University Students: Data Privacy Contracts And Consent

University students are increasingly being asked to sign contracts that limit their rights and give up their data. These contracts are often hidden in the stack of paperwork that students are confronted with upon enrollment and are designed to protect the financial interests of the school. While this practice is not common in traditional higher education, it is becoming more prevalent in for-profit colleges, particularly those participating in federal financial aid programs. The contracts typically include forced arbitration clauses, go-it-alone clauses, gag clauses, and internal process requirements, which restrict students' legal rights and limit their options for seeking redress in the event of a dispute. Additionally, some universities are using data they hold on students to tailor their responses and interventions, raising questions about data privacy and student consent.

University agreements may include a code of conduct and legal conditions that grant the school permission to terminate a student’s enrolment

University agreements often include a code of conduct that outlines the rules and regulations students must follow during their enrolment. These codes of conduct typically cover areas such as academic integrity, student behaviour, and residence hall policies. In some cases, the code of conduct may also include legal conditions that grant the university the right to terminate a student's enrolment if they violate certain terms.

For example, at Kent State University, the Code of Student Conduct outlines the procedures for adjudicating student conduct cases and the student discipline procedures. The code states that students consent to follow the university's policies and procedures by virtue of their enrolment. It also gives the university the authority to suspend or expel students who violate the code of conduct.

Similarly, the University of Edinburgh's Code of Student Conduct outlines the processes for investigating and disciplining students who breach their accommodation lease, health and safety regulations, or the code of conduct itself. The code states that the university may terminate a student's occupancy of university-managed accommodation with one month's notice, or in cases of gross misconduct, with 24 hours' notice.

In addition to codes of conduct, some universities may also require students to sign enrolment contracts, which are formal legal agreements that limit students' legal rights and protect the financial interests of the school. These contracts may include clauses that restrict students' ability to seek redress for grievances against the institution, such as forced arbitration clauses, go-it-alone clauses, gag clauses, and internal process requirements.

While enrolment contracts are more commonly found at for-profit colleges, particularly those participating in federal financial aid programs, they are rarely used at traditional nonprofit colleges or public institutions. It's important to note that these contracts may limit students' rights and make it difficult for them to hold the university accountable for any wrongdoing.

Overall, university agreements, including codes of conduct and legal conditions, play a significant role in establishing the expectations and responsibilities of students during their enrolment. In some cases, violations of these agreements may result in disciplinary actions, up to and including termination of enrolment.

University contracts may contain clauses that allow for the collection and analysis of student data

Firstly, university contracts often outline the university's policies for protecting student data and how it will be used. This includes details about the type of data being collected, such as personal and academic information, as well as the methods of collection, such as through the use of technology and online platforms. Universities may also state their commitment to protecting the privacy of student data and complying with relevant data protection regulations.

Additionally, university contracts might include sections on student conduct and academic policies, which can impact data collection. For example, the contract may specify the university's expectations for student behavior, including their online behavior and use of social media. This can involve monitoring student activity on university platforms and social media sites, such as Facebook, to gather data on student engagement and performance.

In some cases, university contracts may also address the use of third-party services, such as online program managers (OPMs), who have access to student data. These contracts can outline the responsibilities of the OPMs in handling student data and the extent of their control over the design and management of online courses. However, there have been concerns raised about the lack of transparency and potential risks to students in these partnerships.

Furthermore, university contracts can include sections on health and safety, which may involve collecting and analyzing student data. For example, universities might track student movement on campus to ensure safety and emergency response procedures. This data can be used to identify potential risks and improve emergency response plans.

Lastly, university contracts often contain termination clauses, which can be related to data collection and analysis. For instance, universities may reserve the right to terminate a student's enrollment if they violate certain policies, including those related to data privacy and academic integrity.

Overall, while university contracts may contain clauses that allow for the collection and analysis of student data, it is important for students to carefully review these contracts before signing to understand their rights and the university's responsibilities in handling their personal information.

Students may be required to sign away their right to go to court and instead take complaints to an arbitrator

Students at some colleges may be required to sign away their right to go to court and instead take complaints to an arbitrator. This is known as a forced arbitration clause, and it is often included in enrollment contracts that students sign when they join a college. These clauses prohibit students from going to court to seek resolution for any complaints and instead require them to take them to a private, third-party arbitrator. This can be disadvantageous for students as it may be more costly and the arbitrator may be biased towards the college.

Forced arbitration clauses are more common at for-profit colleges, particularly those that receive federal funding. However, they are rarely used at traditional nonprofit colleges or for-profit colleges that do not receive federal funds, and almost never at public institutions.

