A resolution calling on the University to articulate its policy on sharing confidential student records with federal agencies failed in the Undergraduate Council’s Student Affairs Committee (SAC) on Tuesday night.

The Harvard Peace and Justice Initiative (HPJI) the Coalition Against Racial Violence and the Society of Arab Students brought the resolution to the council in response to increased concerns for foreign students’ privacy in the wake of government investigations after Sept. 11.

“The resolution is important in that it addresses an issue that the University hasn’t addressed and other universities have,” said HPJI member Erik A. Beach ’02. “It leaves the matter up for grabs, and parts of the policy are unclear.”

Since Sept. 11, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Immigration and Naturalization Services—aided by new federal legislation such as the USA Patriot Act—have obtained records of foreign students studying in the U.S. as part of the government investigation into the World Trade Center attacks.

More than 200 colleges and universities across the country have complied so far, according to the Boston Globe.

The HPJI resolution called for Harvard to clearly articulate its policies in cases where federal authorities request student records—and to disobey the USA Patriot Act, which requires universities not to reveal the fact that a student’s record has been requested.

“An unclear Harvard policy on this issue could erode Harvard’s commitment to nondiscrimination and to student privacy; therefore be it resolved that the University publicly reaffirm its policy on the release of confidential student records to government agencies,” the resolution read.

Other universities—including Yale, Princeton, and University of Michigan—have already issued official statements of policy they intend to follow if a federal agency requests student records, according to the resolution.

The Princeton policy, issued in November 2001, states in part that when the university believes requests for student records are inappropriate, the university will “bring our concerns to the attention of the responsible authorities in the courts, in the law enforcement agencies and in the Congress.”

The resolution presented to SAC called for the University to refuse to comply with informal requests for confidential student information and to carefully evaluate any subpoenas.

In addition, it asked the University to affirm that no student will be investigated without evidence of involvement in criminal activity or solely on the grounds of their ethnicity or religion.

But the SAC overwhelmingly voted against introducing the measure on the main floor of the council.

“The general topic was the trade-off between safety and privacy and what the costs and benefits were,” said council member Luke R. Long ’03. “We were concerned about asking the University to break the law. What’s the cost if your record is pulled and nothing is found? Nothing.”

But Beach said he was troubled by council members’ lack of concern about the consequences for students’ civil liberties.

“I’d like to stress that I was upset to see that people didn’t seem to place any value on maintaining privacy of student records,” Beach said.