On July 2, the American Council on Education (ACE) and six other higher education organizations filed an amicus brief in the case of University of Utah v. Shurtleff, supporting the right and ability of the institution to prohibit possession of concealed weapons on campus.
    In November 2001, Utah Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff concluded that the University of Utah's ban on weapons violated the Utah Concealed Weapons Act.
    The university's policy simply prohibits the carrying of firearms on campus by faculty, students, and staff. The policy has been in place for decades and is similar to policies of most other universities. In March 2002, the university filed a suit to overturn the attorney general's ruling.
    Our brief advances three arguments: the U.S. Constitution protects the right of a university to enforce an internal policy preventing any person from carrying firearms on campus; the university's policy prohibiting the carrying of firearms on campus is an appropriate exercise of the institution's First Amendment; and the invalidation of firearms policies at the University of Utah and other universities around the country will affect the quality of teaching and learning.
    Joining us on the brief were the: American Association of Community Colleges, Association of American Universities, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and Security on Campus Inc. Utah State University also joined the brief.
    Oral arguments are anticipated later this summer. A copy of the brief can be obtained at: http://www.acenet.edu/washington/legalupdate/2002/07july/utah_amicus.pdf.

We also received word of an important federal court decision just before the Independence Day Holiday in a lawsuit brought by The Chronicle of Higher Education. On June 28, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously upheld a district-court ruling that student disciplinary files qualify as "education records" under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, also known as FERPA. That means that federal privacy laws prohibit colleges from releasing specific information about confidential campus disciplinary hearings to reporters or other members of the public who request such details under state open-records laws.
    In 1996, first Miami — and then Ohio State — had been sued by The Chronicle of Higher Education, which sought the disclosure of student disciplinary records on behalf of student reporters under the State of Ohio's Public Records Act. In 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that such disciplinary records were not education records, and it ordered the records released. However, the U.S. Department of Education then sued both institutions, seeking an injunction prohibiting them from releasing personally identifiable student information.
    ACE filed an amicus brief in support of Miami University (OH) and Ohio State University. We believe this decision from the Sixth Circuit will effectively shut the door on further efforts to obtain student records in the Ohio case. We hope the court's unambiguous treatment of the privacy of student disciplinary records — and the interpretation of FERPA by college and university administrators — will prove definitive.