One example of a forced arbitration clause in action is the case of a student at UEI College in Long Beach, California. The student, Jacob, invested his time and money in the college, believing that it would lead to a career in the technology industry. However, he ended up without the skills or the job and with significant debt. When he and other classmates tried to hold the college accountable, they discovered that their enrollment paperwork included a provision prohibiting them from going to court. Instead, they were legally compelled to take their complaints to an arbitrator chosen and paid by the college. They had no chance to uncover wrongdoing and essentially no way to appeal the arbitrator's ruling.

Another case involving a forced arbitration clause occurred at Lamson College in Peoria, Illinois. Former students, including Debbie Brenner, believed that the school had swindled them and filed a lawsuit. However, the judge threw out the case because the students had signed an enrollment contract with a forced arbitration clause. The arbitrator ruled against the students and ordered them to pay more than $350,000 in legal fees.

Forced arbitration clauses have been criticised for being unfair to students and limiting their rights. The University of Phoenix, the largest for-profit college in the country, initially refused to include such clauses in their enrollment agreements. However, they have since changed their stance and now routinely include mandatory arbitration clauses.

To address these concerns, the Obama administration and consumer advocates have called for the U.S. Department of Education to prohibit colleges from forcing students to agree to binding arbitration and class-action bans. They argue that colleges should not be allowed to limit the rights of students and deny them their day in court.

Contracts may contain gag orders that prevent students from sharing information about their complaints

University students may be required to sign contracts that contain gag orders, also known as gag clauses, which prevent them from sharing information about their complaints and the complaint-resolution process. These gag clauses are often included in settlement agreements to disputes, but they are now appearing in contracts that colleges require students to sign upon enrollment.

Gag clauses prohibit students or former students from disclosing information about their complaints, the complaint-resolution process, or the specifics of any final ruling. This means that students are legally bound to keep their complaints confidential and cannot share their experiences with others.

The inclusion of gag clauses in university contracts has been criticised as a way for universities to prevent tales of disputes from reaching the media or law enforcement agencies. By requiring students to keep their complaints secret, universities create a firewall between wronged students, making it less likely for them to connect with each other and work together to seek a better resolution.

While gag clauses in university contracts are not common in traditional higher education, they have been found to exist in some for-profit colleges, particularly those receiving federal financial aid. A survey of 271 schools across the higher education spectrum in the United States found that about one in every ten enrollment contracts at for-profit colleges receiving federal aid contained gag clauses.

It is important to note that gag clauses in university contracts may violate an individual's right to freedom of expression and can impede the reporting of criminal acts or misconduct. In the United Kingdom, for example, universities spent £87 million on pay-offs with "gagging orders" to keep allegations of bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct quiet.

Contracts may contain internal process requirements that mandate students to go through the institution's internal grievance process before taking complaints elsewhere

University agreements, or enrollment contracts, are legal agreements between a university and a matriculating student. They outline the financial responsibilities of the student and specify the terms of tuition payment. In exchange for an education and an eventual degree, the student agrees to pay the university tuition.

Enrollment contracts are not generally found in traditional higher education. They are designed to protect the financial interests of schools by limiting students' legal rights should something go wrong. These contracts are usually imposed by for-profit colleges participating in the federal financial aid program. They are rarely used at traditional nonprofit colleges or for-profit colleges not using federal funds, and almost never at public institutions.

One of the types of restrictions placed upon incoming students by enrollment contracts is internal process requirements. While all colleges encourage students to make use of internal grievance procedures, internal process requirements prohibit students from taking their complaints to other forums for resolution without first going through the school's internal process.

The internal process requirements mandate that students go through the institution's internal grievance process before taking their complaints elsewhere. This means that students are required to attempt to resolve any issues through the university's internal channels before seeking external assistance. This could include attempting to resolve issues through the university's student support services, academic departments, or other relevant internal departments.

Internal process requirements are intended to ensure that students have exhausted all available internal options before seeking external resolution. This can help to reduce the number of external complaints and promote the use of the university's internal resources. However, it is important to note that these requirements can also potentially limit students' options for redress if they feel that the university has not adequately addressed their grievances.

In the context of the other types of restrictions in enrollment contracts, internal process requirements can further restrict students' ability to seek redress for their grievances. For example, if a student is subject to a forced arbitration clause and is required to resolve any disputes through arbitration, the internal process requirement would mandate that they first attempt to resolve the issue internally before proceeding to arbitration.

It is important for students to carefully review and understand the terms and conditions of any university agreement or enrollment contract before signing. By signing these agreements, students are entering into a legal contract that may limit their rights and options for seeking redress in the event of a dispute.

Frequently asked questions