information that come not to the University itself but to an individual member of our community. Obviously we have no control over whether a governmental investigator chooses to approach a student directly and ask if he or she is willing voluntarily to answer questions. We hope that longstanding relationships be-tween the University and various agencies — including federal, state and local law enforcement — would minimize the likelihood of this happening. If an investigator does wish to interview a student, we believe the student generally would prefer to learn of this through the University rather than by being approached in the first instance by the investigator. Such notice should afford the student an opportunity to seek guidance and advice, if desired. The University maintains in various offices, including the undergraduate and graduate deans' offices, a list of local attorneys who are willing to provide advice to students in such matters.

Finally, the letter asks about the University's general policy. I believe this policy is well expressed in the statement on diversity and community that appears in "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities." That statement affirms the University's commitment to both diversity and community, its respect for the dignity, individuality and freedom of each member of the community, and its determination to ensure that all members can pursue their educational, scholarly and career interests in an environment that recognizes both the distinctiveness of each person's experience and the common humanity that unites us all. We would have serious concerns if laws were being used broadly to collect information motivated solely by the ethnicity or nationality of those whose records are being sought. Peter McDonough University Counsel