An article in the Watauga Democrat concerns itself with balancing rights created by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and “the public’s right to know when scandals surface.” The worn-out rebuttal for complaints about government-created rights include the fact that there are so many definitions of “rights,” the word doesn’t mean anything, anymore. Also, the understanding of exactly what the act creates and protects as rights is vague. “I can’t imagine that Congress thought they were making serious violent crimes a matter of college confidentiality,” said Frank D. LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.

It is easy to advocate for fairness unless one can gain an advantgage. One would suppose a child predator or murderer running loose in the building might unsettle some people as they try to go about their business. I recall when a gun was discharged in an apartment building into which I had moved only a couple days earlier. The police could give no information as to whether somebody had an accident cleaning their gun, or if a homicide suspect remained at-large.

It has been repeatedly argued that, in conflict with Original Intent, new definitions of rights protect perps and imperil victims. It may be that a right is an invitation to sue if you can afford a lawyer.