By Yanna Krupnikov
Justice Editorial Board

Since Dec. 19, Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett has been receiving anonymous e-mails which she describes as hurtful and often uninformed.

“Some people read something in a newspaper and react,” Bennett said.

The newspaper to which Bennett is referring to, however, is not simply “a newspaper,” but the Wall Street Journal, one of this country’s most prominent news sources.

An article appeared in the Journal on the Dec. 19 detailing the University’s treatment of David Schaer ‘97, a student accused of sexual misconduct by another student in 1996. Following the complaint, Schaer was brought before the University Board of Student Conduct, found guilty and subsequently was suspended for the summer.

Since then, Schaer has brought suit against the University alleging that he was not given due process. Although Schaer’s case was dismissed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last year, this has not stopped the barrage of media coverage Schaer’s case has inspired.

“It just seemed like a good story,” Ben Gose, a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education said. “It is a case where you have allegations of individual rights being trampled by a big university.”

CNN correspondent Kathy Slobogin added that this is not an area that is widely known, which, by the very nature of news has made Schaer’s story worthy of coverage.

In essence, while newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal have been able to provide detailed accounts of Schaer’s view of the story, the University has been prevented by federal law from discussing the Schaer case.

In a striking example of this coverage, the Wall Street Journal ran an article detailing the events from Schaer’s point of view. The lone administrator mentioned by name in the article was Bennett, who has subesequently received numerous e-mails from anonymous readers of the Wall Street Journal.

What makes this situation that much more complicated is that Bennett herself is unable to respond to the negative press as a result of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA prevents all members of the Brandeis administrations from discussing the details of the case. Even after his graduation, Schaer retains these rights. In order for the University to discuss the case, Schaer would have to waive his FERPA rights.

In the meanwhile, the University has relied on general statements made by attorney Alan Rose and letters to the editor to present its point of view.

“We have been prevented from speaking because of FERPA,” Vice President for Public Affairs Michal Regunberg explained.

This fact, however, did not stop Dorothy Rabinowitz, a member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and the writer of the Dec. 19 article.

“It is not that they could not talk, it is that they would not talk,” Rabinowitz said of the Brandeis administraion.

“Whenever it gets too hot and uncomfortable, they turn to the privacy issue,” she added. Not so, says Regunberg.

“She had a point of view from the beginning,” Regunberg said of Rabinowitz. Although Regunberg has since submitted a letter of response to the Wall Street Journal, the letter has yet to be published.

Rabinowitz, however, said that the Schaer case represents an example of the “absurd reality” of the private university system.

“They believe that nobody is watching and are forever surprised when somebody is,” she said.

Although Rabinowitz does not deny that she, as well as the rest of the Journal’s editorial board, had a clear opinion of the case from the beginning of their research process, she said she does not feel the article was unfair to Brandeis.

“We took our facts from the real world,” she said.

Slobogin, however, has said that in her reporting she attempted “to make sure we weren’t presenting a one sided story.

“It is always a problem when the other party does not want to speak,” she added, speaking of the woman who initially filed the complaint against Schaer.

While the CNN piece, which aired Jan. 14, prominently featured an interview with Schaer, Slobogin said there was an effort made to persuade the woman to present her side of the story, as well as to allow Brandeis to defend itself.

CNN aired pieces of the woman’s initial complaint and featured several interviews with Rose.

“The real nut of this story is what happened between those two people in that room,” she added.

While this may forever remain a mystery, the coverage given to the Schaer the case has arguably given Brandeis negative publicity.

According to Rabinowitz, she has received numerous e-mails from parents saying they will not send their children to Brandeis.

Regunberg, however, noted that admissions applications are up this year. “Brandeis will be fine with or without Dorothy Rabinowitz,” she said.